The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Discussion of principles relating to God's Law, Agency, Freedom, Liberty, the US constitution, and the Proper Role of Government.
User avatar
LoveIsTruth
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4928
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:13 am

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Postby LoveIsTruth » Mon Feb 13, 2017 12:38 pm

What Will Trump Do About the Central-Bank Cartel?
Trump could end global banking tyranny
Thorsten Pollet | Mises.org - February 13, 2017
Of course, change for the better doesn’t come from politics. It comes from better ideas. For it is ideas that determine human action. Whatever these ideas are and wherever they come from: They make humans act. For this reason the great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises (1881 – 1973) advocates the idea of the “sound money principle” –

“The sound-money principle has two aspects. It is affirmative in approving the market’s choice of a commonly used medium of exchange. It is negative in obstructing the government’s propensity to meddle with the currency system.”

Mises also explains convincingly the importance of the sound money principle for each and every one of us –

“It is impossible to grasp the meaning of the idea of sound money if one does not realize that it was devised as an instrument for the protection of civil liberties against despotic inroads on the part of governments. Ideologically it belongs in the same class with political constitutions and bills of right.”

Mises’s sound money principle calls for ending central banking once and for all and opening up a free market in money. Having brought to a halt political globalism for now, the new US administration has now also a once in a lifetime chance to make the world great again — simply by ending the state’s monopoly of money production.

If the US would move in that direction — ending legal tender laws and giving the freedom to the American people to use, say, gold, silver, or bitcoin as their preferred media of exchange — the rest of the world would most likely have to follow the example. That said, Mr. Trump could really make a real change, simply by embracing Mises’s sound money principle.

http://www.infowars.com/what-will-trump ... nk-cartel/
Full article here.

Sponsored Links

Advertisements

Medical Cost Sharing - It's not insurance it's better!

User avatar
freedomforall
Gnolaum 15000
Posts: 15196
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: OVER AND UNDER AND THROUGH THE WOODS

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Postby freedomforall » Mon Feb 13, 2017 9:38 pm

GUESS WHO

REALITY...IS NOTHING MORE THAN FANTASY IN ACTION.

To the very best of my recollection...I don't remember!

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4928
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:13 am

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Postby LoveIsTruth » Wed Feb 15, 2017 1:01 am

The Law of Justice


There is a law of Justice which if understood and applied allows to create a just society and thus preserve and develop liberty and prosperity of the people.

A just social order must be based on the Law of Justice.

What is justice? It is derived from a fundamental principle:

Step 1: The fundamental principle:

Thou shall love your neighbor as yourself.

From this follows:

Step 2: The law of Justice:

Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

From this follows:

Step 3: The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP).

How? Simple: as you would not like that someone committed an act of aggression against you and your property, so should you not commit such acts of aggression against others.

From this follows:

Step 4: The Group

Since no one individually has the right to commit acts of aggression against anyone and anyone’s property, neither has a group (no matter the size) the right to commit such acts of aggression, (because no one could rightly delegate a right they do not have).

So, as it is wrong for one person to rob his neighbor, so it is also wrong for many persons to rob him.

From this follows:

Step 5: No Taxation of Other People’s Property

Since no individual has the right to forcibly extract wealth from his neighbor, he cannot delegate such non-existent right to the group.

Therefore public taxation of private property is an act of aggression of the group against individual and his property, and thus is immoral and unjust.

And that which is unjust is evil by definition.

No society based on evil can ever persist, for it will unavoidably self-destruct.

Therefore no society based on public taxation of private property can ever endure, but will unavoidably self-destruct by corruption and violence, because it is BUILT upon aggressive violence of taxation, which is nothing more than legalized plunder, which is nothing more or less than legalized, monopolized, and institutionalized evil, written as law.

Such abomination of evil posing as law must not exist, if the society is ever to survive and prosper!

In general, any violation of the NAP, and any violation of private property is evil and unjust by definition, and any law sanctioning such violation is a legislative crime and an abomination that must not be allowed to exist, if the society is to survive and to prosper.

From which follows:

Step 6: No Regulation of Other People’s Property

Regulation is control. No one has the right to control the property he does not own, neither can one delegate such non-existent right to a group or any third party.

Therefore all public regulation of private property, except one, (that private property be not violated), is immoral and unjust.

What about anti-nuisance laws?

No one has the right to destroy or pollute anyone else’s property: neither by offensive smells, air, water or ground pollution, nor by projecting offensive sounds or images upon his neighbor’s property. So property rights take good care of environment protection and anti-nuisance laws.

What is Liberty?

Liberty is the right to do with your own property what you please, as long as you do not violate the property of another.
In other words, Liberty is anything you wish to do as long as it does not violate the NAP. (See Morality section at the end).

Thus a society built on the Non-Aggression Principle is the only just order possible. It is also the only way to have real Liberty.

Just Government

Then what about government? What is it, and what is its proper role?

To govern is to control. No one has the right to control the property he does not own. Thus any government has the right to govern or control ONLY the property it owns.

Since public representative government owns only public property, it has the right to govern public property only, and nothing else.

What is public property?

It is property to which all citizens of a certain location have equal claim of ownership. Therefore, since the claim of ownership is equal among the citizens, the just government of such public property must be done:
  1. By the voice of the majority of the citizens, provided that
  2. Every citizen is treated equally (since all have equal claim on the public property), and
  3. The property of no individual is violated in the process.
How do you justly finance such public government?

Anything that is just must not violate the Non-Aggression Principle (the NAP).

Therefore the only just way to finance a public representative government is via public property user fees and voluntary contributions. User fee means you pay only if you use the property. If you don’t use it, you do not pay for it.

Again, since all citizens have equal claim of ownership upon public property, the public property user fees to be just must be:
  1. Explicitly agreed to by the majority of the citizens.
  2. Administered equally among the citizens, and
  3. Collection of such fees must not violate the private property of anyone.
What about justice enforcement and courts?

Anyone has an unalienable right to defend themselves and their property. No individual has the right to deprive his neighbor of such right of just self-defense.

Therefore no individual, nor group, has the right to claim exclusive monopoly on justice enforcement, for such claim would be unjust.

This means that justice can rightly be enforced by anyone, as long as such enforcement is just.

Of course, individuals could voluntarily contract with any third parties to provide such just enforcement.

What is Private Property?

Private Property is naturally derived from, and includes the self-ownership of individual. Ownership is just control.

You own you, your body, your mind, the fruits of your labor. No one has a just right to control by force that which belongs to you against your will.

A just owner of a property is either the first user of it, or a recipient of it from the previous owner via voluntary gift, bequest or sale.

What about Information or Intellectual Property?

Property claims (i.e. exclusive just control) are meaningful and non-self-contradictory only with regards to TANGIBLE property. Such claims are entirely meaningless and self-contradictory for intangible objects.

Therefore information, or intellectual property ownership is only meaningful in terms of physical, TANGIBLE copies of information.

To own information is to own a tangible copy of it. Nothing less, nothing more.

Thus every tangible copy of information constitutes a separate intellectual property, even though it might represent exactly the same information.

Thus Intellectual Property is nothing more or less than ownership of a tangible copy of information.

Assigning and enforcing “ownership” to intangible information in general, leads to irreconcilable self-contradictions, and to violations of tangible property rights, and thus is unjust.

Conclusion:

Justice is NAP, that is non-violation of private property, with implied right to use equal force to neutralize/offset the aggression against one's property. To be just, any society must have the NAP (the Non-Aggression Principle) as its core principle.

Anything that does not violate the NAP is just and has the right to exist.

Anything that violates the NAP is immoral and unjust.

What about God, morality and his laws?

The same principle applies. God is the Creator and the Just owner of the world. Therefore all who live upon it are responsible to him to use his property only in the way he approves of. However no-one has the right to presume to speak for God or to enforce his laws without his permission.

Any such usurpation by anyone must be treated for what it is: an act of aggression, and it is just to end all aggression by force, which is the definition of just self-defense.


These are the laws of Justice. Let’s build a world upon these just and holy principles.

Amen.
Last edited by LoveIsTruth on Sat Feb 18, 2017 8:14 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4928
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:13 am

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Postby LoveIsTruth » Wed Feb 15, 2017 9:11 am

Updated Step 5 above as follows:
Step 5: No Taxation of Other People’s Property

Since no individual has the right to forcibly extract wealth from his neighbor, he cannot delegate such non-existent right to the group.

Therefore public taxation of private property is an act of aggression of the group against individual and his property, and thus is immoral and unjust.

And that which is unjust is evil by definition.

No society based on evil can ever persist, for it will unavoidably self-destruct.

Therefore no society based on public taxation of private property can ever endure, but will unavoidably self-destruct by corruption and violence, because it is BUILT upon aggressive violence of taxation, which is nothing more than legalized plunder, which is nothing more or less than legalized, monopolized, and institutionalized evil, written as law.

Such abomination of evil posing as law must not exist, if the society is ever to survive and prosper!

In general, any violation of the NAP, and any violation of private property is evil and unjust by definition, and any law sanctioning such violation is a legislative crime and an abomination that must not be allowed to exist, if the society is to survive and to prosper.

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4928
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:13 am

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Postby LoveIsTruth » Wed Feb 15, 2017 1:57 pm

Updated article above as follows:
What is Liberty?
Liberty is the right to do with your own property what you please, as long as you do not violate the property of another.
In other words, Liberty is anything you wish to do as long as it does not violate the NAP. (See Morality section at the end).

Thus a society built on the Non-Aggression Principle is the only just order possible. It is also the only way to have real Liberty.

User avatar
freedomforall
Gnolaum 15000
Posts: 15196
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: OVER AND UNDER AND THROUGH THE WOODS

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Postby freedomforall » Wed Feb 15, 2017 7:05 pm

Updated article above as follows:
What is Liberty?
Liberty is the right to do with your own property what you please, as long as you do not violate the property of another.
In other words, Liberty is anything you wish to do as long as it does not violate the NAP. (See Morality section at the end).

Thus a society built on the Non-Aggression Principle is the only just order possible. It is also the only way to have real Liberty.
This is why the Bundy's are in dire straights, the Government is bent on taking their property away from them. Grazing rights and other trumped up laws made up and enacted are not Constitutional in the least. Yet Harry Reid and many, many others call them and those that support the Bundy's "Domestic Terrorists."
The Government has no authority to take whatever they want from people under Article 1, Section 8, Claus 17 of the Constitution. And the crooked attorney's helping to defend this lawlessness of Government are traitors to the very oath they take to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Michael Badnarik has studied the Constitution for well over thirty years, eighteen years as of this video.
GUESS WHO

REALITY...IS NOTHING MORE THAN FANTASY IN ACTION.

To the very best of my recollection...I don't remember!

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4928
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:13 am

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Postby LoveIsTruth » Sat Feb 18, 2017 8:24 pm

Edited 1st paragraph of the Conclusion as follows:
Conclusion:

Justice is NAP, that is non-violation of private property, with implied right to use equal force to neutralize/offset the aggression against one's property. To be just, any society must have the NAP (the Non-Aggression Principle) as its core principle.

Liberty Ghost
captain of 10
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:50 pm

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Postby Liberty Ghost » Sun Feb 19, 2017 1:55 pm

Why is the right implied to use "equal" force? If someone attacks me with a club am I limited to a club to defend myself? Perhaps it can be construed that if lethal force is used against me that I have the right to use lethal force in return, that is, that both action and response are equal. But, what if a person is attacked with non-lethal force, such as bean bag guns or tasers, am I limited to use a non-lethal response? What if instead of equal, the provision just said "sufficient". A sufficient response allows me to protect property with any level of force deemed necessary. If some kids happen onto my property, and I use lethal force to repel them, a jury of my peers could still convict me by saying that the force I used was in excess of that which was sufficient. If those kids, were, in reality a gang of youths who I felt endangered my property or person, I could escalate my response, without having to try to do the mental calculus of what was equal.

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4928
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:13 am

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Postby LoveIsTruth » Mon Feb 20, 2017 6:21 am

Why is the right implied to use "equal" force? If someone attacks me with a club am I limited to a club to defend myself? Perhaps it can be construed that if lethal force is used against me that I have the right to use lethal force in return, that is, that both action and response are equal. But, what if a person is attacked with non-lethal force, such as bean bag guns or tasers, am I limited to use a non-lethal response? What if instead of equal, the provision just said "sufficient". A sufficient response allows me to protect property with any level of force deemed necessary. If some kids happen onto my property, and I use lethal force to repel them, a jury of my peers could still convict me by saying that the force I used was in excess of that which was sufficient. If those kids, were, in reality a gang of youths who I felt endangered my property or person, I could escalate my response, without having to try to do the mental calculus of what was equal.
I think you got the idea. Justice precludes disproportionate response. Because if the response is disproportionate, then you yourself become the aggressor and thus the guilty party.

If someone stole a candy bar from you, you do not break his limbs, etc. You use the force sufficient enough to repel the aggression to offset and neutralize the damage done to you, and no further. (In many cases it is better to forgive altogether, and leave it to God to deal the perfect justice.)

So you are right, and we agree.

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4928
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:13 am

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Postby LoveIsTruth » Mon Feb 20, 2017 5:34 pm

This is cute. I like it:

https://phibetaiota.net/2017/02/evan-hy ... eep-state/

These measures are proper leaves and branches of the root measure, which root is unfortunately not found in the linked article.

The root is points 5 and 6 in the Law of Justice essay. Namely: abolishing all public taxation of private property, and abolishing all public regulation of private property (except one, which is that private property be not violated), as the direct consequence of the Law of Justice and the NAP derived in steps 1-4.

The root gives the power to all branches and leaves. Without the root fix, subordinate problems are bound to return without the underlying doctrinal principle of the Law of Justice.

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4928
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:13 am

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Postby LoveIsTruth » Tue Feb 21, 2017 3:37 pm

Lew Rockwell: Break Up the USA
Prominent thinker makes case for abandoning leftists

LewRockwell.com - February 21, 2017

"Let my people go" (Exodus 8:1)
Justice demands it.

Remember it didn't go well for the Pharaoh when he refused.


Image



Some of our assumptions are so deeply embedded that we cannot perceive them ourselves.

Case in point: everyone takes for granted that it’s normal for a country of 320 million to be dictated to by a single central authority. The only debate we’re permitted to have is who should be selected to carry out this grotesque and inhumane function.

Here’s the debate we should be having instead: what if we simply abandoned this quixotic mission, and went our separate ways? It’s an idea that’s gaining traction — much too late, to be sure, but better late than never.

For a long time it seemed as if the idea of secession was unlikely to take hold in modern America. Schoolchildren, after all, are told to associate secession with slavery and treason. American journalists treat the idea as if it were self-evidently ridiculous and contemptible (an attitude they curiously do not adopt when faced with US war propaganda, I might add).

And yet all it took was the election of Donald Trump for the alleged toxicity of secession to vanish entirely. The left’s principled opposition to secession and devotion to the holy Union went promptly out the window on November 8, 2016. Today, about one in three Californians polled favors the Golden State’s secession from the Union.

In other words, some people seem to be coming to the conclusion that the whole system is rotten and should be abandoned.

It’s true that most leftists have not come around to this way of thinking. Many have adopted the creepy slogan “not my president” – in other words, I may not want this particular person having the power to intervene in all aspects of life and holding in his hands the ability to destroy the entire earth, but I most certainly do want someone else to have those powers.

Not exactly a head-on challenge to the system, in other words. (That’s what we libertarians are for.) The problem in their view is only that the wrong people are in charge.

Indeed, leftists who once said “small is beautiful” and “question authority” had little trouble embracing large federal bureaucracies in charge of education, health, housing, and pretty much every important thing. And these authorities, of course, you are not to question (unless they are headed by a Trump nominee, in which case they may be temporarily ignored).

Meanwhile, the right wing has been calling for the abolition of the Department of Education practically since its creation in 1979. That hasn’t happened, as you may have noticed. Having the agency in Republican hands became the more urgent task.

Each side pours tremendous resources into trying to take control of the federal apparatus and lord it over the whole country.

How about we call it quits?

No more federal fiefdoms, no more forcing 320 million people into a single mold, no more dictating to everyone from the central state.

Radical, yes, and surely not a perspective we were exposed to as schoolchildren. But is it so unreasonable? Is it not in fact the very height of reason and good sense? And some people, we may reasonably hope, may be prepared to consider these simple and humane questions for the very first time.

Now can we imagine the left actually growing so unhappy as to favor secession as a genuine solution?

Here’s what I know. On the one hand, the left made its long march through the institutions: universities, the media, popular culture. Their intention was to remake American society. The task involved an enormous amount of time and wealth. Secession would amount to abandoning this string of successes, and it’s hard to imagine them giving up in this way after sinking all those resources into the long march.

At the same time, it’s possible that the cultural elite have come to despise the American bourgeoisie so much that they’re willing to treat all of that as a sunk cost, and simply get out.

Whatever the case may be, what we can and should do is encourage all decentralization and secession talk, such that these heretofore forbidden options become live once again.

I can already hear the objections from Beltway libertarians, who are not known for supporting political decentralization. To the contrary, they long for the day when libertarian judges and lawmakers will impose liberty on the entire country. And on a more basic level, they find talk of states’ rights, nullification, and secession – about which they hold the most exquisitely conventional and p.c. views – to be sources of embarrassment.

How are they going to rub elbows with the Fed chairman if they’re associated with ideas like these?

Of course we would like to see liberty flourish everywhere. But it’s foolish not to accept more limited victories and finite goals when these are the only realistic options.

The great libertarians – from Felix Morley and Frank Chodorov to Murray Rothbard and Hans Hoppe — have always favored political decentralization; F.A. Hayek once said that in the future liberty was more likely to flourish in small states. This is surely the way forward for us today, if we want to see tangible changes in our lifetimes.

Thomas Sowell referred to two competing visions that lay at the heart of so much political debate: the constrained and the unconstrained. In the constrained vision, man’s nature is not really malleable, his existence contains an element of tragedy, and there is little that politics can do by way of grandiose schemes to perfect society. In the unconstrained vision, the only limitation to how much society can be remade in the image of its political rulers is how much the rubes are willing to stomach at a given moment.

These competing visions are reaching an endgame vis-a-vis one another. As Angelo Codevilla observes, the left has overplayed its hand. The regular folks have reached the limits of their toleration of leftist intimidation and thought control, and are hitting back.

We can fight it out, or we can go our separate ways.

When I say go our separate ways, I don’t mean “the left” goes one way and “the right” goes another. I mean the left goes one way and everyone else — rather a diverse group indeed — goes another. People who live for moral posturing, to broadcast their superiority over everyone else, and to steamroll differences in the name of “diversity,” should go one way, and everyone who rolls his eyes at all this should go another.

“No people and no part of a people,” said Ludwig von Mises nearly one hundred years ago, “shall be held against its will in a political association that it does not want.” So much wisdom in that simple sentiment. And so much conflict and anguish could be avoided if only we’d heed it.

http://www.infowars.com/lew-rockwell-break-up-the-usa/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Return to “Principles of Liberty”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests