The philosophy of liberty

Idon't know f i posted this here already;or not, but I found it invaluable; and it forms the basis of my understanding of rights.and"liberty" . and your kids can understand it too.

reply to post by 46ACE


wow! nice it gave me chills

I've seen this video before, and it is absolutely amazing. Thank you for posting it on here. A well needed lesson all around, I'd say.

Nice video thanks for posting

reply to post by 46ACE


Hey look, someone talking about political philosophy who clearly has never heard of the concept of The Social Contract.

The sort of thing imposed here says nothing of taxation or actual governance, as a governmental force according to this would only be able to receive donations and it wouldn't be able to enforce laws that included penalties for infringing the rights of others because it would be a hypocritical act under such a system.

The simple fact is that we give up a few of our rights (like the rights to kill, rape, steal, and assault) for the basic protection of our life, liberty, and property. Some philosophers have said the only thing you really have protection of is your basic right to life, and they had arguments to back those statements up.

Here's a crazy thing about the video: It provides absolutely no argument to support its claims.
Having read a lot of political philosophy, I always find this sort of libertarian "I state it and it seems like 'common sense' and it uses intimidating language like 'murder', 'slavery', and 'theft' to be nothing more than dribble.
This video participates in this tradition by simply stating a bunch of things without backing it up.

It claims that what it explains is the most practical foundation for human action. How?
It claims that what it explains is the most humanitarian foundation for human action. How?
It claims that what it explains is the most moral foundation for human action. How?

These sorts of claims require at least some sort of reasoned argument to their proof. This starts from a list of incredibly arbitrary and non-justified postulates into something

It then goes on to claim that problems that arise from the initiation of force by government would disappear in its ideal world. Well....here's the crazy thing, the whole world isn't going to agree to this. I'm an idealist and even I think it's impossible for there to not be a point where one group initiates force upon another.

What's also crazy is that this is making an argument for an absolute morality that it cannot back up.

The only claim I can agree with is that a free society requires courage. But the society it describes is impractical anarchy.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/43c1fd6cd0ec.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by 46ACE


I really like that video's representation of libertarian moral philosophy.

As we can all see, it is the socialists who use violence and threats of force to extract the productive labor of society for their own personal gain.

To me, socialism is not only violent, it is the ultimate form of greed.

Taking that which is not yours and claiming ownership of other peoples lives is pure evil.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Taxes are not a given as the **-ists will tell you.the gubmint does not own the fruits of our lives even before we produce them . Yes I'd like to hear more about this"social contract" and how it could not be satisfied by appliying admittedly simple libettarian ideals?????????????????

quote"The simple fact is that we give up a few of our rights (like the rights to kill, rape, steal, and assault) for the basic protection of our life, liberty, and property. Some philosophers have said the only thing you really have protection of is your ba

Areyou truly drunk on that comm/socialist crap? "Rights to kill rape or steal???

THERE ARE no rights to kill: rape: and and steal as argued in thatsimple presentation A kindergarten drop out can acknowledge.This a perfect exampleof why "you people" scare me"

Aa deeply twisted overly complicated political "philosophy is not required to have a moral "just society".

1)"this is mine": I own it
2)I will gladly shareitwith you at my discretion
3)but try to forcibly take it and see item#1

reply to post by 46ACE


... urg... this video uses catchy music, colorful pictures, and words that imply the absolutism of good and bad in order to manipulate the opinions of the viewers. If you take time and actually read all that they are saying you find countless illogical arguments such as (*plays a random part of the clip to pull out a random argument*) present=liberty, past= possessions, and future=life. People have certainly lived in the present without liberty, they certainly don't loose the past whenever they loose their yo-yo, and we live out every day without the certainty of a future. Unfortunately the producer of this clip knew that by coloring the words that they wanted you to read they could make you focus on the absolutist terms such as freedom, life, possessions, and liberty, than use colors generally associated with negative things with words like slavery, murder, theft, and fraud. This allows the viewer to space out and be better convinced of the righteousness of the clip, for after all you are opposing life and liberty for murder and slavery if you were to oppose this clip. Overall this is a good example of how talented our media producers are getting at manipulation of the masses.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by 46ACE

 

I really like that video's representation of libertarian moral philosophy.

As we can all see, it is the socialists who use violence and threats of force to extract the productive labor of society for their own personal gain.

To me, socialism is not only violent, it is the ultimate form of greed.

Taking that which is not yours and claiming ownership of other peoples lives is pure evil.

edit on 27-11-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

As to this, if socialism is a lack of government in which people willingly share all their possessions, and all the workload evenly (you know how it was supposed to work, not how it did), and this manipulative film intended to control your free will is libertarian. Than no, I for one don't see how this film is so libertarian, and socialism is about using (thee bad colored words from the clip) violence, threats, and force for personal gain. (especially because you are saying that a clip encouraging socialism (everyone is equal, and no one should be able to enforce their will upon others) is the opposite of socialism.

sorry for the long post, I get annoyed when people throw about unsupported claims, and call it "philosophy", and for the record I still prefer capitalism

get "annoyed "over this:
Did we watch the same presentation?This clip espouses "libertarian beliefs( "you do your thing I'll do mine just don't hurt me")
Go back and watch it without all the preconceived notions. your last paragraph makes absolutely no sense when applied to the actual video.
There is nothing "anti-capitalistic" about it. Capitalist ideas are confirmed in the voluntary exchange of property mutually beneficial to both parties.Be it money;Labor; macaroons or bannanas

I see now you believe "libertarianism"
is equivalent to one of the left ideologies ( socialism or communism): in fact its not.

Originally posted by 46ACE
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Areyou truly drunk on that comm/socialist crap? "Rights to kill rape or steal???

THERE ARE no rights to kill: rape: and and steal as argued in thatsimple presentation A kindergarten drop out can acknowledge.This a perfect exampleof why "you people" scare me"

No, he is correct. Social contract is where we say you can't do whatever you want without consequence, you loose some rights in order to gain others. It is simply how a given society reacts to certain acts. lets say that your society frowns on rape, murder, theft, cannibalism, ect. and that in return for everyone not doing those things nobody will eat you, murder you, rape you, or steal from you. lets say that in addition to the above that everyone speaks the same language as another "rule", than everyone is also using a language you understand in return for you giving up speaking a different language. lets say that there is another rule that you don't criticize others for different religious practices, than your religious practices won't be criticized either. now lets say that you don't like those rules, than you can go make another social contract (move somewhere with different rules) where you can kill, and eat your neighbor's kid.

Here's the wiki if my example (being only an example) wasn't enough for you. en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by 46ACE
get "annoyed "over this:
Did we watch the same presentation?This clip espouses "libertarian beliefs( "you do your thing I'll do mine just don't hurt me")
Go back and watch it without all the preconceived notions. your last paragraph makes absolutely no sense when applied to the actual video.
There is nothing "anti-capitalistic" about it. Capitalist ideas are confirmed in the voluntary exchange of property mutually beneficial to both parties.Be it money;Labor; macaroons or bannanas

edit on 27-11-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-11-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-11-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

Yes I watched the same clip, but libertarianism is still part of socialism. Also I never said that it was anti-capitalist at all, I was simply stating since I had stood up for socialism, which for some reason considered to be the opposite of capitalism (since Russia and the US considered that their primary distinction, and formed military alliances based on said factor.) therefor wishing to avert the conclusion that you may otherwise have formed based on your prior biases I am not a "socialist who uses violence and threats of force to extract the productive labor of society for their own personal gain."
I suggest you be the one to watch the movie again, and this time try it without the catchy music, and read each line asking yourself "dose this really make sense?" or "dose this contradict their prior statement?"

reply to post by sensen

Thankyou...

I am not giving up the right to kill; rape, or steal; because I believe :netherI nor you nor anyone has those "rights".and its almost 3p.m this has opened a big kettle of fish.


I believe themost derisive comment will comefrom the hardcore socialists/communists who by necessity believe the opposite of almost every principle presented. and will try tro argue adinfinitum ,Not gunna go dere(wouldn t' be prudent) to get trapped in carefully worded double speak. :
I believe the first plank of communism is to:"remove property rights": that includes your ownership of yourself and then all other rights crash down to the state after wards. Personally I am not buying into it.

Originally posted by sensen

Originally posted by 46ACE
get "annoyed "over this:
Did we watch the same presentation?This clip espouses "libertarian beliefs( "you do your thing I'll do mine just don't hurt me")
Go back and watch it without all the preconceived notions. your last paragraph makes absolutely no sense when applied to the actual video.
There is nothing "anti-capitalistic" about it. Capitalist ideas are confirmed in the voluntary exchange of property mutually beneficial to both parties.Be it money;Labor; macaroons or bannanas

edit on 27-11-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-11-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-11-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

Yes I watched the same clip, but libertarianism is still part of socialism. Also I never said that it was anti-capitalist at all, I was simply stating since I had stood up for socialism, which for some reason considered to be the opposite of capitalism (since Russia and the US considered that their primary distinction, and formed military alliances based on said factor.) therefor wishing to avert the conclusion that you may otherwise have formed based on your prior biases I am not a "socialist who uses violence and threats of force to extract the productive labor of society for their own personal gain."
I suggest you be the one to watch the movie again, and this time try it without the catchy music, and read each line asking yourself "dose this really make sense?" or "dose this contradict their prior statement?"

edit on 27-11-2010 by sensen because: suggestion

well thats disturbing: wiki "

en.wikipedia.org...

Libertarianism is the advocacy of individual liberty, especially freedom of thought and action.[1] Philosopher Roderick T. Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power [either "total or merely substantial"] from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives

Thefollowing was always my understanding perhaps I was"misguided" ( that means "wrong"):

.[2] David Boaz, libertarian writer and vice president of the Cato Institute, writes that, "Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others" and that, "Libertarians defend each person's right to life, liberty, and property--rights that people have naturally, before governments are created."[3]

Economist Karl Widerquist writes of left-libertarianism and libertarian socialism as being distinct ideologies also claiming the label "libertarianism".[4] However, many works broadly distinguish right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism as related forms of libertarian


I never EVER equated "libertarianism" with being anywhere near the left.It "echews" ( always wanted to use tha tword in a sentence) the principle of state ownership.??????
guess i'll justgo away no with my own brand of "liber-publicanism"..

reply to post by 46ACE


Hey look, someone talking about political philosophy who clearly has never heard of the concept of The Social Contract.

reply deleted: I made acomplete hash out of it cutting it up and got offensive: sorry.

executivesummary:
You're a philosophy major attacking a10minute cartoon because its not a complete philosophy.
indefending simplistic bits I got offensive.
Its simplistic you're right.

reply to post by 46ACE


well, I'm certainly no philosophy major (or even a minor for that sake), but I can say that it is because of social contract that you don't have the rights to rape, kill, or steal, and were I a philosopher I would get into that one philosophy about how there should be no laws keeping the strong from doing how they will, and about how in our modern age we are little more than sheep, but as I said I am not a philosophy major, so I'm afraid that I can't give you much more to go on than that, except that I believe it glorified Greek culture, but all too many of them do for that to be of any use.

As to your ever so kind summery I am not attacking the clip for not being more philosophical, or even simplistic. I simply dislike the simple methods of psychological manipulation that are oh so common in the modern day, and wish that if they were to string their sentences together like that, that they may as well make sense, and not form such an illogical argument. I wouldn't be surprised if this was someone's college media or psychology project

I just't don't see why things need to be much more complicated than that "silly manipulative cartoon": unless you are using doublespeak and twisted rationale cloud an issue to defraud somebody of something rightfully theirs.

You own your body: yes or no?

you own your time and energy: yes or no?

you own the product of that body: yes or no?

I have a right to takefrom you things you own: Yes or no?

I can transfer that right to take by force. to officials ( "in fine hats" I might add); to use force in my behalf?:yes or no?

Originally posted by sensen
reply to post by 46ACE

 

well, I'm certainly no philosophy major (or even a minor for that sake), but I can say that it is because of social contract that you don't have the rights to rape, kill, or steal,

It sounds like you are confusing your inherent "right" to property and property agreements in a society.

Your right to own your own body and the things you produce with it exists because you are a human being within this physical universe. If there were no other people on this planet, that law of nature would still continue to exist.

Social contracts are property agreements groups of lobbyists create using whatever monopoly of force is available to them. They can be bad or good, but they can only be defined bad or good by how they define and protect property rights among individuals.

When a socialist starts talking about "social contracts", they are making the claim that state sanctioned violence against the innocent is necessary for society to prosper.

Libertarians reject this as utter nonsense.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Utter manipulative nonsense.That's where I'm coming from..star dude...The big financial cheats wrote complicated derivatives with the full intentions of making them so confusing nobody but mathematicians could understand what they were buying. obfuscation hides alot of crime.

reply to post by mnemeth1


...sure ... if you want to think of it that way, whatever works, but was there never a time or culture in which rape and pillage was prevalent? did your so called human rights impede them than? "basic human rights" of the modern world are one part of social contract which is taken for granted by the vast majority of society.

as to my "manipulative nonsense" if you want it in thee most basic of simple speak than yes, "silly manipulative cartoon" is what I have been saying.