The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
User avatar
Original_Intent
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13008

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by Original_Intent »

Thomas wrote: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.

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5497

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by LoveIsTruth »

Thomas wrote: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).
Thomas wrote: 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?
Thomas wrote: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.

Tribunal
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1496

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by Tribunal »

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.

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5497

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by LoveIsTruth »

TheTinyDot


Tiny Dot Explained




"Right to Rob You"
Last edited by LoveIsTruth on February 13th, 2012, 6:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.


User avatar
LoveIsTruth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5497

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by LoveIsTruth »

G. Edward Griffin - The Collectivist Conspiracy

Modern Politics, and Principles of Liberty


User avatar
EclecticLibertarian
captain of 50
Posts: 79

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by EclecticLibertarian »

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.

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5497

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by LoveIsTruth »

You are mostly right, but you are making some key errors.

First the minor misunderstanding:
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.
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:Our founders took the position that every person on the earth has equal claim to all that exists on the earth,
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:... 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.
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!


The rest of your reasoning, that you build from this false doctrine, including the idea of "imminent domain" is therefore necessarily false too.
EclecticLibertarian wrote:Rather than creating new Amendments to the Constitution, what we need is new Guardians of the Constitution in the Supreme Court
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.)


Thanks for posting.

User avatar
EclecticLibertarian
captain of 50
Posts: 79

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by EclecticLibertarian »

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.
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:
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 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.
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:
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.
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!
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:The rest of your reasoning, that you build from this false doctrine, including the idea of "imminent domain" is therefore necessarily false too.
Actually, it's not and the Founding Father's would disagree with you on that point.
LoveIsTruth wrote:
EclecticLibertarian wrote:Rather than creating new Amendments to the Constitution, what we need is new Guardians of the Constitution in the Supreme Court
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.
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: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.)
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.
No, thank you for getting the discussion started and continuing to engage, even though I disagree with many of your ideas.

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5497

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by LoveIsTruth »

LoveIsTruth wrote:
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 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: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.
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!


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:
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.
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: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.
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: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.
It is no more "convention" than sovereignty or Liberty. These are ETERNAL principles that originate where man originates, with God.
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.
EclecticLibertarian wrote:Actually, it's not and the Founding Father's would disagree with you on that point.
The Founders were wrong. Are you shocked? They predicted that their descendants would improve their work.
EclecticLibertarian wrote:I find it rather interesting that you consider all taxation to be theft.



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?
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.
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.)
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.
I have, you have not. If so, then let's start with fundamental principles of Liberty and build upward from there. Are you game?
LoveIsTruth wrote:Thanks for posting.
EclecticLibertarian wrote:No, thank you for getting the discussion started and continuing to engage, even though I disagree with many of your ideas.
Likewise. Thank you.

User avatar
Jason
Master of Puppets
Posts: 18296

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by Jason »

LoveIsTruth wrote:
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?
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.
King Benjamin disagrees with you....as do I....as do all of the prophets...

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5497

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by LoveIsTruth »

Jason wrote:
LoveIsTruth wrote:
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?
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.
King Benjamin disagrees with you....as do I....as do all of the prophets...
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!

User avatar
Jason
Master of Puppets
Posts: 18296

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by Jason »

LoveIsTruth wrote:
Jason wrote:
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.
King Benjamin disagrees with you....as do I....as do all of the prophets...
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!
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....

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5497

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by LoveIsTruth »

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....
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.

User avatar
Jason
Master of Puppets
Posts: 18296

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by Jason »

LoveIsTruth wrote:
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....
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.
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....

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5497

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by LoveIsTruth »

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 is theft:




All taxation violates the Benson Principle: See Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Taxation.

User avatar
Jason
Master of Puppets
Posts: 18296

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by Jason »

LoveIsTruth wrote:
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 is theft:




All taxation violates the Benson Principle: See Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Taxation.
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????

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)...

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5497

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by LoveIsTruth »

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
There is no evidence of that. Actually the evidence is to the contrary.
Jason wrote:and in times of war....taxes went up (think Captain Moroni and supplies being provided - by force if needed)...
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.

User avatar
Jason
Master of Puppets
Posts: 18296

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by Jason »

LoveIsTruth wrote:
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
There is no evidence of that. Actually the evidence is to the contrary.
Jason wrote:and in times of war....taxes went up (think Captain Moroni and supplies being provided - by force if needed)...
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.
Evidence...no evidence....yeah you are right....I don't see any evidence from you.

Please name one prophet that said we weren't obligated to pay taxes to government....

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5497

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by LoveIsTruth »

Jason wrote:
LoveIsTruth wrote:
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
There is no evidence of that. Actually the evidence is to the contrary.
Jason wrote:and in times of war....taxes went up (think Captain Moroni and supplies being provided - by force if needed)...
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.
Evidence...no evidence....yeah you are right....I don't see any evidence from you.
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
)
How's that for evidence? Now, let's see your evidence.

Jason wrote:Please name one prophet that said we weren't obligated to pay taxes to government....
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.

User avatar
Jason
Master of Puppets
Posts: 18296

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by Jason »

LoveIsTruth wrote:
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
)
How's that for evidence? Now, let's see your evidence.
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:
Jason wrote:Please name one prophet that said we weren't obligated to pay taxes to government....
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.
Yeah and zero tax gets you where???

This may (or may not) provide some additional insight into some tax history and realities....
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.)
http://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/01/i-hav ... uery=taxes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5497

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by LoveIsTruth »

LoveIsTruth wrote:
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
)
How's that for evidence? Now, let's see your evidence.
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)
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:...nor does he say taxes are bad.
Taxation is theft:



And therefore is always wrong, unless the king owns the land. I dare you to prove otherwise.
Jason wrote:Yeah and zero tax gets you where???
Liberty.
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;
16th amendment has been conclusively proven NOT to have been ratified properly. Secondly, taxation is always immoral because it violates the Benson Principle.

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.

User avatar
Jason
Master of Puppets
Posts: 18296

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by Jason »

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.
Yeah when it was "burdensome" as in half their production....
LoveIsTruth wrote:
Jason wrote:...nor does he say taxes are bad.
Taxation is theft:



And therefore is always wrong, unless the king owns the land. I dare you to prove otherwise.
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?

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???
LoveIsTruth wrote:
Jason wrote:Yeah and zero tax gets you where???
Liberty
...and no government and anarchy....and then the reality that there is no liberty...
LoveIsTruth wrote:
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;
16th amendment has been conclusively proven NOT to have been ratified properly. Secondly, taxation is always immoral because it violates the Benson Principle.

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.
Take it up with your "representation".....or move to another country and put yourself under a different government...even if its your own island...

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...

User avatar
EclecticLibertarian
captain of 50
Posts: 79

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by EclecticLibertarian »

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!
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: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.
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: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!
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:It is no more "convention" than sovereignty or Liberty. These are ETERNAL principles that originate where man originates, with God.
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:The Founders were wrong. Are you shocked? They predicted that their descendants would improve their work.
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: 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.
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:Thus the only proper role of government is to manage public property.
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:I have, you have not. If so, then let's start with fundamental principles of Liberty and build upward from there. Are you game?
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.

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.

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5497

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by LoveIsTruth »

Jason wrote:Yeah when it was "burdensome"...
Prove it.
LoveIsTruth wrote:
Jason wrote:...nor does he say taxes are bad.
Taxation is theft:



And therefore is always wrong, unless the king owns the land. I dare you to prove otherwise.
Jason wrote:Ooh a dare a dare....
You can't disprove it. So you have failed. The rest of your blabber is quite irrelevant. You have failed.
Jason wrote:ask Larken why he ended up spending 15 months in prison???
Because he is an honest and courageous man.
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?
Because he is right. The Constitution, though largely inspired, has deadly flaws that need to be fixed.
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???
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:And I'm supposed to prove otherwise???
You are powerless to do so. Truth cannot be dis-proven, by definition.
LoveIsTruth wrote:
Jason wrote:Yeah and zero tax gets you where???
Liberty
Jason wrote:...and no government and anarchy....and then the reality that there is no liberty...
I did not say no government. I said government consigned to its proper role.
Jason wrote:Truth is you are an anarchist.....
Anarchy (3rd definition) is the very definition of Freedom. We have been over it already.
Jason wrote:Good luck with your Rockefeller/Volker funded libertarian philosophy...
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 ;) .)

Post Reply