The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

The Fundamental Principles of Liberty
The Science of Liberty

Liberty is science, and Justice is science. Their laws are Natural Laws, and are not subject to opinions or conjecture of politicians, and can neither be made nor unmade by them, any more than politicians can legislate away the law of gravity, or of electricity, or of mechanics. These Natural Laws of Liberty and Justice are absolute. They determine the proper use of force if liberty is to exist. Discovering these laws and living in harmony with them ensures peace, liberty and prosperity of any society. Violating these laws will inevitably lead to destruction of Liberty, and if unchecked, to the destruction of the society itself.

The fundamental principles of Liberty and justice are these:

First and foremost, is the one from which all other principles derive:

Private property is Liberty and ought not to be violated.

Private Property is defined as something that you own, that belongs to you and none else, so that you:


a) do not have to ask anyone’s permission to use it, but
b) others must obtain your voluntary permission to use, because it is yours, and
c) you can do with it whatever you please, as long as you do not violate the property of another.
A just owner of a property is either:


i) the first user of it, or
ii) the recipient of it via voluntary gift, bequest or sale.

Your Private Property, thus defined, includes, among other things: you, your body, your mind, your ability to make choices, your ability to move, to speak, to act, the fruits of your labor, your natural, unalienable rights, etc.

This is why Private Property and Liberty are one and the same. Therefore, you cannot violate or diminish one without violating or diminishing the other.

It is actually the case, that all rights and virtues derive from the concept of Private Property, and are, in fact, entirely meaningless without it.

To prove this, let’s look again at Liberty and Justice, for example. What are they?

They are nothing more or less than Private Property.

What is justice if not the right to use equal force necessary to offset an aggression against and repair damages to private property caused by another? And what is Liberty if not the right to do with your own property whatever you please as long as you do not violate the property of another? Both Justice and Liberty, therefore, are attributes of Private Property and have exactly ZERO meaning without it. This is why I say that Justice and Liberty are two sides of the same coin, which coin is Private Property; in other words, Justice and Liberty are one and the same as Private Property. You cannot violate or diminish one without violating or diminishing the other. They are the same thing.

The First Fundamental Principle of Liberty is also known as, and is equivalent to, the Non Aggression Principle, because "non-violation" is "non-aggression."

Significantly, The First Fundamental Principle of Liberty is also exactly equivalent to God’s commandments:

Thou shall not kill. Thou shall not steal.

Thus God reaffirms Life, and the right of Private Property, as well as defines Liberty and Justice.
From this also, we can see that God is a Libertarian, because he lives by, and is indeed the source of, the central and defining principle of Libertarianism.

These great commandments apply to individuals and to governments. Any society that lives by these two commandments HAS TO BE a strictly VOLUNTARY society, because otherwise, if aggressive violence of coercion is permitted, it would instantly violate these two commandments.

Incidentally, this is also the very reason why the FIRST plank of Luciferian/Illuminati/Communist Manifesto is to abolish Private Property, because thus they abolish Justice, Liberty, and consequently Life itself through aggressive violence of coercion.

The opposition here is clear as night and day!

The very concepts of good and evil themselves, can be defined in terms of, and have the only meaning in context of Private Property:

Good is private property.
Evil is a violation of Private Property.

It is that simple.

The First Fundamental Principle of Liberty is the only law that governs Private Property in a society. Any other legislation on the subject of private property is completely superfluous and unnecessary, and indeed dangerous, because it is running the risk of violating this Fundamental Natural Law of Liberty. Any legislation that contradicts this Natural Law is immoral and unjust, and if unchecked will lead to the destruction of Liberty and ultimately the destruction of the society itself. That’s why it is best that all legislation regarding private property be abolished, and replaced with this ONE law.


Second Fundamental principle of Liberty (derived from the first):

Private property is not to be violated by a group.

If no one, individually, has a right to violate his neighbor’s property, or to initiate force upon him, neither does the group, whatever the size, because the group derives its authority from individuals, and no one can delegate an authority he does not have.

In other words, if it is unjust for one person to rob an individual, it is also unjust for many persons to rob him. A group being nothing more than a collection of individuals, therefore, if neither of them, individually, has a just claim upon someone’s property, neither does the whole group, no matter how large the group is.

The same can be stated in terms of delegation of authority:
If you, as an individual, have no moral right to force your neighbor to do or not to do something, or to violate his property, you cannot hire anybody else to do it for you, because you cannot delegate an authority you do not have.

And since representative government is nothing more than a group of individuals hired by other individuals to do for them only what they have a natural right to do for themselves and nothing more, therefore, the only proper role of representative government is to do for individuals what they have a natural right to do for themselves, and individually, asked the government to do for them, and nothing more, for none other authority could have been delegated to the government, because no one can delegate an authority he does not have.

In other words:
Since a representative government derives all of its legitimate authority by delegation from the governed, and no one can delegate an authority he does not have, the only proper role of such government, is to do for individuals only what they have a natural right to do for themselves, and individually asked the government to do for them, and nothing more.

Thus with regards to private property of your neighbor, if you have no right to violate it or to use force upon him, you cannot ask your government to do it in your behalf, because the only legitimate authority that the government has is what you delegated to it, and you cannot delegate an authority you do not have.

Example: If you, individually have no moral right to point a gun at your neighbor and force him to give money to the poor, you cannot rightly ask the government to do it either, because the ONLY legitimate authority that it has is delegated from YOU, and you CANNOT delegate an authority you do not have. This, among other things, irrefutably proves that ALL taxation is THEFT by definition, and is IMMORAL.

Thus, participation in any representative government must be strictly voluntary, meaning: you cannot force people to pay for government services if they do not wish to use them, because, again, government is nothing more than a group of individuals hired by other individuals to do a service for them, which they have a natural, unalienable right to do for themselves, (that is to protect their property), and you cannot force anyone to buy services they do not wish to use, for no such authority could have been delegated to the government, because no individual has such authority, therefore he cannot delegate it to the government, because no one can delegate an authority he does not have.

So, in essence, every individual must be treated as a sovereign country, all associations with which must be on strictly voluntary basis. It’s good to be king (of your domain)!

This also shows that the principles of Liberty and Justice are intrinsically and inseparably connected: A just society must necessarily be a free and voluntary one (otherwise it would not be just); and a free and voluntary society (in order to exist) must necessarily be a just society. Thus Liberty and Justice are the two sides of the very same coin, which coin is peace, freedom and prosperity.

It can be expressed in a short formula:

Justice = Voluntary Society
Voluntary Society = Justice

Thus all forms of coercion (i.e. aggressive violence) are unjust, by definition. In fact, injustice IS aggressive violence. Thus in the words of Ron Paul: "The only thing we should prohibit is violence." That's what liberty and justice is.

Note: The Second Fundamental Principle of Liberty is also known as the Benson Principle.


Third Fundamental principle of Liberty is (derived from the first two):

If there exists public property, that is property to which all have equal claim of ownership, it can be managed by the voice of the majority, provided that a) property of no individual is violated and b) everyone is treated equally.

This means, among other things, that a majority cannot rightly deprive someone of the use of public property completely without compensating him in some way, because that would violate his share in it, neither can they treat anyone differently in the use of it, since all have equal claim to it.

These are Natural Fundamental Principles of Liberty, and no society can enjoy Liberty, prosperity and peace if they violate them.

Application

To square the United States Constitution with these Fundamental Principles of Liberty (without which Liberty cannot exist and must unavoidably perish), I proposed these five amendments. Note: all 5 LIMIT the power of government back to its proper role.

The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment
Honest Money Constitutional Amendment
Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Taxation
Nullification - Constitutional Amendment
Constitutional Amendment: Abolishing Copyrights and Patents

From these principles it is obvious, that the proper role of government is to manage public property, and perhaps, non-exclusively, protect Private Property, and nothing more!

Also check out these essays:
The Correct Principles of Liberty and The Errors of the US Constitution.
The Science of Liberty, (a short essay)

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

Ok, I elaborated it, and derives 2nd and third from the 1st.

What do you think? Did I get it right?

[SwissMrs&Pitchfirecaptain of 1,000]

It minces words and mixes terms and the 1st says there can't or shouldn't be a superfluous 2nd or 3rd.

I agree in principle with the first idea but the wording is dangerous. Defining rights is the kicker and whether you boil them all down to a transient right to property or elaborate on them specifically they will need to be defined at the start or by the courts and judges later.

For instance if I particularly like a particular pornographic painting, do I have the right to prominently display it on my private property such that it is viewable from yours? If not then you must (as the founders stated "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes") prove harm (no harm no foul, no claim). Now if you articulate a right to virtue and lay that bare then mankind may walk safely upon that ground to the degree you do it successfully. I would link this to the several threads regarding legislating morality (an area where some of us diverge).

If a right is defined as eternally valid, and it should be, then neither God nor man can fault you for exercising it. When "rights" become transient (supposed rights) then the real rights become tenuous.

If God cannot enforce a right against us then it follows that there never can be a right to do wrong.

Any wrong violates the rights of God and man. If I make less of myself than I could or should then society is harmed and worse for it. They have claim upon those rights such that they may exercise justice to reclaim those rights. But only to the degree of the offense, any more and they are (by justice) guilty of offense. That means that societies means of enforcing this right is directly correlated and proportional to the offense which requires an opposite or balancing effect. So the punishment that society may meat out is love and patience and long suffering and love unfeigned (unfaked) and helping you develop thusly and express your full potential to the benefit of all through these means.

People always recoil at legislating morality as if a new crusade has sprung up to murder people for not going to church when in reality true justice with an eye toward mercy would see a much less brutal punitive world than we now see.

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

It minces words and mixes terms and the 1st says there can't or shouldn't be a superfluous 2nd or 3rd.

Thanks for your response. Good point. 2nd and 3rd are derived from the 1st. From the actual 5 amendments proposed at the end, you can see that the 1st principle is used to replace all laws pertaining to private property (in the Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment), and the 2nd principle is used to abolish taxation and to restore sound money via free competition in currencies.

I agree in principle with the first idea but the wording is dangerous. Defining rights is the kicker and whether you boil them all down to a transient right to property or elaborate on them specifically they will need to be defined at the start or by the courts and judges later.

For instance if I particularly like a particular pornographic painting, do I have the right to prominently display it on my private property such that it is viewable from yours? If not then you must (as the founders stated "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes") prove harm (no harm no foul, no claim).

In the scenario you presented you are violating the public and private property of others by displaying (projecting) pornography unto their property, that they are forced to see when looking outside their window, and you have no right to violate their property. (It is similar to the scenario where one builds a pig farm next to your house and pollutes your air and property with stink and noise. You have no right to do so, i.e. you have no right to violate the property of others). So the scenario you described is taken care of under the 1st principle.

Now if you articulate a right to virtue and lay that bare then mankind may walk safely upon that ground to the degree you do it successfully. I would link this to the several threads regarding legislating morality (an area where some of us diverge).

If a right is defined as eternally valid, and it should be, then neither God nor man can fault you for exercising it. When "rights" become transient (supposed rights) then the real rights become tenuous.

If God cannot enforce a right against us then it follows that there never can be a right to do wrong.

Any wrong violates the rights of God and man. If I make less of myself than I could or should then society is harmed and worse for it. They have claim upon those rights such that they may exercise justice to reclaim those rights. But only to the degree of the offense, any more and they are (by justice) guilty of offense. That means that societies means of enforcing this right is directly correlated and proportional to the offense which requires an opposite or balancing effect. So the punishment that society may meat out is love and patience and long suffering and love unfeigned (unfaked) and helping you develop thusly and express your full potential to the benefit of all through these means.

People always recoil at legislating morality as if a new crusade has sprung up to murder people for not going to church when in reality true justice with an eye toward mercy would see a much less brutal punitive world than we now see.

It is not always right to punish all the wrongs. For instance, it is morally wrong not to help the poor if you can, but it is also wrong to FORCE people to give money to the poor. The guiding principle here is the 2nd one: i.e. if you, as an individual, have no moral right to FORCE your neighbor to do (or not to do something), you cannot ask your government to do it for you, because you cannot delegate an authority you do not have.


Thanks for writing!

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

You can't put it any more succinctly or eloquently than Bastiat did in The Law.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfirecaptain of 1,000]

I see what you're saying but without articulating what those rights are no one could ever own pigs.

Also I think in your example it is fine to "punish" the wrong. The error you make is to assume that the remedy is force when force isn't authorized as you correctly noted. The remedy is positive social pressure, through education and possibly other equally good alternatives.

Personally I do not believe in the delegation of rights. If they are truly inalienable then they are inseparable from the individual and consequently cannot be shared, collected, pooled, delegated, etc... Thus a government can never be more than a group of the people that make it up, same as a corporation, dealt with individually. Then when acting in office (govt or business) everyone is fully and personally accountable (a fact that cannot be ignored). Too much is done "in the name of," by individuals who think themselves immune from their individual acts by virtue of the authority of "collective rights" (which never can exist).

Man may be sovereign or subject himself by his consent to an authority he establishes (which he may alter or abolish if it ceases to serve the function for which it was created as in the Declaration of Independence). That authority however has no rights aside from the individuals who populate it. Those who subject themselves to that authority do so of their own free will since government has no body, no parts, nor passion, only an empty shell filled with individuals acting together by way of cooperation.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfirecaptain of 1,000]

Succinctly? I hope you don't mean that. Shame he messes up his entire premise by assuming that rights are not inalienable hence can be pooled.

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

You can't put it any more succinctly or eloquently than Bastiat did in The Law.

Agreed. However, distilling it to three, short, mutually derived principles helps.

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

I see what you're saying but without articulating what those rights are no one could ever own pigs.

Also I think in your example it is fine to "punish" the wrong. The error you make is to assume that the remedy is force when force isn't authorized as you correctly noted. The remedy is positive social pressure, through education and possibly other equally good alternatives.

What you are missing is that earthly law is ALWAYS force, or it is no law at all. What if he refuses your reeducation? You see my point? Law always come done to force, and God has the ultimate force. So the three principles of natural law I outlined establish the proper use of FORCE if Liberty is to exist.

Personally I do not believe in the delegation of rights. If they are truly inalienable then they are inseparable from the individual and consequently cannot be shared, collected, pooled, delegated, etc...

Agreed. Rights cannot be delegated, but authority (produced by the rights) can be. Thus you have a natural, unalienable right to defend yourself, your family and your property, therefore you can hire a person or a group of people and delegate to them the authority you have to protect you, your family and your property, etc. But you cannot delegate to them the authority to violate your neighbors property, because you have no such right, and therefore no such authority to delegate.

Thus a government can never be more than a group of the people that make it up, same as a corporation, dealt with individually. Then when acting in office (govt or business) everyone is fully and personally accountable (a fact that cannot be ignored). Too much is done "in the name of," by individuals who think themselves immune from their individual acts by virtue of the authority of "collective rights" (which never can exist).

Agreed completely.

Man may be sovereign or subject himself by his consent to an authority he establishes

Man is ALWAYS sovereign. This is one of those INALIENABLE rights, and you, in principle, CANNOT subject yourself to your own authority. It is a contradiction of terms.

(which he may alter or abolish if it ceases to serve the function for which it was created as in the Declaration of Independence). That authority however has no rights aside from the individuals who populate it. Those who subject themselves to that authority do so of their own free will since government has no body, no parts, nor passion, only an empty shell filled with individuals acting together by way of cooperation.

Agreed.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfirecaptain of 1,000]

I'll try to lay out the problem I have. On one hand you lay out that man has the authority to establish and operate government which is always force and on the other say that man may never subjugate himself as he always retains sovereignty.

I like the rules that George Albert Smith set to govern his life, specifically "I would not seek to force people to live up to my ideals but rather love them into doing the thing that is right." That's what I'm getting at and man always has the right to do good to his fellow man. Thus he may always use that compulsion to encourage good behavior (and should). But a government that uses force to compel will never succeed in doing anything but alienating and destroying his enemies whoever they be.

In the end Love is the only force that conquers. If you have kids you know that. I could break my kids in half and they would hate and despise me and be more willful than ever, but knowing I love them they would do most anything to please me. The government that operates based upon this principle will most assuredly govern best. I simply do not accept as true that everything any government does it does by force of violence. Satanic earthly governments yes, but not the kind after the order of heaven (such as we should be seeking).

Self defense in times of exigency is one thing and it is just, but government is absent in times of exigency or else exigency doesn't exist as a circumstance, there then being the possibility to appeal to that government (those people) for assistance in law.

It's funny because when I point out that the Church is a government by definition and uses compulsion and threat, everybody jumps up and disagrees and then turns around and states that all government operates by threat of violence. Isn't that humorous?

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

I'll try to lay out the problem I have. On one hand you lay out that man has the authority to establish and operate government which is always force and on the other say that man may never subjugate himself as he always retains sovereignty.

And what is the problem there? Government is nothing more than service for hire. Are you obligated to "subject" yourself to your carpet cleaner?

That's what I'm getting at and man always has the right to do good to his fellow man. Thus he may always use that compulsion to encourage good behavior (and should).

Compulsion is force. Do you have a right to break you neighbors door, point a gun at him and say: "You will not eat too much fried chicken, since it is not good for you, or else?" And if you have no moral right to do that, neither does the government. Because the only legitimate authority government has is what you delegated to it, and you cannot delegate an authority you do not have.

But a government that uses force to compel will never succeed in doing anything but alienating and destroying his enemies whoever they be.

Use of force is legitimate only to counteract the use of force. It is only justified to preserve ones property.

In the end Love is the only force that conquers. If you have kids you know that. I could break my kids in half and they would hate and despise me and be more willful than ever, but knowing I love them they would do most anything to please me. The government that operates based upon this principle will most assuredly govern best. I simply do not accept as true that everything any government does it does by force of violence. Satanic earthly governments yes, but not the kind after the order of heaven (such as we should be seeking).

Government is not your parent. They don't own your home (like a parent does own the home of the child). The only authority a representative government has is what you delegated to it, and you cannot delegate an authority you do not have.

It's funny because when I point out that the Church is a government by definition and uses compulsion and threat, everybody jumps up and disagrees and then turns around and states that all government operates by threat of violence. Isn't that humorous?

Church does not operate by the threat of violence. The most the church can do is to withdraw membership, that's all.

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

Here's an utterly brilliant article that supports my position:

State or Private Law Society?

"Indeed, the solution to the problem of social order has been known for hundreds of years. The solution is the idea of private property."

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

So what’s in your view the reason for all this mayhem we had on our planet?

Wickedness. Your people did not love their neighbor as themselves, which is the definition of wickedness.

Right.

That’s the core of your trouble, but from it, with regards to your social order, there grow three false doctrines of the devil:

The first is that private property is not sacred as Liberty itself, and can be taken by force if it is deemed beneficial for the group. That is false because Private Property IS Liberty, they are one and the same, and you cannot violate or diminish one without violating or diminishing the other.

The second false doctrine of the devil is that the group is more important than an individual, and therefore individuals must be sacrificed for the benefit of the group. That is false, because the group is nothing more than a collection of individuals, and when you sacrifice an individual for the group, you are sacrificing the group, only one person at a time.

And the third false doctrine of the devil is this very notion of collectivism, also known as “the greater good for the greater number” lie, which is taken to mean that a majority may deprive an individual or a minority of their natural, unalienable rights and of their property, if it is deemed beneficial for the greater number. That is a lie, because it presumes to give a majority the right to rob and kill a minority for gain. That is false because the group derives its authority from the individuals, and if neither of them has that authority, neither does the whole group. Therefore a million people have no more rights than one individual.

Thus individual rights and property are the supreme law, and are not subject to the vote of the majority, if liberty and justice are to exist. Because again, the group is nothing but a collection of individuals, therefore the only “greater good for the greater number” is what is good for an individual, which is his rights and property, everything else is a lie.

You see Liberty is science, and Justice is science. Their laws are Natural Laws, and are not subject to opinions or conjecture of politicians, and can neither be made nor unmade by them, any more than politicians can legislate away the law of gravity, or of electricity, or of mechanics. These Natural Laws of Liberty and Justice are absolute. They determine the proper use of force if liberty is to exist. Discovering these laws and living in harmony with them ensures peace, liberty and prosperity of any society. Violating these laws will inevitably lead to destruction of Liberty, and if unchecked, to the destruction of the society itself.

Now, the fundamental principles of Liberty and justice are these:
First and foremost, is the one from which all other principles derive:

Private property is Liberty and ought not to be violated.
The owner of a property can do whatever he wants with his property as long as he is not violating the property of others.
A just owner of a property is either the first user, or the recipient of it via voluntary gift, bequest or sale.

Second:
Private property is not to be violated by a group.
If no one, individually, has a right to violate his neighbor’s property or to use force upon him, neither does the group, because the group derives its authority from individuals, and no one can delegate an authority he does not have.

And the Third:
If there exists public property, that is property to which all have equal claim of ownership, it can be managed by the voice of the majority, provided that property of no individual is violated and everyone is treated equally.

These are Natural Fundamental Principles of Liberty, and no society can enjoy Liberty, prosperity and peace if they violate them.

[Matthew.Bcaptain of 100]

I admire the effort you've put into this, LoveIsTruth. However, you've missed one critical aspect that I can see: you have laid out no mechanic for the just punishment of someone who violates another's rights (and don't forget to enumerate that conscience and life are also rights- I don't think that "personal property is... taken in the broadest sense possible" is firm enough on those two items). How would you propose to try and convict an offender of the law?

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

I admire the effort you've put into this, LoveIsTruth. However, you've missed one critical aspect that I can see: you have laid out no mechanic for the just punishment of someone who violates another's rights (and don't forget to enumerate that conscience and life are also rights- I don't think that "personal property is... taken in the broadest sense possible" is firm enough on those two items). How would you propose to try and convict an offender of the law?

That question is answered here: please read The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment

Thanks.

[Thomascaptain of 1,000]

One problem I see here is when one person or small group claims the right to a large percentage or all of the property. It's pretty much the situation we had in the dark ages. That's where we get the term "landlord". We saw this in midevil Japan as well as Europe. Most of the population were peasants working as slaves for the small minority landlords. The Industrial Revolution helped bring about change in this system, moving large groups of peasants into the cities to work in factories. It's easy to forget that, Communism is a relativly new concept on this planet and was conceived as a solution to the slavery of feudalism. Public property is a relativley new concept on this planet. Even to this day, the Monachy of England owns vast tracts of land and roads.

I am not sure what the answer is but a return to feudalism is not the way to go. America has long been a mix of socalism and capitlism. We benefit greatly from public roads,sewers, waters systems, etc.. I know many conservatives want to privatize everything. That would return us to feudalism. We hear a lot about the dangers of communism but I see us moving more in the direction of corporate feudulism with the corporations grabbing up all resources. The distribution of wealth in this country bears that out with an ever shrinking middle class and the top one percent owning almost half of all wealth now.Ten years ago it was around thirty percent. There has to be a way to allow all people an opportunity to make use of the resources God gave to us all, without resorting to the tryranny of communism or feudalism.

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

One problem I see here is when one person or small group claims the right to a large percentage or all of the property. It's pretty much the situation we had in the dark ages. That's where we get the term "landlord". We saw this in midevil Japan as well as Europe. Most of the population were peasants working as slaves for the small minority landlords. The Industrial Revolution helped bring about change in this system, moving large groups of peasants into the cities to work in factories. It's easy to forget that, Communism is a relativly new concept on this planet and was conceived as a solution to the slavery of feudalism. Public property is a relativley new concept on this planet. Even to this day, the Monachy of England owns vast tracts of land and roads.

I am not sure what the answer is but a return to feudalism is not the way to go. America has long been a mix of socalism and capitlism. We benefit greatly from public roads,sewers, waters systems, etc.. I know many conservatives want to privatize everything. That would return us to feudalism. We hear a lot about the dangers of communism but I see us moving more in the direction of corporate feudulism with the corporations grabbing up all resources. The distribution of wealth in this country bears that out with an ever shrinking middle class and the top one percent owning almost half of all wealth now.Ten years ago it was around thirty percent. There has to be a way to allow all people an opportunity to make use of the resources God gave to us all, without resorting to the tryranny of communism or feudalism.

I've mulled over these very concerns myself - no answers. At least not until the Lord comes OR Zion is established. And I don;t see how Zion can be established without the lord coming, as even if it were run by the church, we already have people questioning how tithing funds are spent, I can;t imagine the fuss that would be raised in a consecration society run by men, even if they were the best men on earth. There would be so much envy, strife and whining that no work could be done.

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

One problem I see here is when one person or small group claims the right to a large percentage or all of the property. It's pretty much the situation we had in the dark ages. That's where we get the term "landlord". We saw this in midevil Japan as well as Europe. Most of the population were peasants working as slaves for the small minority landlords. The Industrial Revolution helped bring about change in this system, moving large groups of peasants into the cities to work in factories. It's easy to forget that, Communism is a relativly new concept on this planet and was conceived as a solution to the slavery of feudalism. Public property is a relativley new concept on this planet. Even to this day, the Monachy of England owns vast tracts of land and roads.

I am not sure what the answer is but a return to feudalism is not the way to go. America has long been a mix of socalism and capitlism. We benefit greatly from public roads,sewers, waters systems, etc.. I know many conservatives want to privatize everything. That would return us to feudalism. We hear a lot about the dangers of communism but I see us moving more in the direction of corporate feudulism with the corporations grabbing up all resources. The distribution of wealth in this country bears that out with an ever shrinking middle class and the top one percent owning almost half of all wealth now.Ten years ago it was around thirty percent. There has to be a way to allow all people an opportunity to make use of the resources God gave to us all, without resorting to the tryranny of communism or feudalism.

If they earned/obtained that large proportion honestly, they are welcome to it, as long as they do not violate other people's property. Many big corporations got their wealth by plunder via government force. Plunder is not ok. Justice solves all these problems. And my proposal squares perfectly with justice (as far as I can see ).

Another point: Public property is NOT socialism, as long as it abides by principles 1, 2, and 3 (see above). In short, socialism is the violation of principle 2. Public property does not violate principle 2 as long as it is managed according to principle 3.

[Thomascaptain of 1,000]

LIT, I agree with what your saying but how do you overcome the problem of having no property available for new generations. In midevil Europe the masses were born into a world with no opportunity to own property. All of it was owned already. It could be a death sentence just to kill a rabbit to eat because the rabbit and anything else on the land was owned by the landlord. One of the reasons America has been so prosperous is because of the large amount of land available to people to homestead. It was an unbelieveable opportunity for the European peasants. Natural resources were abundant and the opportunity to develop those resources were available for anyone. Now there are very few natural resources that haven't been claimed by someone already. Do the new generations have a right to the resources God gave us also?

Don't get me wrong, I believe there should be some kind of meritocracy. I like the ideas you have posted here but without some kind of limit to what people can own, It soon develops into a system where merit means nothing and people are born into wealth or slavery. (What has the Royal family of England done to deserve their fabulous wealth). I certainly don't like the idea of putting limits on what people can own. I am not trying to knock your ideas. I don't have any better ones. Maybe this is why the Celestial Kingdom will be one of sharing.

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

LIT, I agree with what your saying but how do you overcome the problem of having no property available for new generations.

Simple: they get property from their parents + what they earn on their own.

In midevil Europe the masses were born into a world with no opportunity to own property. All of it was owned already. It could be a death sentence just to kill a rabbit to eat because the rabbit and anything else on the land was owned by the landlord. One of the reasons America has been so prosperous is because of the large amount of land available to people to homestead. It was an unbelieveable opportunity for the European peasants. Natural resources were abundant and the opportunity to develop those resources were available for anyone. Now there are very few natural resources that haven't been claimed by someone already. Do the new generations have a right to the resources God gave us also?

Don't get me wrong, I believe there should be some kind of meritocracy. I like the ideas you have posted here but without some kind of limit to what people can own, It soon develops into a system where merit means nothing and people are born into wealth or slavery. (What has the Royal family of England done to deserve their fabulous wealth). I certainly don't like the idea of putting limits on what people can own. I am not trying to knock your ideas. I don't have any better ones. Maybe this is why the Celestial Kingdom will be one of sharing.

The laws of justice take good care of all these things. Can you do better than justice? As for sharing you can do it even now, as long as "sharing" is not at the point of a gun.

[Thomascaptain of 1,000]

LIT, I agree with what your saying but how do you overcome the problem of having no property available for new generations.

Simple: they get property from their parents + what they earn on their own.

In midevil Europe the masses were born into a world with no opportunity to own property. All of it was owned already. It could be a death sentence just to kill a rabbit to eat because the rabbit and anything else on the land was owned by the landlord. One of the reasons America has been so prosperous is because of the large amount of land available to people to homestead. It was an unbelieveable opportunity for the European peasants. Natural resources were abundant and the opportunity to develop those resources were available for anyone. Now there are very few natural resources that haven't been claimed by someone already. Do the new generations have a right to the resources God gave us also?

Don't get me wrong, I believe there should be some kind of meritocracy. I like the ideas you have posted here but without some kind of limit to what people can own, It soon develops into a system where merit means nothing and people are born into wealth or slavery. (What has the Royal family of England done to deserve their fabulous wealth). I certainly don't like the idea of putting limits on what people can own. I am not trying to knock your ideas. I don't have any better ones. Maybe this is why the Celestial Kingdom will be one of sharing.

The laws of justice take good care of all these things. Can you do better than justice? As for sharing you can do it even now, as long as "sharing" is not at the point of a gun.

The foolish and lazy will not have any property to pass on to their posterity and history has shown that the shrewd and ruthless end up with the ownership of all the property.
History has shown this ends up being a small minority. Those people pass property to their children. The others pass slavery in one form or another to their children. This situation would not occur if there was plenty of new property to develop,but even with plenty to go around, the natural man is greedy and some are not satisfied unless they have it all. With every new generation,there is less to go around because of increasing population. Justice might say that the foolish and lazy deserve what they get but should their children suffer for the sins of their parents? Would justice say taking advantage of the foolish be against the law and how would you enforce it?

As for sharing, those who are ruthless will have the most and be the least likely to share.The elites right now are not content with what they have and desire kill most of us off so they won't have to share the planet with us.

Once again, I like your ideas and I have'nt really heard any better. Sorry if I am coming across as antagonistic. I am just interested in hearing ideas on this subject.

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

The foolish and lazy will not have any property to pass on to their posterity and history has shown that the shrewd and ruthless end up with the ownership of all the property.
History has shown this ends up being a small minority. Those people pass property to their children. The others pass slavery in one form or another to their children. This situation would not occur if there was plenty of new property to develop,but even with plenty to go around, the natural man is greedy and some are not satisfied unless they have it all. With every new generation,there is less to go around because of increasing population. Justice might say that the foolish and lazy deserve what they get but should their children suffer for the sins of their parents?

God thinks yes. Would you rather that the frugal and wise and their children suffer? Again justice takes care of it perfectly. I ask again: Can you do better than justice?

As for sharing, those who are ruthless will have the most and be the least likely to share.The elites right now are not content with what they have and desire kill most of us off so they won't have to share the planet with us.

If the ruthless violate the property of others (say by "killing them off") they are in the grasp of justice, even the justice of God. Don't mess with him. Devil does not hold a candle to what God can do! The devil is learning it the hard way.

Once again, I like your ideas and I have'nt really heard any better. Sorry if I am coming across as antagonistic. I am just interested in hearing ideas on this subject.

Thanks for writing. Again JUSTICE is the gold standard here, and you cannot do better than justice. Even mercy cannot rob justice, they have to play nicely with each-other because they are two sides of the same coin: the Love of God.

[Thomascaptain of 1,000]

one more question. If the wise take advantage of the the foolish and thus gain their property becuase of this foolishness,is that any different than those with strong bodies taking property from those with weak bodies , like the sick and elderly? The strong minded take from the weak minded.

Sorry if I am getting off on a tangent here. I am simply trying to point out that Justice is a difficult thing to administer.

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

one more question. If the wise take advantage of the the foolish and thus gain their property becuase of this foolishness,is that any different than those with strong bodies taking property from those with weak bodies , like the sick and elderly? The strong minded take from the weak minded.

Weak minded do not deserve to rule a lot of property. So it is all just, as long as strong minded commit no crime and are being honest and upright. Plus, we are commanded to gain wisdom by study and by faith. If you purposefully violate that commandment you will be found among the wicked. The wise are also tested, whether they will obey God's commandment to help the poor. And if they are truly wise they will do it, otherwise they will "with the wicked, lift up [their] eyes in hell, being in torment" (D&C 104:18), and what will then their wisdom do for them?

Sorry if I am getting off on a tangent here. I am simply trying to point out that Justice is a difficult thing to administer.

Justice is much easier to administer than to endure lawlessness!

[Thomascaptain of 1,000]

Justice adimistered without enough wisdom makes tyrants of good men. Have we gained enough wisdom yet? lawlessness is a state that does not exist for long . In the absence of law, the strong make and enforce the law, usually to the detriment of the weak.

God's justice works for people like me and you but what of those who don't believe in God.

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

Justice adimistered without enough wisdom makes tyrants of good men. Have we gained enough wisdom yet? lawlessness is a state that does not exist for long . In the absence of law, the strong make and enforce the law, usually to the detriment of the weak.

God's justice works for people like me and you but what of those who don't believe in God.

I think this sums up why so much needs to be governed at the state and local level. The federal govenrment and the laws should be broad and acceptable to just about anyone - things like we should treat others as we wish to be treated (and therefore if we, say, kill someone intentionally, that society has the moral right to "do unto you" as you did to others. It doesn't mean a state MUST use capital punishment, just that it has the fundamental right to do so.

If state and local governments were exercising the power that they should, we would have 50 laboratories working within a Constitutional framework. Utah could have a jsutice system based on our interpretation of God's justice...if someone did not believe in God or felt the system was unjust, they as a citizen would have their say in changing the laws, and barring that, going somewhere lese and joining with people they agreed with as to the laws they would live under. We would have states where abortion was either completely banned or only in truly rare and exceptional cases. We would have states that were very socialistic. We would have states that were libertarian. We would have states where most drugs were legal. We would have states where even alcohol and tobacco were outlawed.

The problem is that rather than realizing this, we continue to move toward more and more centralized planning/solutions - the next step being a global one-size fits all bureacracy.

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

Justice adimistered without enough wisdom makes tyrants of good men.

"Justice administered without enough wisdom" is injustice. So that's a contradiction of terms. Justice is either administered wisely, or not at all, because it will no longer be justice. (Kind of like the priesthood).

Have we gained enough wisdom yet? lawlessness is a state that does not exist for long . In the absence of law, the strong make and enforce the law, usually to the detriment of the weak.

So do you prefer that to Justice?

God's justice works for people like me and you but what of those who don't believe in God.

God's justice works for everyone, because it is the Universal Law that cannot be annulled, any more than one can dethrone God. If people believed the earth is flat, it does not make it so, even if all 6 billion people believed that, it would still be round. So is the justice of God. It is absolute whether you believe in it or not. God will prove it to all.


What my three principles do is to discover those Eternal Principles of Justice, that can neither be made nor unmade by men, and state them succinctly. That's all.

[Tribunalcaptain of 1,000]

I think there needs to be a distinction between Freedom and Liberty.
-Freedom is what you have in absence of government influence.
-Liberty is what you have after government influence.

I also think there needs to be a distinction between Power, Rights, and Contracts.
-Power is the ability to do something, whether it is good or bad, lawful or unlawful.
-A Right is an action a person may choose to exercise without causing another person to provide for the act.
-A Contract is an agreement to act, or not to act, between two or more people, for the mutual benefit of those involved.

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

TheTinyDot


Tiny Dot Explained




"Right to Rob You"

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

State or Private-Law Society