The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

[LoveIsTruth]

Brilliant! Just like the earth is spherical and not flat as was believed for hundreds of years, so None Aggression Principle will eventually be acknowledged as the true and correct way to build a society!

[LoveIsTruth]

But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over? (by Robert P. Murphy)



Article Text: http://mises.org/daily/1855" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[LoveIsTruth]

Lew Rockwell
Alex talks with Lew Rockwell and Gary Johnson on the Thursday, June 14 edition of the Alex Jones Show. Lew Rockwell is an anarcho-capitalist, the president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, the editor of LewRockwell.com, and former Ron Paul congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982. He is the author of numerous books, including Speaking of Liberty and The Left, The Right and The State. Gary Johnson is a businessman, a former Governor of New Mexico, and the Libertarian Party nominee for President of the United States in the 2012 election. Alex continues his exploration of the Rand and Ron Paul firestorm sweeping the patriot movement and also covers other important news stories.

Listen Now Windows Media

I like Lew Rockwell!

[LoveIsTruth]

Larken Rose on Dangerous Myths

[durangout]

Silly me! I thought obedience to the commandments of God was the fundalmental priciple (the only really) of liberty. Liberty of course is only possible b/c of the atonement of Jesus Christ.

[jonesde]

Silly me! I thought obedience to the commandments of God was the fundalmental priciple (the only really) of liberty. Liberty of course is only possible b/c of the atonement of Jesus Christ.

What does that mean? It makes no sense. It is a juxtaposition of two very different principles, important, but different.

Do you have any scriptural references or quotes or even personal opinion that might help me understand what you mean by this?

Think of me as an alien without the same background you have...

[LoveIsTruth]

Thanks, jonesde!

[LoveIsTruth]

Message to the Voting Cattle - Larken Rose



If you vote for any politician or for any "law" that violates the Fundamental Principles of Liberty, you are voting for tyranny, enslavement and destruction of the human race, whether you realize it or not.

[LoveIsTruth]

Lew Rockwell: Gov’t is Far Worse Than The Mafia

"Government murdered infinitely more people than the mafia."

Start at 4:21

[rickytheory]

Silly me! I thought obedience to the commandments of God was the fundalmental priciple (the only really) of liberty. Liberty of course is only possible b/c of the atonement of Jesus Christ.

What does that mean? It makes no sense. It is a juxtaposition of two very different principles, important, but different.

Do you have any scriptural references or quotes or even personal opinion that might help me understand what you mean by this?

Think of me as an alien without the same background you have...

Sorry this is a little late but I wrote an essay that logically completes the connection between obedience and liberty. You can check it out at http://www.ldsliberty.org/the-science-of-liberty/

Let me know what you think. Also I would be glad to hear your feedback if anything was unclear or if you disagree.

[LoveIsTruth]

Sorry this is a little late but I wrote an essay that logically completes the connection between obedience and liberty. You can check it out at http://www.ldsliberty.org/the-science-of-liberty/

Let me know what you think. Also I would be glad to hear your feedback if anything was unclear or if you disagree.

You made many BRILLIANT points in your essay! Thank you.


I have however one question. You said: "Any other government services must be optional in order not to infringe upon the rights of those who don’t want and use the services." Do you mean to justify by that taxation (i.e. involuntary confiscation of property) for the purpose of paying for "law enforcement service?" If so I disagree with that point, because it is equivalent to saying "Let us rob you now, so no one can rob you later." But please clarify your position first. Thanks.

[rickytheory]

Thanks!

No, I did not mean that. I agree with you completely, and you're right that it would utterly contradict the premise of that section. Thanks for pointing that out, I'll have to change that so that it won't be interpreted like that in the future. And yes, I do see how the way I phrased it can portray the wrong idea.

The main point I wanted to get across from the essay was the direct relationship between morality and liberty. The link being knowledge. Specifically intended for the ever-expanding group of people that understand the principles of the external application in regard to physical government, namely the principle of non-aggression. I think that without the moral elements those wonderful people who are embracing the ideas of liberty are still missing an important key to the grand picture.

[LoveIsTruth]

Thanks!

No, I did not mean that. I agree with you completely, and you're right that it would utterly contradict the premise of that section. Thanks for pointing that out, I'll have to change that so that it won't be interpreted like that in the future. And yes, I do see how the way I phrased it can portray the wrong idea.

The main point I wanted to get across from the essay was the direct relationship between morality and liberty. The link being knowledge. Specifically intended for the ever-expanding group of people that understand the principles of the external application in regard to physical government, namely the principle of non-aggression. I think that without the moral elements those wonderful people who are embracing the ideas of liberty are still missing an important key to the grand picture.

Excellent points! You are a genius! What did you think about my 5 amendments to the US Constitution?


Thanks.

[LoveIsTruth]

[Tribunal]

LIT!!! That is awesome! I wish people realized this simple fact. :ymapplause:

[LoveIsTruth]

LIT!!! That is awesome! I wish people realized this simple fact. :ymapplause:

Thanks! I just re-posted it; someone else created it!

[LoveIsTruth]

Who You Really Are

[LoveIsTruth]

Johnny Carson Show - Interview with Ayn Rand



Ayn Rand was utterly brilliant. She understood correctly the Fundamental Principles of Liberty. This is a great discovery! Enlightened self interest is a true and divine principle, the same that exists in God himself. Private property (broadly understood) is Liberty. The Benson Principle. The Non Aggression Principle. The ridiculousness of the claims of collectivists ("Let us destroy your Liberty now so you won't lose it later") etc... She got it all!

Her only flaw is ignorance of the existence of God, but she embraced most of the principles that come from him. And how fitting that she is from Russia, the home of socialism, to present the correct principles of Liberty! (Just like brilliant Frederic Bastiat was from France, the country that originated socialism, and he exposed the flaws of it!)

Ayn Rand First Interview 1959 (Full)

[LoveIsTruth]

Ron Paul: [size=200]The U.S. is a Republic, NOT ... cy![/size]

[LoveIsTruth]

Thomas E. Woods, Jr., Author of "Rollback," at FreedomFest 2012



The fundamental principles of Liberty described at the top of this thread are the solution.

[imperfectionst]

Who You Really Are

Thank you! I'm a big fan of Alan Watts!

[LoveIsTruth]

Who You Really Are

Thank you! I'm a big fan of Alan Watts!

You are welcome!

[LoveIsTruth]

Judge Napolitano on the Virtues of Private Justice [img]http://www.thedailybell.com/imag ... .jpg[/img]

...
Daily Bell: You are a libertarian. Are you an anarcho-capitalist?

Judge Napolitano: Well, it depends how you define those terms. I am a Randian, as in Ayn Rand, on economics. I am a Rothbardian, as in Murray Rothbard, on most philosophical principles, specifically the morality of government in our lives. Some of the younger producers who worked with me on the late, lamented, now-missed "Freedom Watch" used to say that I was an anarcho-capitalist. I don't know what the term means, but I am always the most libertarian person in the room. (Laughing)

Daily Bell: Rothbard was. How can one believe in representative democracy as an anarchist?

Judge Napolitano: Representative democracy presumes that those who receive power from the voters will respect the natural law and will respect the Constitution. We rarely have seen in our era that both the natural law and the Constitution are respected. Majority rules obviously means the rights of the minority so only a government tempered by the natural law, and in America tempered by the Constitution, has a moral one. That's why I said earlier almost all federal law is unconstitutional because it's either not grounded in a power granted to the Congress in the Constitution, or even if grounded there, violates the natural law. Beyond that we'd have to get into specifics. Under the natural law, the government only has two purposes, and those are to preserve, protect and defend our rights from fraud and force and nothing else.

Daily Bell: Is representative democracy a positive choice? Or does it always lead to despotism eventually?

Judge Napolitano: It usually leads to despotism because it usually draws to it people who suffer from labido dominandi, a Latin phrase that St. Augustine used, which is the 'lust to dominate' and the government doesn't usually draw people who think the way Ron Paul or Gary Johnson or I do. When I was in the government, in the judicial branch – we are really exceptions. The vast majority of people who are drawn there are busybodies, nanny-staters, bed-wetters and do-gooders who think that somehow they have the power to tell us how to live our lives differently than how we choose to live them.So yes, representative democracy will lead to despotism without a judiciary seriously committed to constitutional principles and natural law principles. We do not have a judiciary today. Occasionally we hear it from Justice Thomas; sometimes we hear it from Justice Scalia; occasionally we hear it from Justice Kennedy. There is a smattering of lower court federal judges, but only these arguments are appointed by Democratic presidents. But for the most part, the Judiciary presumes to be constitutional whatever the legislative branch has done, and thus finds ways to uphold legislation.Von Mises said that government is essentially the negation of liberty. I believe he is correct. From that it follows that whatever the government does should be presumed unconstitutional and violative of the natural law. Rather than the challenger having the burden of saying why the legislation or the government behavior is wrong, the government should have the burden of saying why the legislation or the government behavior is consistent with the Constitution and consistent with the natural law. Simply switching that presumption would radically change the ability and the inclination of the courts to invalidate much of what government does in deference to our individual choices.

Daily Bell: Is modern law made to include natural law and economics? If not, why not?

Judge Napolitano: It doesn't matter. Natural law is part of our humanity and modern law is subject to that. The creature is subject to the creator. The creators of law are human beings and we all are subject to the laws of physics, the laws of economics, the laws of nature. 'Some men say the Earth is round and some men say the Earth is flat but if it is round, let the kings command flatten it, and if it is flat by an act of parliament, make it round.' Of course, the answer to both questions is no because all governments are subject to the laws of nature as are human beings. So the government ignores the natural law but it is ultimately subject to the natural law just like we are all subject to the movement of the Earth around the Sun and to a flat Earth or a round Earth, whatever the case may be.

Daily Bell: We've argued for common law here – not British common law but real common law, pre-Babylon, common law as it existed within tribal contexts for tens of thousands of years. Can you comment on that?

Judge Napolitano: That's a very complicated observation on your part. The common law that we inherited was the common law in Great Britain in the 17th and 18th centuries, which is essentially judge-written law based upon notions of fairness and tradition in history. For the most part it embodied the natural law and for the most part it has been irradiated by positive law, by the statutes that have been enacted by Congress, for instance, and by state legislatures. You remember that TV commercial, "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature?" Whenever the government violates the natural law, there are unintended consequences to it. I believe that we were created by an omnipotent, Supreme Being. Some people call him Allah; some people call him as do I, the Father. Now, I believe he made us in his image and likeness and he doesn't have a body but we do; he's not going to die and we are. But the one thing absolutely in common between the creator and the creature is freedom. When the government takes away human freedom, it takes away that one aspect of our humanity that is closest to the creator. There are inimitably adverse consequences to such interference.

Daily Bell: Follow-up: Why does the state need to be in charge of law? Why can't people pursue justice privately?

Judge Napolitano: Because as a token of all this, government doesn't share power. It would take a government of Ron Paul's, Rand Paul's and your humble correspondent here to shrink the government radically and to repose into the hands of individuals the ability to address injustice on their own. It truly goes back to the Middle Ages when people transferred to the government the right to punish.Think about it. If my house is broken into and they steal my favorite book, what business is that of the government? Well, the government has decided that they have the right to prosecute and punish but in a different world, I would have insured and have insurers' authority to pursue the thief, and it wouldn't cost my neighbors any money to bring about justice. But we live in a world where the right to punish exists only in the hands of the government because it was perceived as fairer and more convenient at the time it was transferred. It's not fairer or more convenient today; it's politically subjective today. The greatest lawbreaker is the government itself so how could we possibly rely on the government to give us justice?

Daily Bell: What is justice?

Judge Napolitano: Depending on each individual, justice is different in different cases. Justice is certainly not the government taking property from us against our will. I mean justice is a series of voluntary transactions which, when interfered with, are made whole again on the basis of fairness and principles of morality. I can give you thousands of examples of injustice; most prosecutions are unjust because they tax the general populace for what is essentially a private dispute.

Daily Bell: Wouldn't private justice with its duels and vendettas be far preferable to public justice that in the US has incarcerated up to six million or more people, many of them unfairly, for long prisons sentences that doom families to separation and poverty?

Judge Napolitano: I don't want to get into duels and vendettas but if you are at home one night and you hear a knock on the door, and you answer the door and a guy standing there points a gun at you, and says give me your money, I want to give it away in your name, and you think the guy's crazy and you call the police, and you find out he is the police, come to collect your taxes ... if you don't pay them they come with a gun. What do they do with the money? They give it away.This is basically the system we have today and it is the system that we accept because we have come to the perverse belief in government, which can't deliver the mail, which can't run the school system, can't manage roads without potholes in them but somehow it can keep us safe and keep us prosperous. It can't. It is the perverse reliance upon government's delivered goods and services that has proven for hundreds of years, or at least 120 years, that it cannot deliver. The continued refusal to examine the proper role of government in our society that has brought us to where we are today and to the point where we can see change in people's thinking, for the government to be shrunk.


Read more: http://www.thedailybell.com/4257/Anthon ... te-Justice

[sbsion]

THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF LIBERTY is agency, the freer we are to chose the greater opportunity for our expression

[LoveIsTruth]

THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF LIBERTY is agency, the freer we are to chose the greater opportunity for our expression

That's nice. My goal was to discover a coherent, non-contradictory and true system of axioms and theorems that derive from them, that precisely describe:

• 1) what liberty is, and
  2) what are the laws that a society must follow in order to have liberty;
  3) what are the precise limitations on the use of force in the society if Liberty is to exist.

That system is embodied in the three fundamental principles, which are exceedingly well adapted for legislation purposes, as described in the 5 constitutional amendments proposed, based on the 3 principles.

Your short statement, though true, does none of the above. It is insufficient; whereas my system is.

Cheers!