The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
- LoveIsTruth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5497
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
G. Edward Griffin - The Collectivist Conspiracy
Modern Politics, and Principles of Liberty
Modern Politics, and Principles of Liberty
- EclecticLibertarian
- captain of 50
- Posts: 79
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
A few words...
The Fundamental Principle upon which our Nation is built is the Sovereignty of the Individual. Because the individual is sovereign, the individual's liberty is only limited to not engaging in force, threat of force (coercion), or fraud against another individual.
The concept of private property is a secondary, derivative principle based on the recognition that an individual requires the use of property in order to live and thrive. Our founders took the position that every person on the earth has equal claim to all that exists on the earth, that the whole of the earth is held in common by all persons, that private property is a necessary contrivance agreed upon by members of society and typically based on the principle that common property may be converted to private property by the consent of the whole of society. It is this same principle which justifies imminent domain reclamation of private property with just compensation to those thus deprived.
To be secure in one's person, home, and privately held property is one of the enumerated rights specifically mentioned as being guaranteed and protected by the Constitution. Once property is deemed to be privately owned, society may not justly deprive a person of that property except through due process of law as a consequence of being duly convicted of infringing upon the liberty or other rights of another individual or individuals, or as previously mentioned through the process of imminent domain and only with just compensation for such deprivation.
Furthermore, private property may be conveyed to another person. This is crucially important, as were it not possible to convey property from one person to another, no trade would be possible. Such conveyance of property from one person to another is done at the liberty of the individual who owns the property or is acting as an agent of one who owns the property. As to the limits of private property, the state may ultimately reclaim the private property of an individual in the interests of the society as a whole, but only according to due process and with just compensation.
Our Founding Fathers have stated that only a moral society can maintain the type of government which they gave us. That is true. An immoral society will seek to redistribute the property of their fellow countrymen through the use of force without just compensation. An immoral society will seek to impose its will, its beliefs, its practices upon the whole of society, even those who don't share those beliefs. It is the immorality of the uses of force, of the infringement upon the liberty of others that our Founding Fathers were most concerned. Our Founding Fathers worried that the people would be just as immoral as the King and his representatives that they were declaring Independence from.
Rather than creating new Amendments to the Constitution, what we need is new Guardians of the Constitution in the Supreme Court who will consider all challenges to Laws in light of this Supreme Principle of Individual Liberty or the Sovereignty of the Individual. We also need new representatives in our Congress, in the House and the Senate, who hold Individual Liberty as the Supreme Ideal upon which all laws must be considered before proposing, much less passing. We also need a new President (and Vice President) as well as all the other officers of the Land charged with executing the Will of the People in accordance with the contraints imposed upon them by not only the letter, but the spirit of the Supreme Law of the Land. And Lastly, we need new Sentinels of our Liberty in the form of every Citizen of this land to be informed and educated in the philosophy of our Founding Fathers, educating themselves and their children, the friends, and their neighbors about the proper role of the government and the responsibility every citizen has to guard their own Liberty from infringement by those empowered to be our servants who would regard themselves as our masters.
The Fundamental Principle upon which our Nation is built is the Sovereignty of the Individual. Because the individual is sovereign, the individual's liberty is only limited to not engaging in force, threat of force (coercion), or fraud against another individual.
The concept of private property is a secondary, derivative principle based on the recognition that an individual requires the use of property in order to live and thrive. Our founders took the position that every person on the earth has equal claim to all that exists on the earth, that the whole of the earth is held in common by all persons, that private property is a necessary contrivance agreed upon by members of society and typically based on the principle that common property may be converted to private property by the consent of the whole of society. It is this same principle which justifies imminent domain reclamation of private property with just compensation to those thus deprived.
To be secure in one's person, home, and privately held property is one of the enumerated rights specifically mentioned as being guaranteed and protected by the Constitution. Once property is deemed to be privately owned, society may not justly deprive a person of that property except through due process of law as a consequence of being duly convicted of infringing upon the liberty or other rights of another individual or individuals, or as previously mentioned through the process of imminent domain and only with just compensation for such deprivation.
Furthermore, private property may be conveyed to another person. This is crucially important, as were it not possible to convey property from one person to another, no trade would be possible. Such conveyance of property from one person to another is done at the liberty of the individual who owns the property or is acting as an agent of one who owns the property. As to the limits of private property, the state may ultimately reclaim the private property of an individual in the interests of the society as a whole, but only according to due process and with just compensation.
Our Founding Fathers have stated that only a moral society can maintain the type of government which they gave us. That is true. An immoral society will seek to redistribute the property of their fellow countrymen through the use of force without just compensation. An immoral society will seek to impose its will, its beliefs, its practices upon the whole of society, even those who don't share those beliefs. It is the immorality of the uses of force, of the infringement upon the liberty of others that our Founding Fathers were most concerned. Our Founding Fathers worried that the people would be just as immoral as the King and his representatives that they were declaring Independence from.
Rather than creating new Amendments to the Constitution, what we need is new Guardians of the Constitution in the Supreme Court who will consider all challenges to Laws in light of this Supreme Principle of Individual Liberty or the Sovereignty of the Individual. We also need new representatives in our Congress, in the House and the Senate, who hold Individual Liberty as the Supreme Ideal upon which all laws must be considered before proposing, much less passing. We also need a new President (and Vice President) as well as all the other officers of the Land charged with executing the Will of the People in accordance with the contraints imposed upon them by not only the letter, but the spirit of the Supreme Law of the Land. And Lastly, we need new Sentinels of our Liberty in the form of every Citizen of this land to be informed and educated in the philosophy of our Founding Fathers, educating themselves and their children, the friends, and their neighbors about the proper role of the government and the responsibility every citizen has to guard their own Liberty from infringement by those empowered to be our servants who would regard themselves as our masters.
- LoveIsTruth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5497
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
You are mostly right, but you are making some key errors.
First the minor misunderstanding:
The rest of your reasoning, that you build from this false doctrine, including the idea of "imminent domain" is therefore necessarily false too.
Thanks for posting.
First the minor misunderstanding:
Private Property as used in the Fundamental Principles of Liberty refers to you, your body, your mind, your speech, the fruits of your labor, etc. Taken in such a broad view, individual sovereignty is INDISTINGUISHABLE from Private Property, they are one and the same. So I guess it's just a question of definition of the term. Thus we agree.EclecticLibertarian wrote:The Fundamental Principle upon which our Nation is built is the Sovereignty of the Individual. Because the individual is sovereign, the individual's liberty is only limited to not engaging in force, threat of force (coercion), or fraud against another individual.
The concept of private property is a secondary, derivative principle based on the recognition that an individual requires the use of property in order to live and thrive.
That is fundamentally wrong. You "exist on the earth," but I do not have an "equal claim" to your body or property. So that is a key mistake in your reasoning.EclecticLibertarian wrote:Our founders took the position that every person on the earth has equal claim to all that exists on the earth,
That is VERY wrong and is the essence of collectivism and is COMPLETELY incompatible with true Principles of Liberty. This doctrine is actually quite abominable!EclecticLibertarian wrote:... that private property is a necessary contrivance agreed upon by members of society and typically based on the principle that common property may be converted to private property by the consent of the whole of society.
The rest of your reasoning, that you build from this false doctrine, including the idea of "imminent domain" is therefore necessarily false too.
Constitution is a good but fundamentally flawed document. It violates the Fundamental Principles of Liberty, i.e. Private Property in its provision of taxation (all taxation is theft) and many other instances. To fix these glaring errors in the Constitution, and to reconcile it with the Fundamental Principles of Liberty, without which Liberty cannot prosper and must unavoidably be destroyed, I proposed these 5 amendments (see the top of the thread.)EclecticLibertarian wrote:Rather than creating new Amendments to the Constitution, what we need is new Guardians of the Constitution in the Supreme Court
Thanks for posting.
- EclecticLibertarian
- captain of 50
- Posts: 79
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
In principle it appears we are almost on the same page. I nevertheless maintain that there is a subtle distinction between sovereignty and private property. A closer concept would be Privacy rather than Private Property, but lets move on...LoveIsTruth wrote:You are mostly right, but you are making some key errors.
First the minor misunderstanding:Private Property as used in the Fundamental Principles of Liberty refers to you, your body, your mind, your speech, the fruits of your labor, etc. Taken in such a broad view, individual sovereignty is INDISTINGUISHABLE from Private Property, they are one and the same. So I guess it's just a question of definition of the term. Thus we agree.
I understand where you are coming from here; however, the limiting concept at work is Individual Sovereignty. The individual is sovereign, i.e., Supreme Ruler over himself. No individual or group has greater claim to deciding what he or she may freely do so far as he or she does not infringe upon the freedom of another. You seem to be approaching the issue from the concept of property, whereas I am approaching the issue from the concept of liberty or self-determination.LoveIsTruth wrote:That is fundamentally wrong. You "exist on the earth," but I do not have an "equal claim" to your body or property. So that is a key mistake in your reasoning.EclecticLibertarian wrote:Our founders took the position that every person on the earth has equal claim to all that exists on the earth,
No, it is not. You are actually quite mistaken about this. The essence of collectivism is that the individual is not sovereign, the group is sovereign. The essence of collectivism is that the will of the individual is subordinated to the will of the collective. The idea of private property can and usually does exist to a limited degree in a collectivist society. Nevertheless, I am not arguing in favor of a collectivist society, nor am I arguing against the existence of private property, nor am I opposed to rigorous protection of the Individual's rights to possess private property, I am merely disputing your notion that the concept of private property is not in fact a convention of society.LoveIsTruth wrote:That is VERY wrong and is the essence of collectivism and is COMPLETELY incompatible with true Principles of Liberty. This doctrine is actually quite abominable!EclecticLibertarian wrote:... that private property is a necessary contrivance agreed upon by members of society and typically based on the principle that common property may be converted to private property by the consent of the whole of society.
Actually, it's not and the Founding Father's would disagree with you on that point.LoveIsTruth wrote:The rest of your reasoning, that you build from this false doctrine, including the idea of "imminent domain" is therefore necessarily false too.
I find it rather interesting that you consider all taxation to be theft. Let me then ask you this question: if you access or benefit from ANY of the services that are provided by government in order establish justice (our court system including the attorneys, bailiffs, judges, etc.), ensure domestic tranquility (police officers, jails, prisons and correctional facilities, fire departments, etc.), provide for the common defense (armed military forces including the Coast Guard, international Communications system), promote the general welfare ( CDC, FDA, inclement weather early warning systems, etc.) and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity (Natl. Guard, Electoral system, etc.) and you don't contribute towards their maintenance and support, is that not theft? No. Limited taxation is a necessary burden which the people of a society may be reasonably expected to bear in order to benefit from society. Even our most libertarian Founding Fathers recognized this fact. Either that or you can do as our Founding Fathers did who signed the Declaration of Independence and pledge your lives, your property and your sacred honor to the defense of your Nation and the liberties of yourself and that of your fellow countrymen. Take your pick, but if we don't support the upkeep and maintenance of the government that protects our rights and liberties, how long do you think these men and women are going to continue working while they and their families starve and are turned out of their homes and into the cold to depend upon the charity of others?LoveIsTruth wrote:Constitution is a good but fundamentally flawed document. It violates the Fundamental Principles of Liberty, i.e. Private Property in its provision of taxation (all taxation is theft) and many other instances.EclecticLibertarian wrote:Rather than creating new Amendments to the Constitution, what we need is new Guardians of the Constitution in the Supreme Court
And I propose you do a lot more thinking and studying what men far wiser than yourself (our Founding Fathers would be a good place to begin) have written on the matter.LoveIsTruth wrote:To fix these glaring errors in the Constitution, and to reconcile it with the Fundamental Principles of Liberty, without which Liberty cannot prosper and must unavoidably be destroyed, I proposed these 5 amendments (see the top of the thread.)
No, thank you for getting the discussion started and continuing to engage, even though I disagree with many of your ideas.LoveIsTruth wrote:Thanks for posting.
- LoveIsTruth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5497
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
LoveIsTruth wrote:That is fundamentally wrong. You "exist on the earth," but I do not have an "equal claim" to your body or property. So that is a key mistake in your reasoning.EclecticLibertarian wrote:Our founders took the position that every person on the earth has equal claim to all that exists on the earth,
Your statement of "equal claim to all that exists on the earth" is plainly wrong! You cannot brush it off! This is the basis of your arguments, and it is DEMONSTRATIVELY false!EclecticLibertarian wrote:I understand where you are coming from here; however, the limiting concept at work is Individual Sovereignty. The individual is sovereign, i.e., Supreme Ruler over himself. No individual or group has greater claim to deciding what he or she may freely do so far as he or she does not infringe upon the freedom of another. You seem to be approaching the issue from the concept of property, whereas I am approaching the issue from the concept of liberty or self-determination.
Again, sovereignty is MEANINGLESS without property (broad definition of it of course). Therefore they are one and the same. You cannot separate them. They are ONE.
LoveIsTruth wrote:That is VERY wrong and is the essence of collectivism and is COMPLETELY incompatible with true Principles of Liberty. This doctrine is actually quite abominable!EclecticLibertarian wrote:... that private property is a necessary contrivance agreed upon by members of society and typically based on the principle that common property may be converted to private property by the consent of the whole of society.
Yes. Sovereignty and property are the same. Thus the essence of collectivism is that the PROPERTY of the individual is subordinated to and can be violated by the will of the collective. Sovereignty without private property means exactly NOTHING!EclecticLibertarian wrote:No, it is not. You are actually quite mistaken about this. The essence of collectivism is that the individual is not sovereign, the group is sovereign. The essence of collectivism is that the will of the individual is subordinated to the will of the collective.
It is no more "convention" than sovereignty or Liberty. These are ETERNAL principles that originate where man originates, with God.EclecticLibertarian wrote:The idea of private property can and usually does exist to a limited degree in a collectivist society. Nevertheless, I am not arguing in favor of a collectivist society, nor am I arguing against the existence of private property, nor am I opposed to rigorous protection of the Individual's rights to possess private property, I am merely disputing your notion that the concept of private property is not in fact a convention of society.
LoveIsTruth wrote:The rest of your reasoning, that you build from this false doctrine, including the idea of "imminent domain" is therefore necessarily false too.
The Founders were wrong. Are you shocked? They predicted that their descendants would improve their work.EclecticLibertarian wrote:Actually, it's not and the Founding Father's would disagree with you on that point.
EclecticLibertarian wrote:I find it rather interesting that you consider all taxation to be theft.
All these services can be provided MUCH better by the private sector. They will deliver these products with better quality and at a better price than the government forced monopoly. Read State or Private-Law Society, and The Myth of National Defense. Thus the only proper role of government is to manage public property.EclecticLibertarian wrote:Let me then ask you this question: if you access or benefit from ANY of the services that are provided by government in order establish justice (our court system including the attorneys, bailiffs, judges, etc.), ensure domestic tranquility (police officers, jails, prisons and correctional facilities, fire departments, etc.), provide for the common defense (armed military forces including the Coast Guard, international Communications system), promote the general welfare ( CDC, FDA, inclement weather early warning systems, etc.) and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity (Natl. Guard, Electoral system, etc.) and you don't contribute towards their maintenance and support, is that not theft? No. Limited taxation is a necessary burden which the people of a society may be reasonably expected to bear in order to benefit from society. Even our most libertarian Founding Fathers recognized this fact. Either that or you can do as our Founding Fathers did who signed the Declaration of Independence and pledge your lives, your property and your sacred honor to the defense of your Nation and the liberties of yourself and that of your fellow countrymen. Take your pick, but if we don't support the upkeep and maintenance of the government that protects our rights and liberties, how long do you think these men and women are going to continue working while they and their families starve and are turned out of their homes and into the cold to depend upon the charity of others?
LoveIsTruth wrote:To fix these glaring errors in the Constitution, and to reconcile it with the Fundamental Principles of Liberty, without which Liberty cannot prosper and must unavoidably be destroyed, I proposed these 5 amendments (see the top of the thread.)
I have, you have not. If so, then let's start with fundamental principles of Liberty and build upward from there. Are you game?EclecticLibertarian wrote:And I propose you do a lot more thinking and studying what men far wiser than yourself (our Founding Fathers would be a good place to begin) have written on the matter.
LoveIsTruth wrote:Thanks for posting.
Likewise. Thank you.EclecticLibertarian wrote:No, thank you for getting the discussion started and continuing to engage, even though I disagree with many of your ideas.
- Jason
- Master of Puppets
- Posts: 18296
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
King Benjamin disagrees with you....as do I....as do all of the prophets...LoveIsTruth wrote:All these services can be provided MUCH better by the private sector. They will deliver these products with better quality and at a better price than the government forced monopoly. Read State or Private-Law Society, and The Myth of National Defense. Thus the only proper role of government is to manage public property.EclecticLibertarian wrote:Let me then ask you this question: if you access or benefit from ANY of the services that are provided by government in order establish justice (our court system including the attorneys, bailiffs, judges, etc.), ensure domestic tranquility (police officers, jails, prisons and correctional facilities, fire departments, etc.), provide for the common defense (armed military forces including the Coast Guard, international Communications system), promote the general welfare ( CDC, FDA, inclement weather early warning systems, etc.) and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity (Natl. Guard, Electoral system, etc.) and you don't contribute towards their maintenance and support, is that not theft? No. Limited taxation is a necessary burden which the people of a society may be reasonably expected to bear in order to benefit from society. Even our most libertarian Founding Fathers recognized this fact. Either that or you can do as our Founding Fathers did who signed the Declaration of Independence and pledge your lives, your property and your sacred honor to the defense of your Nation and the liberties of yourself and that of your fellow countrymen. Take your pick, but if we don't support the upkeep and maintenance of the government that protects our rights and liberties, how long do you think these men and women are going to continue working while they and their families starve and are turned out of their homes and into the cold to depend upon the charity of others?
- LoveIsTruth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5497
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
Prove it. The government can still provide courts if asked for. But it cannot FORCE people to use their services! Even among the Nephites, judges got paid according to their time by the parties involved, and NOT by FORCED taxation of everybody. So looks like King Benjamin agrees with me, and you are wrong, as usual!Jason wrote:King Benjamin disagrees with you....as do I....as do all of the prophets...LoveIsTruth wrote:All these services can be provided MUCH better by the private sector. They will deliver these products with better quality and at a better price than the government forced monopoly. Read State or Private-Law Society, and The Myth of National Defense. Thus the only proper role of government is to manage public property.EclecticLibertarian wrote:Let me then ask you this question: if you access or benefit from ANY of the services that are provided by government in order establish justice (our court system including the attorneys, bailiffs, judges, etc.), ensure domestic tranquility (police officers, jails, prisons and correctional facilities, fire departments, etc.), provide for the common defense (armed military forces including the Coast Guard, international Communications system), promote the general welfare ( CDC, FDA, inclement weather early warning systems, etc.) and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity (Natl. Guard, Electoral system, etc.) and you don't contribute towards their maintenance and support, is that not theft? No. Limited taxation is a necessary burden which the people of a society may be reasonably expected to bear in order to benefit from society. Even our most libertarian Founding Fathers recognized this fact. Either that or you can do as our Founding Fathers did who signed the Declaration of Independence and pledge your lives, your property and your sacred honor to the defense of your Nation and the liberties of yourself and that of your fellow countrymen. Take your pick, but if we don't support the upkeep and maintenance of the government that protects our rights and liberties, how long do you think these men and women are going to continue working while they and their families starve and are turned out of their homes and into the cold to depend upon the charity of others?
- Jason
- Master of Puppets
- Posts: 18296
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
Prove that payment to the judges was not a requirement of the law....and thus enforced by the law.LoveIsTruth wrote:Prove it. The government can still provide courts if asked for. But it cannot FORCE people to use their services! Even among the Nephites, judges got paid according to their time by the parties involved, and NOT by FORCED taxation of everybody. So looks like King Benjamin agrees with me, and you are wrong, as usual!Jason wrote:King Benjamin disagrees with you....as do I....as do all of the prophets...LoveIsTruth wrote: All these services can be provided MUCH better by the private sector. They will deliver these products with better quality and at a better price than the government forced monopoly. Read State or Private-Law Society, and The Myth of National Defense. Thus the only proper role of government is to manage public property.
Prove there wasn't forced taxation. Or enlistment. etc etc etc...
But that's just King Benjamin....what about all the rest of the prophets...where is the statement that says the only proper role of government is to manage public property???? You sound like Korihor....
What happened to moral law? Laws of Moses starting with the 10 commandments....and enforced by Israelite government....as well as God....etc etc etc etc etc
fyi - King Benjamin also applied the Laws of Moses....
- LoveIsTruth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5497
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
The problem is you are NOT Moses. God did not give YOU authority to break down your neighbor's door and force him to pay his tithing or not to smoke, etc. If you don't believe that your neighbor's 45 will teach you otherwise. Benson Principle is the answer here. (And yes, he was a prophet.) Learn that.Jason wrote:Prove that payment to the judges was not a requirement of the law....and thus enforced by the law.
Prove there wasn't forced taxation. Or enlistment. etc etc etc...
But that's just King Benjamin....what about all the rest of the prophets...where is the statement that says the only proper role of government is to manage public property???? You sound like Korihor....
What happened to moral law? Laws of Moses starting with the 10 commandments....and enforced by Israelite government....as well as God....etc etc etc etc etc
fyi - King Benjamin also applied the Laws of Moses....
- Jason
- Master of Puppets
- Posts: 18296
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
Yes I'm definitely NOT Moses....glad you realize that. But I notice you go off on another tangent about doors and tithing and smoking....all while ignoring the questions....LoveIsTruth wrote:The problem is you are NOT Moses. God did not give YOU authority to break down your neighbor's door and force him to pay his tithing or not to smoke, etc. If you don't believe that your neighbor's 45 will teach you otherwise. Benson Principle is the answer here. (And yes, he was a prophet.) Learn that.Jason wrote:Prove that payment to the judges was not a requirement of the law....and thus enforced by the law.
Prove there wasn't forced taxation. Or enlistment. etc etc etc...
But that's just King Benjamin....what about all the rest of the prophets...where is the statement that says the only proper role of government is to manage public property???? You sound like Korihor....
What happened to moral law? Laws of Moses starting with the 10 commandments....and enforced by Israelite government....as well as God....etc etc etc etc etc
fyi - King Benjamin also applied the Laws of Moses....
...speaking of learning....
- LoveIsTruth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5497
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
All taxation is theft:Jason wrote:Yes I'm definitely NOT Moses....glad you realize that. But I notice you go off on another tangent about doors and tithing and smoking....all while ignoring the questions....
...speaking of learning....
All taxation violates the Benson Principle: See Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Taxation.
- Jason
- Master of Puppets
- Posts: 18296
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
go find an island...create your own government....and work for free...collect zero taxes....and provide zero benefits....and see if anyone takes you up on it????LoveIsTruth wrote:All taxation is theft:Jason wrote:Yes I'm definitely NOT Moses....glad you realize that. But I notice you go off on another tangent about doors and tithing and smoking....all while ignoring the questions....
...speaking of learning....
All taxation violates the Benson Principle: See Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Taxation.
even though King Benjamin labored for his own support....the judges (and likely kings previously) were compensated for their time and efforts....most likely in the form of taxes
and in times of war....taxes went up (think Captain Moroni and supplies being provided - by force if needed)...
- LoveIsTruth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5497
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
There is no evidence of that. Actually the evidence is to the contrary.Jason wrote:even though King Benjamin labored for his own support....the judges (and likely kings previously) were compensated for their time and efforts....most likely in the form of taxes
If the people entered into an explicit, individual contract, as the Nephites did, then they are bound by it. This is NOT the case here. So you are wrong.Jason wrote:and in times of war....taxes went up (think Captain Moroni and supplies being provided - by force if needed)...
- Jason
- Master of Puppets
- Posts: 18296
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
Evidence...no evidence....yeah you are right....I don't see any evidence from you.LoveIsTruth wrote:There is no evidence of that. Actually the evidence is to the contrary.Jason wrote:even though King Benjamin labored for his own support....the judges (and likely kings previously) were compensated for their time and efforts....most likely in the form of taxes
If the people entered into an explicit, individual contract, as the Nephites did, then they are bound by it. This is NOT the case here. So you are wrong.Jason wrote:and in times of war....taxes went up (think Captain Moroni and supplies being provided - by force if needed)...
Please name one prophet that said we weren't obligated to pay taxes to government....
- LoveIsTruth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5497
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
Jason wrote:Evidence...no evidence....yeah you are right....I don't see any evidence from you.LoveIsTruth wrote:There is no evidence of that. Actually the evidence is to the contrary.Jason wrote:even though King Benjamin labored for his own support....the judges (and likely kings previously) were compensated for their time and efforts....most likely in the form of taxes
If the people entered into an explicit, individual contract, as the Nephites did, then they are bound by it. This is NOT the case here. So you are wrong.Jason wrote:and in times of war....taxes went up (think Captain Moroni and supplies being provided - by force if needed)...
How's that for evidence? Now, let's see your evidence.And even I, myself, have labored with mine own hands that I might serve you, and that ye should not be laden with taxes, and that there should nothing come upon you which was grievous to be borne—and of all these things which I have spoken, ye yourselves are witnesses this day.
(Mosiah 2:14)
Please name one prophet who said we weren't obligated to pay for killings of civilians in Afghanistan. We are taught to obey the law of the land while doing our best TO CHANGE IT for a better law. This is the purpose of this forum, if you missed it.Jason wrote:Please name one prophet that said we weren't obligated to pay taxes to government....
- Jason
- Master of Puppets
- Posts: 18296
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
I already mentioned that....and he said he did it that they might not be laden (overburdened?) with taxes (as in taxes may have existed but not burdensome)...nor does he say taxes are bad.LoveIsTruth wrote:How's that for evidence? Now, let's see your evidence.And even I, myself, have labored with mine own hands that I might serve you, and that ye should not be laden with taxes, and that there should nothing come upon you which was grievous to be borne—and of all these things which I have spoken, ye yourselves are witnesses this day.
(Mosiah 2:14)
Yeah and zero tax gets you where???LoveIsTruth wrote:Please name one prophet who said we weren't obligated to pay for killings of civilians in Afghanistan. We are taught to obey the law of the land while doing our best TO CHANGE IT for a better law. This is the purpose of this forum, if you missed it.Jason wrote:Please name one prophet that said we weren't obligated to pay taxes to government....
This may (or may not) provide some additional insight into some tax history and realities....
http://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/01/i-hav ... uery=taxes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Since the original United States Constitution does not authorize the federal government to levy direct taxes (i.e., income taxes), a few extremists have refused to pay their federal income taxes, citing the Church’s belief in the inspired source of the Constitution as justification. (D&C 101:80.) To understand why the Church lends no support to those refusing to pay their taxes, let us first review the origins of taxation in America.
In the early beginnings of the United States, when the colonies were under the governmental control of Great Britain, the colonists protested the British taxation without representation as an infringement upon their liberties. Accordingly, the writers of the Constitution prohibited direct taxes by the federal government. Therefore, federal taxes during George Washington’s administration were imposed primarily on distilled spirits, tobacco and snuff, refined sugar, carriages, property sold at auction, bonds, and various legal documents. During the early history of the United States, the federal tax revenues were mainly obtained from customs and excise taxes.
It was not until the tremendous financial pressures caused by the Civil War (1861) that the Congress adopted the first of a series of revenue laws—among them, our first income tax. Due to the continued rise of our public debt during the war between the North and South, President Lincoln signed into law in July 1862 the most sweeping revenue-producing measure in the nation’s history to that time. The new law provided for progressive taxation, for levies on incomes, and for tax withholding. In addition to a variety of new taxes, the law also provided for the beginning of a permanent tax collecting agency—the forerunner of the present Internal Revenue Service.
The constitutional right of the federal government to levy direct taxes on the people was challenged many times in our nation’s history, and the courts ruled that direct taxes were unconstitutional. A classic example was in the 1890s when Congress passed a tariff law providing for a small income tax. It was challenged in our federal courts and was twice brought before the Supreme Court. The second time, in 1895, the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional, essentially saying that any income tax was direct and therefore unconstitutional; consequently, the Income Tax Division in the office of Internal Revenue was dissolved.
When William H. Taft became President in 1909, a new era was beginning and the United States needed more financial resources. Huge numbers of people were moving to the cities. As a result of the need for revenue and continuing clamor for tax reform, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was proposed to give Congress the power to tax the people directly. This amendment to the Constitution was passed by Congress in 1909, but it was not ratified by three-fourths of the states until February, 1913. The 16th Amendment provides that:
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
It is because of the 16th Amendment that the United States Internal Revenue Service has the constitutional right to collect federal income taxes. While many dozens of court cases have challenged the 16th Amendment, all have failed.
A fundamental and divine principle of the Constitution is that the federal government of the United States will be governed by and for the people it serves. Accordingly, an integral part of the inspired document’s ingenuity lies within its specific procedure to amend itself as the country expands and becomes more complex. When an amendment is properly ratified, it “shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution.” (U.S. Constitution, Article 5.)
Until the people of the United States repeal the 16th Amendment, the levying of federal income taxes is lawful and constitutional. Thus, Latter-day: Saints are committed to the payment of their legal share of the taxes as confirmed by the 12th Article of Faith: “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” [A of F 1:12]
Because of the history just reviewed, some extremists refuse to pay their income taxes and eventually are placed in jail for their actions. Nevertheless, the Church authorities lend no support to these extremists, as was indicated by President Harold B. Lee at the October 1972 general conference when he instructed:
“Now there is another danger that confronts us. There seem to be those among us who are as wolves among the flock, trying to lead some who are weak and unwary among Church members, according to reports that have reached us, who are taking the law into their own hands by refusing to pay their income tax because they have some political disagreement with constituted authorities.” (Ensign, January 1973, p. 106.)
In the April 1973 Priesthood Bulletin the Church reaffirmed its position against those “who claim Church membership … making it appear as though their opposition to Federal tax laws is Church sponsored” by referring to President Lee’s aforementioned conference admonition and concluded with the following instructions to Church leaders:
“We ask priesthood leaders to be on guard against such persons. They are not to be invited to speak in priesthood or sacrament meetings, firesides, or other Church meetings in attempting to spread their propaganda. Priesthood leaders should also teach the necessity of abiding the law according to the revelations.
“The Lord has said:
“‘Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.
“‘Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet.’” (D&C 58:21–22.)
- LoveIsTruth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5497
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
LoveIsTruth wrote:How's that for evidence? Now, let's see your evidence.And even I, myself, have labored with mine own hands that I might serve you, and that ye should not be laden with taxes, and that there should nothing come upon you which was grievous to be borne—and of all these things which I have spoken, ye yourselves are witnesses this day.
(Mosiah 2:14)
First of all: That's your opinion. The evidence seem to point the other way. All the wicked kings had taxation explicitly pointed out in the Book of Mormon. Not the righteous ones.Jason wrote:I already mentioned that....and he said he did it that they might not be laden (overburdened?) with taxes (as in taxes may have existed but not burdensome)
Taxation is theft:Jason wrote:...nor does he say taxes are bad.
And therefore is always wrong, unless the king owns the land. I dare you to prove otherwise.
Liberty.Jason wrote:Yeah and zero tax gets you where???
16th amendment has been conclusively proven NOT to have been ratified properly. Secondly, taxation is always immoral because it violates the Benson Principle.Jason wrote:This may (or may not) provide some additional insight into some tax history and realities....
http://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/01/i-hav ... uery=taxes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I dare you to prove otherwise. And while we obey the law we must do all in our power to establish righteous laws without legal plunder known as taxation. I dare you to prove how taxation is NOT plunder. You will fail.
Truth speaks for itself.
- Jason
- Master of Puppets
- Posts: 18296
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
Yeah when it was "burdensome" as in half their production....LoveIsTruth wrote:First of all: That's your opinion. The evidence seem to point the other way. All the wicked kings had taxation explicitly pointed out in the Book of Mormon. Not the righteous ones.
Ooh a dare a dare....ask Larken why he ended up spending 15 months in prison??? or why he stated (via criminal evidence entered at court) "I don't actually like the Constitution"? or why he stated (again via court case evidence) "I feel no obligation to obey" the law?LoveIsTruth wrote:Taxation is theft:Jason wrote:...nor does he say taxes are bad.
And therefore is always wrong, unless the king owns the land. I dare you to prove otherwise.
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/055199p.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Your whole argument of taxation is theft is from an anarchist??? One who doesn't subscribe to the fundamentals of the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution???
And I'm supposed to prove otherwise???
...and no government and anarchy....and then the reality that there is no liberty...LoveIsTruth wrote:LibertyJason wrote:Yeah and zero tax gets you where???
Take it up with your "representation".....or move to another country and put yourself under a different government...even if its your own island...LoveIsTruth wrote:16th amendment has been conclusively proven NOT to have been ratified properly. Secondly, taxation is always immoral because it violates the Benson Principle.Jason wrote:This may (or may not) provide some additional insight into some tax history and realities....
http://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/01/i-hav ... uery=taxes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I dare you to prove otherwise. And while we obey the law we must do all in our power to establish righteous laws without legal plunder known as taxation. I dare you to prove how taxation is NOT plunder. You will fail.
Truth speaks for itself.
Truth is you are an anarchist.....and that has never equivocated to lasting liberty or freedom. Good luck with your Rockefeller/Volker funded libertarian philosophy...
- EclecticLibertarian
- captain of 50
- Posts: 79
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
No. It is NOT the basis of my arguments. The basis of my arguments is the Sovereignty of the Individual, or as you might better understand it, FREE AGENCY.LoveIsTruth wrote:Your statement of "equal claim to all that exists on the earth" is plainly wrong! You cannot brush it off! This is the basis of your arguments, and it is DEMONSTRATIVELY false!
When you redefined terms so broadly as to suit your definition, you create all kinds of problems, not the least of which is confusing anyone trying to understand what you mean. That is the very LAST thing you'd want to do when amending the Constitution. Furthermore, sovereignty, while not meaningless without property, is certainly more limited. The liberty to choose is certainly curtailed if one does not have the option of private property. Nevertheless, small children who are wards of their parents are effectively in such a position as their rights to private property are generally controlled by their parents or legal guardian(s).LoveIsTruth wrote:Again, sovereignty is MEANINGLESS without property (broad definition of it of course). Therefore they are one and the same. You cannot separate them. They are ONE.
No. Sovereignty and property are definitely NOT the same. To conflate the terms is to confuse meaning and cloud understanding. I urge you not to do this. Even your username does this, although it may be forgiven as it is rather poetic and likely not intended to be a literal claim. Nevertheless, the essence of collectivism is not that property is subject to the will of the collective, but rather that all things are subject to the will of the collective, i.e. the Collective is Sovereign (as opposed to the individual or the Monarch/Dictator or religious leader, etc.)LoveIsTruth wrote:Sovereignty and property are the same. Thus the essence of collectivism is that the PROPERTY of the individual is subordinated to and can be violated by the will of the collective. Sovereignty without private property means exactly NOTHING!
I'd rather not derail the discussion by exploring this tangent overmuch; but, I suggest that such principles do exist and would exist independent of the existence of God.LoveIsTruth wrote:It is no more "convention" than sovereignty or Liberty. These are ETERNAL principles that originate where man originates, with God.
I disagree that the Founders were wrong in the way that you believe they were; though I am not shocked that you believe they were wrong. When you begin from a false set of premises, your conclusions are likely to be incorrect as well. While it is true that the Founders expected that their descendants would make necessary changes and improvements to their work, they also anticipated that their descendants might mess things up as well.LoveIsTruth wrote:The Founders were wrong. Are you shocked? They predicted that their descendants would improve their work.
No. And you are amazingly naive or almost hopelessly brainwashed if you believe the government is not best suited for providing those specific things I mentioned above. I definitely would not put my trust in private police, military or court systems to protect my rights and liberties. I definitely wouldn't trust private organizations with the electoral process, or with protecting my health from pandemics, food-borne illnesses, etc. Now if you want to argue the merits of a privatized health care system, educational system, or banking system, I'd be happy to oblige (in a separate thread of course).LoveIsTruth wrote: All these services can be provided MUCH better by the private sector. They will deliver these products with better quality and at a better price than the government forced monopoly.
While I generally agree with most things produced by the Mises Institute, I haven't had the time to review the video. Nevertheless, if you have an argument to make, I recommend you make it yourself rather than embedding a video. Nevertheless, the proper role of government is to secure and defend the rights of the Individual; not simply manage "public property".LoveIsTruth wrote:Thus the only proper role of government is to manage public property.
Guffaw! It would be pointless to start with your so-called fundamental principles of Liberty when their premises are so flawed. Liberty Sovereignty and Property are not synonymous or interchangeable. Each word has a very distinct and specific meaning. If you wish to discuss the actual fundamental principles of liberty, then I would be happy to do so, but let us begin first by defining terms and not conflating them or attributing meanings to terms that are foreign to them and found nowhere in any dictionary definition or usage by philosophers or the founding fathers.LoveIsTruth wrote:I have, you have not. If so, then let's start with fundamental principles of Liberty and build upward from there. Are you game?
Liberty - the ability to act without artificial constraint.
Sovereign - Supreme or absolute authority--not being subject to the will of another individual or group.
Property - that which may be owned or possessed, or controlled either individually or jointly held with another party over which one has absolute authority or liberty to control, manipulate, or destroy or convey to another party's ownership and/or possession.
Rights - Specific Human liberties recognized as being inalienable and inherent or endowed by Nature or God or Civil liberties agreed as being inalienable which cannot justifiably be infringed upon except by due process upon conviction of a crime.
Lets begin with these definitions and if we can come to a consensus or agreement on these, then we can move forward.
- LoveIsTruth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5497
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
Prove it.Jason wrote:Yeah when it was "burdensome"...
LoveIsTruth wrote:Taxation is theft:Jason wrote:...nor does he say taxes are bad.
And therefore is always wrong, unless the king owns the land. I dare you to prove otherwise.
You can't disprove it. So you have failed. The rest of your blabber is quite irrelevant. You have failed.Jason wrote:Ooh a dare a dare....
Because he is an honest and courageous man.Jason wrote:ask Larken why he ended up spending 15 months in prison???
Because he is right. The Constitution, though largely inspired, has deadly flaws that need to be fixed.Jason wrote:or why he stated (via criminal evidence entered at court) "I don't actually like the Constitution"? or why he stated (again via court case evidence) "I feel no obligation to obey" the law?
Yep. And you CANNOT disprove it. I dare you if you can. You will fail because truth is unconquerable and it will yet dance on the graves of fools and idiots who laughed at it. Read the Scriptures, it is true.Jason wrote:Your whole argument of taxation is theft is from an anarchist??? One who doesn't subscribe to the fundamentals of the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution???
You are powerless to do so. Truth cannot be dis-proven, by definition.Jason wrote:And I'm supposed to prove otherwise???
LoveIsTruth wrote:LibertyJason wrote:Yeah and zero tax gets you where???
I did not say no government. I said government consigned to its proper role.Jason wrote:...and no government and anarchy....and then the reality that there is no liberty...
Anarchy (3rd definition) is the very definition of Freedom. We have been over it already.Jason wrote:Truth is you are an anarchist.....
Good luck with your pitch black understanding and your impenetrable mind. Someday, you will feel like a fool. (I bet this' how you feel on most days anyway .)Jason wrote:Good luck with your Rockefeller/Volker funded libertarian philosophy...
- Jason
- Master of Puppets
- Posts: 18296
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
Yeah I think that about sums it up....LoveIsTruth wrote:Good luck with your pitch black understanding and your impenetrable mind. Someday, you will feel like a fool. (I bet this' how you feel on most days anyway .)Jason wrote:Good luck with your Rockefeller/Volker funded libertarian philosophy...
- EclecticLibertarian
- captain of 50
- Posts: 79
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
Moral law has no place in Secular Government. The only proper laws in a Secular Government are those protecting liberty; Imposing moral laws (e.g. as Muslims do with Sharia Law, and Christians do with anti-Same-sex Marriage Laws) is religious tyranny. Now it so happens that in many instances, that which is considered immoral by some or most is also an infringement upon the liberty of others. In many other cases, what is considered immoral by some or even most is not an infringement upon the liberty of others. In some cases, what is not considered immoral by some is nevertheless an infringement upon the liberty of others. Because moral conviction is generally a function of individual religious or philosophical belief, it should not be the basis of legislation under a secular government. Otherwise, what results is tyranny, i.e. the infringement upon the liberty of another by the whole of society upon those who do not share the religious conviction held by the majority of society. It is for this reason, among others, that the Founding Fathers declared that Congress shall declare no law respecting the establishment of religion nor restricting the free exercise thereof. The morals of the majority are not justification for tyranny upon the minority members of society, whether that tyranny is experienced in the form of religious discrimination or the imposition of supporting a religious organization one does not hold to, or being forbidden from practicing religious beliefs that do not infringe upon the liberties of others.Jason wrote:What happened to moral law? Laws of Moses starting with the 10 commandments....and enforced by Israelite government....as well as God....etc etc etc etc etc
fyi - King Benjamin also applied the Laws of Moses....
- Jason
- Master of Puppets
- Posts: 18296
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
Agree to disagree.EclecticLibertarian wrote:Moral law has no place in Secular Government. The only proper laws in a Secular Government are those protecting liberty; Imposing moral laws (e.g. as Muslims do with Sharia Law, and Christians do with anti-Same-sex Marriage Laws) is religious tyranny. Now it so happens that in many instances, that which is considered immoral by some or most is also an infringement upon the liberty of others. In many other cases, what is considered immoral by some or even most is not an infringement upon the liberty of others. In some cases, what is not considered immoral by some is nevertheless an infringement upon the liberty of others. Because moral conviction is generally a function of individual religious or philosophical belief, it should not be the basis of legislation under a secular government. Otherwise, what results is tyranny, i.e. the infringement upon the liberty of another by the whole of society upon those who do not share the religious conviction held by the majority of society. It is for this reason, among others, that the Founding Fathers declared that Congress shall declare no law respecting the establishment of religion nor restricting the free exercise thereof. The morals of the majority are not justification for tyranny upon the minority members of society, whether that tyranny is experienced in the form of religious discrimination or the imposition of supporting a religious organization one does not hold to, or being forbidden from practicing religious beliefs that do not infringe upon the liberties of others.Jason wrote:What happened to moral law? Laws of Moses starting with the 10 commandments....and enforced by Israelite government....as well as God....etc etc etc etc etc
fyi - King Benjamin also applied the Laws of Moses....
- LoveIsTruth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5497
- LoveIsTruth
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5497
Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
The Non-Aggression Principle
The Non-Aggression Principle corresponds to the First Fundamental Principle of Liberty. (See the top of the thread).
The Non-Aggression Principle corresponds to the First Fundamental Principle of Liberty. (See the top of the thread).
Last edited by LoveIsTruth on April 28th, 2012, 1:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.