The Philosophy of Liberty
When you hear Ron Paul say that he stands for the Philosophy of Liberty, this is what he means.The philosophy of liberty is based on self-ownership. This simple but elegant and hard-hitting animation will explain exactly what that means. It's a great tool anyone can use to educate children and adults about our right to life, liberty, and the property we create - and our responsibility to think, speak and act.
For more info and/or to download a free DVD version of this video, see:
http://...
CREDITS
AUTHOR: Ken Schoolland schoolak001@hawaii.rr.com
PRODUCER: Kerry Pearson (aka Lux Lucre)
MUSIC: Music2Hues 'Betrayal' http://...
WEBSITE: http://...
SUPPORT: The Jonathan Gullible fund http://...
COPYRIGHT: http://...
Channel: Film
Uploaded: December 4, 2006 at 4:49 am
Author: Sidewinder77
Length: 00:08:14
Rating: 4.80
Views: 127484
Tags: collectivism liberty capitalism self-ownership freedom property individualism philosophy Ron theft force life Paul
Video Comments:
libertardian (January 8, 2009 at 8:38 pm)
Heh check the vid response from philolibx. He tears this dumb video a new ass.
stick1to2the3issue (January 8, 2009 at 6:56 pm)
You are one of those smart retards.
EverettsVLOG (January 8, 2009 at 6:52 pm)
this is a common argument, to actually try to show that it is 'self contradictory' to deny a 'right to life'. But, the evidence is that life is an ongoing biochemical reaction, nothing more - one can simply introduce different levels of descriptions of these chemical reactions. Clearly the chemical reaction does not require some sort of 'right' in order to continue reacting. Unless you take 'right' as 'natural law'. But the reaction often kills. So technically it would have this right.
libertardian (January 8, 2009 at 6:05 pm)
This is nonsense.
onlywanttobefree (January 8, 2009 at 5:07 pm)
Maybe you are selfcondradicting by the very act of denying? If you are not sure whether you have the right to your life, then who granted you the right to write this comment?
Just a thought though....
Just a thought though....
EverettsVLOG (January 8, 2009 at 5:32 am)
they arent logically 'self-evident', because if they were, the denial of them would entail a contradiction, or they would be impossible to imagine clearly as being false, or some other strict critera depending on your philosophical tradition. They are *assumptions*, not 'self-evident' truths, regardless of what our constitution... or declaration... whichever it is...says. Whether something is 'self-evident' is not a subjective notion, thats my point. anyway, assuming it wont make it true.
EverettsVLOG (January 8, 2009 at 5:30 am)
LOL
justingaylor (January 8, 2009 at 4:58 am)
EverettsVLOG: I have no idea how you think this is "a bunch of brute assumptions" or where there is a tautology. They aren't proving anything, they are making statements. This is simply stating the whole foundation for the United States as a republic and the principles that a just government adheres to. Plain and simple. Either you take them to be "self-evident" truths or you don't.
stick1to2the3issue (January 8, 2009 at 4:46 am)
Would nincompoop be more appropriate?
EverettsVLOG (January 8, 2009 at 1:28 am)
lol. i try to hard to seem intelligent, yet you called me a 'bafoon'. LOL... ive had enough
stick1to2the3issue (January 7, 2009 at 5:53 pm)
How is the statement "no one has the right to your justly acquired property" ambiguous? If you don't understand the meaning of the word "right" or "property" then look it up in the dictionary. Your one of these people that tries too hard to seem intelligent, and really its clear to everyone that you are a bafoon.Not to mention you provide no contribution of real value in terms of an alternate philosophy, only a bumbling confused critique of the philosophy of liberty.
siphonataraxia (January 7, 2009 at 6:23 am)
If nobody wanted to do those jobs, then the demand for employees would rise and so would the pay.
There's a reason that hazardous, difficult work pays extremely well--for example, crab fishing in the Bering Sea. Very dangerous work. High chance of injury or death and very demanding, difficult, backbreaking work with very long shifts. Any remuneration is going to reflect that.
There's a reason that hazardous, difficult work pays extremely well--for example, crab fishing in the Bering Sea. Very dangerous work. High chance of injury or death and very demanding, difficult, backbreaking work with very long shifts. Any remuneration is going to reflect that.
EverettsVLOG (January 7, 2009 at 3:59 am)
its funny that you took like 3 sentences accuse me of 'empty railing', lol
alankhunt (January 7, 2009 at 3:17 am)
EverettsVLOG, you are a paragon of ignorance and stupidity. Your "arguments" are their own undoing. You have no arguments, just empty railing. Go find some other jackasses to bray with. Yawn!
Acrinimiril (January 6, 2009 at 10:29 pm)
Phoney.
EverettsVLOG (January 6, 2009 at 10:16 pm)
lol 'what could possibly be wrong with this philosophy'. its just a bunch of brute assumptions. for example "no one has the righ to your justly earned property" is simply an assumption, or u just define 'right' or 'property' in such a way to make it a tautology. insomuch as it is philosophy it is BS, for this reason, and insomuch as it is an expression of emotional zeal i have no argument but it is not expressed as this.
stick1to2the3issue (January 6, 2009 at 4:11 am)
What could possibly be wrong with this philosophy? No one has the right to your justly earned property. If someone tries to coerce you or use force to take what you have earned, they will be stopped.You're setting up a strawman argument, no one is saying that just because they believe this philosophy, they think that people will be nice to each other. No one is arguing that. So what assumptions and derivations are you in disagreement with?
EverettsVLOG (January 6, 2009 at 2:27 am)
no, i just think its retarded that this philosophy has so many true believers when all it is is a jumble of assumptions and derivations from those assumptions, and the derivations and simplicity give people the illusion that this is somehow a 'logical' philosophy
stick1to2the3issue (January 5, 2009 at 11:35 pm)
Ok well lets look at it from your point of view: To impose a philosophy that says "everyone has the right to their own justly aquired property, and no one can infringe on their right" is certainly imposing. If you steal my car, the powers that be will step in and prevent you from infringing on my rights to my own property. This philosophy creates an enviroment for the highest degree of individual freedom. Are you under the impression that there is freedom in anarchy?
copenhagen1221 (January 5, 2009 at 10:48 pm)
No, you do not "impose" this philosophy on anyone. You simply prevent people from infringing on other people's unalienable rights. You know, what America was founded on. But hey, who needs freedom when the state can take care of us SO well right guys? I mean just look at the crack job they're doing preventing illiteracy with our public schools, preventing poverty with our welfare, and preventing drug use with Drug Prohibition.
EverettsVLOG (January 5, 2009 at 9:06 pm)
i was paying attention. it said quite simply "thou shalt not impose thy will on others". OH! except you CAN impose the philosophy itself of course (individual rights)! its just a bunch of arbitrary bullshit dressed up as consistency. I could make a counter-ethics theory that is just as consistent with opposite conclusions. but i suppose in this case you have shown that at least you can force others to be nice.
stick1to2the3issue (January 5, 2009 at 8:17 pm)
You must not have been paying attention. This philosophy is the antithesis of the "everyone be nice, it works!" philosophy. It assumes that people will try to take advantage of others and infringe on their individual property rights. This is where the government actually has a necessary function which is to protect individual rights. Don't be a lazy thinker and dismiss something completely without even trying to understand it.
smudge6699 (January 3, 2009 at 9:38 pm)
Great Video!
Like the way you caught the idea that the macroscopic society is just the summation of the expression of the microscopic.
Liberation starts with the smallest minority group of one.
I'm waiting for the hundredth monkey effect to kick in.
We seem to be in the middle of a consciousness renaissance as well as a credit crunch.
Maybe it's a side effect?
Like the way you caught the idea that the macroscopic society is just the summation of the expression of the microscopic.
Liberation starts with the smallest minority group of one.
I'm waiting for the hundredth monkey effect to kick in.
We seem to be in the middle of a consciousness renaissance as well as a credit crunch.
Maybe it's a side effect?
DudeDudely (January 2, 2009 at 1:39 pm)
Well,
When the world is rid of people who lie, I'm sure this concept will work out nice and dandy. Until then, there is work to be done.
When the world is rid of people who lie, I'm sure this concept will work out nice and dandy. Until then, there is work to be done.
eacans (January 2, 2009 at 8:40 am)
so would it be unethical to ask the the government to use force against the tyrant?do we have the right to the life of someone else who happens to be a murderer or a threat to humanity?