Harry Felker:If I did not want a challenge would I be posting on the topic still, challenges are what prove the stance...
We'll see if that is still your story by the end of the week! lol
Harry Felker:We need a government because in the event of other governments existence, or I should say inevitability,
I don't believe government is inevitable. And I don't believe the answer to other governments must be government. Take the American people. They are armed. No one in their right mind would invade America. Sure, they could nuke America in the absence of a government military industrial complex. But they don't nuke Germany. Or Switzerland. Denmark. Hong Kong. The nuclear threat was created and promulgated by big governments obsessed with trying to out compete each other on force.
The American experience of hyper-nationalism, and dare I say, paranoia about foreign retribution (let's be honest, America has stirred up a lot of bee's nests with intervention) is very unique in the world, and yet at the same time people who are armed, which is the exception in this world, not the norm, run headlong to their government begging for security via tyranny, rather than exercising the individual self-determination those arms secure for them.
But those are consequentialist arguments anyway. We're discussing morality, and any government which does not have explicit consent, is illegitimate. You cannot take authority by force or fraud.
What you are talking about is the end result, not the founding...
You are right we have come a long way from Constitutional Government, this is my purpose, to return us to the begining, before the laws that dictate rights are privileges, before the government could interpret the intent of the Constitution and had to adhere to the plain English printed on the page...
My purpose is to bring this country to the moral stance of individual liberty, and those who do not want the responsibility, those who do not desire to respect the liberty of others have only two options, leave or fail...
wilderness:I think the government steals and murders and is immoral and unlawful. I can't voluntarily succeed (individual succession) and keep my liberty, life, and property without the government violating these rights with coercion,
You are correct, and the people let it happen, and it is the people that have to stop it, correct it and respect their responsibility in regard to the Constitution, the Constitution IS only a piece of paper, it is the people that live by it that give it power, and when they compromise that, they destroy it....
You can blame Bush, FDR, Lincoln, Clinton, Radicals, Terrorists, Obama...
It does not matter who you blame, the responsibility is on the people who live here who decided that THEY did not have to take the responsibility of controling the government...
The notion that when the government does it it is not illegal, the bases world wide, the currency by fiat, I stand with Congressman Paul on these issues, and with you (most likely), these are immoral and unsustainable...
But you cannot blame the government, it is the government's nature to do this, the people are to blame for letting it happen, and then future generations just accept these trespasses as acceptable to government...
We have history to prove that govenrments are hostile to the individual liberty of people, it is time that the people take the correct measures to let the government know, the people are hostile to any government that takes away the liberties of the individual, Thomas Jefferson knew this was the only way to control government, how could the people have forgotten?
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
Liberty Student:We'll see if that is still your story by the end of the week! lol
I hope I do not surprise you too much at the end of this week...
Liberty Student:You cannot take authority by force or fraud.
You are absolutely correct, but limited government by my standard has no authority here, the authority is in the hands of the governed, and that is still shackled tightly against the abuses toward individual liberty...
If you mind the 9th Amendment, by pure definition it supports the Individual rights against the rights granted to the Government and other individuals...
Our government now, is in no way a reflection of what is written in the Constitution...
Harry Felker :The moment it is to exchange hands for value, it leaves the realm of IP and enters the realm of property
I think this handles "reverse engineering" as the product must have reached a market (exchanged hands for value) in order to be reverse engineered...
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Harry Felker:limited government by my standard has no authority here
Here is where?
Harry Felker:the authority is in the hands of the governed
How? Individuals have no authority in a republic.
Harry Felker:If you mind the 9th Amendment, by pure definition it supports the Individual rights against the rights granted to the Government and other individuals...
I have no idea what this means. There are no limits on government. Constitutional or otherwise.
Harry Felker:Our government now, is in no way a reflection of what is written in the Constitution...
Of course not. But the Constitution isn't an ideal either. It tries to establish limited government, but that is impossible, because all government, fundamentally all politics, is based upon the manipulation of private property rights. A government cannot fund itself, and maintain it's monopoly status, without using coercion against anyone who would wish to compete with it. That is precisely what happened during the war against the states, when the South tried to exercise their right to secede after being provoked by northern tariffs. When they refused to be leeched off further, they withdrew, and the North proceeded to use extreme violence against the South.
I know the Constitution is dear to you, but it is a social contract imposed on the people by a band of thieves. It cannot give rights, those pre-exist the Constitution. It cannot protect rights, because all rights are fundamentally property rights, and government by definition undermines property rights. It cannot restrain government, because by creating a monopoly government, it also creates a monopoly on the interpretation of that Constitution, which inevitably leads to abuse.
If you believe in liberty, then you have to believe in self-determination (free will). If you believe in self-determination, then you have to believe in secession (the exercise of free will). If you believe in secession, then you have to believe that the Constitution cannot be the blanket or monopoly social contract for everyone in a region, or under a particular flag. That is to say, people will come and go as they feel it is in their own personal best interest (liberty).
Harry Felker:My purpose is to bring this country to the moral stance of individual liberty, and those who do not want the responsibility, those who do not desire to respect the liberty of others have only two options, leave or fail...
A mission like this has all sorts of hazards. First, imposing morality can only be done by force. Where people have free will, you will naturally have diversity of morals, ethics, values.
Liberty is not a responsibility. That is a positive obligation. It can't exist without being imposed by someone. People have negative rights, not positive rights. A "responsibility" implies a positive right.
I agree that people should respect the fundamentals of liberty, but what are they? We (anarcho-capitalists) define the basic morality around the NAP or Non-Aggression Principle. That is, no one should aggress against another. That is (generally) what liberty means to Austro-libertarians.
You use the term "individual liberty". What is individual liberty as you mean it?
Here, the theoretical contry that has limited government, I am sorry there is no example in reality since the declination into authoritarianism of the United States, courtesy of the Civil War, predominantly, though the seeds are a lot earlier...
I use Merriam-Webster to define Republic for me...
b (1): a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law
The individuals are given the power in a republic, it is of course the responsibility of said citizens to ensure that the government is kept in check, unfortunately the example for a republic, the United States, has the plague of Apathy and therefore we have the out of control situation we have today...
Do you know what the 9th Amendment is, I do not want to come off as the "I know the Constitution, therefore you are always wrong" guy, but I will give you the text...
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
This little amendment is the by far the most ignored, mainly because people do not know it exists and the government would rather it not...
[
liberty student: Of course not. But the Constitution isn't an ideal either. It tries to establish limited government, but that is impossible, because all government, fundamentally all politics, is based upon the manipulation of private property rights. A government cannot fund itself, and maintain it's monopoly status, without using coercion against anyone who would wish to compete with it. That is precisely what happened during the war against the states, when the South tried to exercise their right to secede after being provoked by northern tariffs. When they refused to be leeched off further, they withdrew, and the North proceeded to use extreme violence against the South. I know the Constitution is dear to you, but it is a social contract imposed on the people by a band of thieves. It cannot give rights, those pre-exist the Constitution. It cannot protect rights, because all rights are fundamentally property rights, and government by definition undermines property rights. It cannot restrain government, because by creating a monopoly government, it also creates a monopoly on the interpretation of that Constitution, which inevitably leads to abuse. If you believe in liberty, then you have to believe in self-determination (free will). If you believe in self-determination, then you have to believe in secession (the exercise of free will). If you believe in secession, then you have to believe that the Constitution cannot be the blanket or monopoly social contract for everyone in a region, or under a particular flag.
If you believe in liberty, then you have to believe in self-determination (free will). If you believe in self-determination, then you have to believe in secession (the exercise of free will). If you believe in secession, then you have to believe that the Constitution cannot be the blanket or monopoly social contract for everyone in a region, or under a particular flag.
I do see your point...
although seemingly belligerent, I do understand you, I do see the validity of your points, but like I said to wilderness "the Constitution IS only a piece of paper, it is the people that live by it that give it power, and when they compromise that, they destroy it...."
Honestly, the first person that said "Interpret the Constitution" needed a swift kick in the pants, no one is given the authority (especially not the general government) to do such a thing, not even the Supreme Court, for that matter "Interpret" does not appear in the Articles of the Constitution at all...
On your last point, despite the executives that have decided otherwise, and the courts illegal rulings on the matter, secession is a right, covered by the Constitution, oddly enough...
So I can believe in Liberty, and therefore self-determination, thus secession, and I can further justify it as a right because it is directly attached to Liberty, therefore it is protected as other rights retained by the people, hence the list of rights in the Constitution, in the form of powers granted to government and rights listed as the people's, cannot be used to deny or disparage my right to Liberty, therefore self-determination, hence secession...
This is why the Constitution is dear to me, because if you read it, and live by it, you live free, granted you may die fighting to remain free, but as long as you fight, you are free and if you die, you die free...
marquise: Spideynw:Is a letter of the alphabet IP? If not, why not? What is the arbitrary line that says once there are 5 or 500 letters strung together it becomes IP? A letter of the alphabet can not be considered intellectual property,
Spideynw:Is a letter of the alphabet IP? If not, why not? What is the arbitrary line that says once there are 5 or 500 letters strung together it becomes IP?
A letter of the alphabet can not be considered intellectual property,
Why not?
marquise:but a common one
Huh?
marquise: Spideynw:Also, if IP really exists, then would you be OK with someone being able to "own" it indefinitely? Meaning they can sell it or pass it on to someone else? If someone is going to purchase a painting or a book, then, yes, those IP would be his indefinitely....and one can do whatever he wishes with his acquisition, sell it or pass it on to someone else...property right.... once released, an IP does not belong only to you anymore, this is obvious.....
Spideynw:Also, if IP really exists, then would you be OK with someone being able to "own" it indefinitely? Meaning they can sell it or pass it on to someone else?
If someone is going to purchase a painting or a book, then, yes, those IP would be his indefinitely....and one can do whatever he wishes with his acquisition, sell it or pass it on to someone else...property right.... once released, an IP does not belong only to you anymore, this is obvious.....
I am not talking about real property, I am talking about supposed intellectual property (i.e. owning ideas).
marquise: Spideynw:Lastly, can you provide an actual definition as to what IP is? I am unsure what you mean by actual definition...
Spideynw:Lastly, can you provide an actual definition as to what IP is?
I am unsure what you mean by actual definition...
Well, intellectual property to me would mean owning ideas. And since the letter A is just an idea, then someone should be able to own it, if there really is such a thing as intellectual property.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Harry Felker: What you are talking about is the end result, not the founding... You are right we have come a long way from Constitutional Government, this is my purpose, to return us to the begining, before the laws that dictate rights are privileges, before the government could interpret the intent of the Constitution and had to adhere to the plain English printed on the page... My purpose is to bring this country to the moral stance of individual liberty, and those who do not want the responsibility, those who do not desire to respect the liberty of others have only two options, leave or fail...
Yes I talked about what a government based on rights has evolved into. And no these have always been natural rights inherent in the individual. The governments have liked to say otherwise. The U.S. Constitution didn't change this. Natural rights go back before the U.S.
Harry Felker: But you cannot blame the government, it is the government's nature to do this, the people are to blame for letting it happen, and then future generations just accept these trespasses as acceptable to government...
So it's governments nature to be immoral and criminal and I'm morally supposed to swallow that. No way! It is governments nature to be immoral and criminal to take everything by the point of a gun and coerce people. People are coerced by the government to be in its monstrous system. The government is a criminal entity.
Harry Felker: We have history to prove that govenrments are hostile to the individual liberty of people, it is time that the people take the correct measures to let the government know, the people are hostile to any government that takes away the liberties of the individual, Thomas Jefferson knew this was the only way to control government, how could the people have forgotten?
Government takes liberty from people. The government can't avoid being coercive against people and thus violate an individuals liberty. How is this government you talk about going to tax? The government doesn't one day decide to take individual's liberties. The only way the government can exist is it has to take their liberty from the very first moment the government comes into existence it violates individual liberty.
Harry Felker: Lastly, can you provide an actual definition as to what IP is? Intellectual property is the creation of the mind for the means of production, or an idea that has commercial value,
Intellectual property is the creation of the mind for the means of production, or an idea that has commercial value,
You just defined patents and copyrights, not intellectual property. Intellectual property is the idea of owning ideas, plain and simple.
Harry Felker:This is kind of backwards... Intellectual property is not only the concepts of the mind, it is the product of the concepts of the mind,
And the letter A is a product of the concept of the mind...
Harry Felker:copying for the purpose of production when such property is protected is a violation of the right of the originator.
And if a power company is given a monopoly to provide power to a region, starting another power company to compete with it is "a violation of the right of the" monopoly holder as well. It does not mean they should be given a monopoly in the first place.
Harry Felker:We must remember our markets are not all cogs and widgets, but also Art, Literature and the like.
What does this have to do with anything? Without copyrights, painters can still paint and sell their paintings. Writers can still write and sell their writings. They just will not necessarily make as much money.
Harry Felker:One is not saying that there cannot be versions that are similar (copies)
Current law says it has to be "sufficiently" different. So no, there cannot be similar versions.
Harry Felker:but duplication (plagiarism),
Copying and stealing are not synonyms.
Harry Felker:or theft of the schematics that are in line for production (which would be stealing) is stealing intellectual property.
If the schematics are simply copied, no, this is not theft. Again, copying and stealing are not synonyms.
The law may state, "it is illegal to copy some things", but that does not make it theft. So please quit saying it is stealing. It is just illegal in certain cases to copy. As such, it is a completely arbitrary law. Politicians just decide arbitrarily which things are illegal to copy and decide arbitrarily how long it is illegal to copy said items.
Harry Felker: I do see your point... although seemingly belligerent, I do understand you, I do see the validity of your points
although seemingly belligerent, I do understand you, I do see the validity of your points
I'm trying very hard not to be belligerent. I reworded my posts over and over to make it as non-confrontational as possible. What I am proposing is a logical procession through conclusions towards the truth.
Harry Felker:but like I said to wilderness "the Constitution IS only a piece of paper, it is the people that live by it that give it power, and when they compromise that, they destroy it...."
I don't see how this is relevant though. The Constitution could be a rock, or a talking stick. It could be a lake or a book. People give power to all sorts of talismans for good and for evil. We have since the beginning of time.
Harry Felker:On your last point, despite the executives that have decided otherwise, and the courts illegal rulings on the matter, secession is a right, covered by the Constitution, oddly enough...
It would be a right even if the Constitution explicitly said it was not, the judges said it was not, and the executive said it was not. Rights do not come from government. They pre-exist government, and thus do not require a Constitution or government.
Harry Felker: So I can believe in Liberty, and therefore self-determination, thus secession, and I can further justify it as a right because it is directly attached to Liberty, therefore it is protected as other rights retained by the people, hence the list of rights in the Constitution, in the form of powers granted to government and rights listed as the people's, cannot be used to deny or disparage my right to Liberty, therefore self-determination, hence secession... This is why the Constitution is dear to me, because if you read it, and live by it, you live free, granted you may die fighting to remain free, but as long as you fight, you are free and if you die, you die free...
Don't take this as belligerent, but I don't know what any of this means. It sounds like an emotive argument about the Constitution, but I'm struggling to see a clear line of reason within it. You can live free without a Constitution. You can die fighting to remain free without a Constitution.
This part about rights being "attached to liberty", I don't get that at all. What is individual liberty? Liberty is a whole, not a series of parts (as I understand it).
hence the list of rights in the Constitution, in the form of powers granted to government and rights listed as the people's
I cannot stress enough times the Constitution has nothing to do with what rights people do and do not have. Absolutely nothing.
If people have the right to secede, then the Constitution can only apply voluntarily. If you neighbor refuses to acknowledge the Constitution as his governing social contract, then it doesn't apply, period. To impose it otherwise would be to infringe on his natural rights.
Harry Felker: I use Merriam-Webster to define Republic for me... b (1): a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law The individuals are given the power in a republic, it is of course the responsibility of said citizens to ensure that the government is kept in check, unfortunately the example for a republic, the United States, has the plague of Apathy and therefore we have the out of control situation we have today... Do you know what the 9th Amendment is, I do not want to come off as the "I know the Constitution, therefore you are always wrong" guy, but I will give you the text... "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This little amendment is the by far the most ignored, mainly because people do not know it exists and the government would rather it not...
Individuals are not given power. They naturally have it at birth. You don't need a republic to have power. It is a natural right to self-determination that gives you power.
A responsibility of citizens implies a positive obligation. That is anti-liberty. No one can have a responsibility they do not explicitly accept. That is the entire problem with the notion of a Constitution. It relies on people being under it by force. If everyone who wanted out, seceded, the "union" would be meaningless.
Harry Felker:Here, the theoretical contry that has limited government, I am sorry there is no example in reality since the declination into authoritarianism of the United States, courtesy of the Civil War, predominantly, though the seeds are a lot earlier...
George Washington was an authoritarian when he participated in the Whiskey Rebellion. Government exists to abrogate property rights. By definition, government is anti-liberty.
I think ultimately, the questions will be, what is liberty to you, and which do you value more, liberty or the constitution (because they are not synonmous).
I realize you are getting it from 3 people here, so I will understand if you don't reply or reply much later.
When I speak of morality, I am speaking of the general morality, the things people agree on as basic morality...
It is basically what I call the do not be a douche code (sorry if this offends anyone), but this means taking life, liberty and happiness (property) from people is not moral, basically similar to your NAP, with the added sentiment from the colony of Georgia, and the Scottish order of the Thistle, Nemo me impune Lacessit, or Noone Wounds me with Impunity.
Liberty is a responsibility, it is a fragile idea that if not treated with respect and not responsibly cared for, it will be taken away...
How do you mean it cannot exist without being imposed by someone?
The Fundamentals of liberty, I wrote a blog about, called the Pillars of Liberty http://constitutionalrevolution2009.com/blog/?p=55
Individual Liberty is the only way true Liberty can exist, that is once you stop respecting the individual's right of Liberty compared to the general Liberty of all, you no longer have true Liberty, you have democracy, and as we all know Marx's one truest postulation, "Democracy is the Road to Socialism" (Communist Manifesto), and when you have Socialism, the rights of all people become privilege, and therefore Liberty is non existent....
Harry Felker:Liberty is a responsibility, it is a fragile idea that if not treated with respect and not responsibly cared for, it will be taken away...
No, it is not. It can only be taken away by force, which is wrong. It isn't lost unless someone takes positive action (implying that liberty isn't a natural state but a manufactured one)
Harry Felker:How do you mean it cannot exist without being imposed by someone?
I'm saying it cannot be a responsibility unless that responsibility is accepted freely. You cannot declare that people have to do X (defend liberty) if they disagree. Responsibility is decided by individuals, at the individual level. We're not born into this world with responsibilities. That's (unintentionally I am sure) an argument for slavery.
Harry Felker:Individual Liberty is the only way true Liberty can exist, that is once you stop respecting the individual's right of Liberty compared to the general Liberty of all, you no longer have true Liberty
True liberty, general liberty do not exist. There is only individual liberty.
I will reply to your blog post.
Patents and copyrights are not the ideas, but rather the protections on those Ideas, so I stand by my definition...
It was... The person(s) who generated the concept of the English language had voluntarily shared it with others, in some cases the recipients were not so voluntarily accepting it, but this is irrelevant, so the right to "own" the letter "A" was given up at that point....
Apples and oranges, at the point were the "firm" produces the power, it is already in place over the particular area, giving the "monopoly holder" a clear cut advantage over all other firms looking to provide the same service....
Who are you to dictate what value the painters and artists receive for their work?
Ok, is the answer to take you work, copy it and produce it without your concent, and without paying you for the right to do such?
Harry Felker:You are right we have come a long way from Constitutional Government, this is my purpose, to return us to the begining, before the laws that dictate rights are privileges, before the government could interpret the intent of the Constitution and had to adhere to the plain English printed on the page...
Not true. We are living the constitution today. This is the institution that the Constitution has created. Individual rights and legislative power(not to mention executive power) are incompatible, what we have today is the only way the contradictions in the Constitution could have worked out.
Is making the government the judge of what constitutes a first amendment violation going to protect freedom of speech? Of course not.
The Constitution isn't even a better option than the Articles of Confederation that it replaced. Its entirely contemptable.
Peace
Harry Felker:Ok, is the answer to take you work, copy it and produce it without your concent, and without paying you for the right to do such?
You are misusing the language. Not your fault, you've learned to do it from others. Copying something is not the same thing as taking it.
If I steal a car, I gain one car and someone else loses one car. Its a zero sum game; Scarcity exists, so property rights serve to resolve inevitable disputes. The damages I have causes are equal to the value of one car.
If I photo copy a page from a book, the original still exists, but now I own a second page. Its no longer a zero sum game. I can gain a page without anyone else losing a page. No damages have been created, because no one is worse off then they were before the page was copied. Where the car robbery scenario was a transfer of wealth, this is a scenario where production occurs.
An intellectual monopoly is no different than trade monopoly. Both seek to criminalize production in order to avoid competition thus protecting their own profits. Its victims are both the potential producers and potential consumers.
And with that, welcome aboard!
Spideynw: marquise: Spideynw:Is a letter of the alphabet IP? If not, why not? What is the arbitrary line that says once there are 5 or 500 letters strung together it becomes IP? A letter of the alphabet can not be considered intellectual property, Why not? marquise:but a common one Huh? marquise: Spideynw:Also, if IP really exists, then would you be OK with someone being able to "own" it indefinitely? Meaning they can sell it or pass it on to someone else? If someone is going to purchase a painting or a book, then, yes, those IP would be his indefinitely....and one can do whatever he wishes with his acquisition, sell it or pass it on to someone else...property right.... once released, an IP does not belong only to you anymore, this is obvious..... I am not talking about real property, I am talking about supposed intellectual property (i.e. owning ideas). marquise: Spideynw:Lastly, can you provide an actual definition as to what IP is? I am unsure what you mean by actual definition... Well, intellectual property to me would mean owning ideas. And since the letter A is just an idea, then someone should be able to own it, if there really is such a thing as intellectual property.
The supposed intellectual property needs a support in order to materialize outside your brain....
You are contradicting yourself.... the letter A is already a materialized expression of an idea....
wilderness: Yes I talked about what a government based on rights has evolved into. And no these have always been natural rights inherent in the individual. The governments have liked to say otherwise. The U.S. Constitution didn't change this. Natural rights go back before the U.S.
Obviously, the Constitution is the recognition not the creation of these rights
wilderness: So it's governments nature to be immoral and criminal and I'm morally supposed to swallow that. No way! It is governments nature to be immoral and criminal to take everything by the point of a gun and coerce people. People are coerced by the government to be in its monstrous system. The government is a criminal entity.
No, you are not supposed to "swallow it" you are supposed to fight it, you are one of the people, therefore you are morally justified to the dispensation of justice, particularly if it is justice that is disadvantageous to the government
wilderness: Government takes liberty from people. The government can't avoid being coercive against people and thus violate an individuals liberty. How is this government you talk about going to tax? The government doesn't one day decide to take individual's liberties. The only way the government can exist is it has to take their liberty from the very first moment the government comes into existence it violates individual liberty.
Ahhhh... the argument of taxation, the beauty of limited government and denial of imperial aspiration is that such a government can function on voluntary funds...
But to go further with this thought we would have to create a theoretical society and see how it would work out, as there is no real world example...
Harry Felker:But to go further with this thought we would have to create a theoretical society and see how it would work out, as there is no real world example...
Completely untrue.
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/5865/82248.aspx#82248
liberty student: Harry Felker:Liberty is a responsibility, it is a fragile idea that if not treated with respect and not responsibly cared for, it will be taken away... No, it is not. It can only be taken away by force, which is wrong. It isn't lost unless someone takes positive action (implying that liberty isn't a natural state but a manufactured one)
Please define for me force?
liberty student: Harry Felker:How do you mean it cannot exist without being imposed by someone? I'm saying it cannot be a responsibility unless that responsibility is accepted freely. You cannot declare that people have to do X (defend liberty) if they disagree. Responsibility is decided by individuals, at the individual level. We're not born into this world with responsibilities. That's (unintentionally I am sure) an argument for slavery.
OK... I see the contention...
To all humans, Liberty is a natural state, is not exactly true... Unfortunately Domination is a natural state, it is natural for humans to dominate their environment, their circumstances and most atrociously other humans. Liberty is the moral state of the individual, and when I speak of morals I do not speak of Dogmatic Morality, I speak of the moral justification of Liberty, which is, individualism, equality, justice, compassion and capitalism....
Are people able to choose to not defend Liberty, of course, but when one does not want Liberty, the choice to coerce Liberty from others should not be an option...
liberty student: True liberty, general liberty do not exist. There is only individual liberty.
I treat True and individual Liberty as synonymous, if you feel this is incorrect omit "true" and replace it with "Individual"
But yes, general Liberty is not Liberty at all, I probably should have said that better...
I do want you to know that I am enjoying this exchange...
Harry Felker: wilderness: Yes I talked about what a government based on rights has evolved into. And no these have always been natural rights inherent in the individual. The governments have liked to say otherwise. The U.S. Constitution didn't change this. Natural rights go back before the U.S. Obviously, the Constitution is the recognition not the creation of these rights
Ok, good, just gettin' my barrings on what you know and surely you are on what I know. Exchanging some knowledge on this free market forum.
Harry Felker: wilderness: So it's governments nature to be immoral and criminal and I'm morally supposed to swallow that. No way! It is governments nature to be immoral and criminal to take everything by the point of a gun and coerce people. People are coerced by the government to be in its monstrous system. The government is a criminal entity. No, you are not supposed to "swallow it" you are supposed to fight it, you are one of the people, therefore you are morally justified to the dispensation of justice, particularly if it is justice that is disadvantageous to the government
So justice over government in this context. ok.
Harry Felker: wilderness: Government takes liberty from people. The government can't avoid being coercive against people and thus violate an individuals liberty. How is this government you talk about going to tax? The government doesn't one day decide to take individual's liberties. The only way the government can exist is it has to take their liberty from the very first moment the government comes into existence it violates individual liberty. Ahhhh... the argument of taxation, the beauty of limited government and denial of imperial aspiration is that such a government can function on voluntary funds... But to go further with this thought we would have to create a theoretical society and see how it would work out, as there is no real world example...
So why do you need a government (monopoly rule via coercion, which therefore violates liberty right off the bat)? Sure taxes would be voluntary, but then why call it a government? What's so special about it?
JonBostwick: Harry Felker:You are right we have come a long way from Constitutional Government, this is my purpose, to return us to the begining, before the laws that dictate rights are privileges, before the government could interpret the intent of the Constitution and had to adhere to the plain English printed on the page... Not true. We are living the constitution today. This is the institution that the Constitution has created. Individual rights and legislative power(not to mention executive power) are incompatible, what we have today is the only way the contradictions in the Constitution could have worked out. Is making the government the judge of what constitutes a first amendment violation going to protect freedom of speech? Of course not. The Constitution isn't even a better option than the Articles of Confederation that it replaced. Its entirely contemptable.
I wholly disagree
We are not living the Constitution today, we are living a government interpretation of the Constitution, which is like asking a child molester to interpret what constitutes molestation, and then hiring him as a babysitter...
Where is the government given the authority to judge what is a first amendment violation? The fact is that it does not have this authority...
Harry Felker:Please define for me force?
Force, aggression, coercion. If you have an apple in your hand, and I take it from your hand without your permission (consent) then that is by force. I have aggressed against your property. If you are exercising your free speech, and I cup my hand on your mouth, that is aggression. I have touched you without consent.
The only way you can lose your liberty, would be for someone to positively interfere with you. That interference is aggressive force.
Harry Felker:To all humans, Liberty is a natural state, is not exactly true... Unfortunately Domination is a natural state, it is natural for humans to dominate their environment, their circumstances and most atrociously other humans.
We need to stop using the word liberty, because it's a subjective label and I don't think we're talking about the same thing at all.
We're born free. That is to say, we're born as free willed rational beings. In this regard, liberty (freedom) is our natural state. We could be born in the middle of a war, with only one arm, 3 months premature etc. But we are free in that we have free will to act. Interacting with nature is not an example of domination. Domination would be interacting with other rational beings with rights, in a manner that lacks consent. Like hitting someone, or taking their food by force. That would be domination. Hunting a deer, or chopping down a tree is not domination from a rights perspective, because animals and plants are not rational beings with rights. Anyway, we're way off topic.
Harry Felker:Liberty is the moral state of the individual, and when I speak of morals I do not speak of Dogmatic Morality, I speak of the moral justification of Liberty, which is, individualism, equality, justice, compassion and capitalism....
Right, I replied to something like this on your blog. It's very confusing. I even saw Wilderness' follow up, which was even more confusing to me. Capitalism is a system of private property ownership. It is a rational way of dealing with ownership in a world of scarce resources. It is value neutral, which is to say, it is not necessarily moral or good.
Justice, equality, compassion are all values based. I think we can safely say that someone who is not compassionate can still be free. And someone who is not for equality, or does not desire equality, is still free. And justice is somewhat arbitrary, in that what you consider restitution and what I consider restitution for the same offense might differ greatly.
Overall, I am struggling with this notion of liberty being contingent upon so many complex subjective factors.
That's why I like the NAP. It is a 3 letter acronym, and in one or two sentences, you can state the whole thing very clearly. And it's so simple, it is very hard to misinterpret, which I think is the hallmark of any good moral system. But the NAP is not why I have rights, or how I got my rights.
Harry Felker:Are people able to choose to not defend Liberty, of course, but when one does not want Liberty, the choice to coerce Liberty from others should not be an option...
Of course not. But again, one does not have to actively promote their liberty in order to have it. Because that implies they begin without liberty.
Harry Felker:I do want you to know that I am enjoying this exchange...
Good, because I don't want to turn you off on the discussion.
liberty student: Harry Felker:Liberty is the moral state of the individual, and when I speak of morals I do not speak of Dogmatic Morality, I speak of the moral justification of Liberty, which is, individualism, equality, justice, compassion and capitalism.... Right, I replied to something like this on your blog. It's very confusing. I even saw Wilderness' follow up, which was even more confusing to me. Capitalism is a system of private property ownership. It is a rational way of dealing with ownership in a world of scarce resources. It is value neutral, which is to say, it is not necessarily moral or good.
All's I was saying is rights come from the individual. All morals are not rights, but some rights are moral. Courage is a virtue, is moral, but in what context? Cause a murderer might be brave, but that's a vice. Context helps. Liberty is moral. What I mean is liberty is personally moral to me. Moral is a personal attribute. Moral is personal and if you're religious between you and your God. Rights on the other hand are interpersonal - between people. Rights involve a society. Rights come from the individual - all comes from the individual - but in a society certain values of the individual are required rights in order for quality interpersonal relationships (as opposed to interpersonal relationships that lack quality - a criminal and victim interpersonal relationship. That's not a good relationship and rights therefore have been violated). So life and liberty are natural rights inherent in human nature, the individual, and being rights are on the interpersonal level too.
Simple way to put it:
morals and values - have to do with the individual only
rights - have to do with individuals in interpersonal relations (between two or more people)
Rights emerge out of the individual. Rights are moral. Rights are values. Rights though go further than morals and values. Rights are interpersonal and have to do with society and that's why they are called rights. They are natural cause they are inherent in humans. Natural rights are of human nature. Natural Law defines human nature but also gravity and many other things. That's why gravity is called a natural law. Natural rights are natural laws too, but only for human nature, not for animals or plants or gravity for that matter, as you brought up LS.
any questions?
liberty student: Justice, equality, compassion are all values based. I think we can safely say that someone who is not compassionate can still be free. And someone who is not for equality, or does not desire equality, is still free. And justice is somewhat arbitrary, in that what you consider restitution and what I consider restitution for the same offense might differ greatly. Overall, I am struggling with this notion of liberty being contingent upon so many complex subjective factors.
Liberty is freedom (free-will) and this happens when there is no physical coercion or threat thereof. That's liberty. The NAP is a principle (the P) that upholds the right of liberty.
JonBostwick: You are misusing the language. Not your fault, you've learned to do it from others. Copying something is not the same thing as taking it.
OK...
Let us say Tom creates a car that runs on sunshine and farts, stinky but completely free energy, and said theoretical product performs comparably to the current fossil fuel car.
Dick who lives or works next to Tom's lab sees this car and at some engagement in Tom's home, Dick slips away from a crowd and sees Tom's Schematics for his car, or sees them on Tom's Computer ...
Dick copies these schematics (does not steal them) or e mails himself the files...
Then Dick sells these schematics to Ford
Now Tom has not lost anything but the ability to decide how his intellectual creation is to be used, if he wishes it to be used at all, and subsequently the potential for financial gain...
JonBostwick: And with that, welcome aboard!
I am truly enjoying this
wilderness:any questions?
Not a question, but a comment. I swear I have OD'd on the words moral and liberty between this thread and that blog post. If I don't read or write the words liberty or moral for two months, it will cause no discomfort. 14 sentences in that paragraph, lol.
wilderness:Liberty is freedom and is happens when simply there is no physical coercion or threat thereof. That's liberty. The NAP is a principle therefore that upholds the right of liberty.
Right, I agree with this. And the NAP is a moral principle. We don't need anything more complex based upon a combination of values like justice, compassion, equality, which seems to me to be a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (someone correct me if I am wrong).
Harry Felker:Now Tom has not lost anything but the ability to decide how his intellectual creation is to be used, if he wishes it to be used at all, and subsequently the potential for financial gain...
You can't own ideas in someone else's mind. Only the state creates IP monopoly through law, it does not occur in nature, as explained by the zero sum example. In nature, two people can't own the same thing without having an ownership conflict. But two people can own the same idea with no ownership conflict.
If he wants control over his idea, he must hide it from others, contract with them not to share the idea, and hope that no one else thinks of it independently.
IP is 100% a state created fiction. Anyway, we've got other fundamental things to hash out, as long as you are pro-state, it's going to be hard to make a case against the various state monopolies everyone takes for granted.
Harry Felker: Dick who lives or works next to Tom's lab sees this car and at some engagement in Tom's home, Dick slips away from a crowd and
Dick who lives or works next to Tom's lab sees this car and at some engagement in Tom's home, Dick slips away from a crowd and
ok...
Harry Felker: sees Tom's Schematics for his car,
sees Tom's Schematics for his car,
Sees them how?
Harry Felker: or sees them on Tom's Computer ...
or sees them on Tom's Computer ...
So he violated Tom's property by using Tom's computer, not to mention he probably trespassed and violated Tom's other properties (yard, house, etc...)
Harry Felker: Dick copies these schematics (does not steal them) or e mails himself the files... Then Dick sells these schematics to Ford Now Tom has not lost anything but the ability to decide how his intellectual creation is to be used, if he wishes it to be used at all, and subsequently the potential for financial gain...
And the rest of your scenario...
liberty student: wilderness:any questions? Not a question, but a comment. I swear I have OD'd on the words moral and liberty between this thread and that blog post. If I don't read or write the words liberty or moral for two months, it will cause no discomfort. 14 sentences in that paragraph, lol.
yeah, it was long... I thought about that on and off today while I was out and about. I'm trying to sharpen my use of those concepts. Agreed. I also want to throw too much out there sometimes - I get excited...lol I do have an excess at times no doubt. I need to work on it more. Thanks for the feedback.
liberty student: wilderness:Liberty is freedom and is happens when simply there is no physical coercion or threat thereof. That's liberty. The NAP is a principle therefore that upholds the right of liberty. Right, I agree with this. And the NAP is a moral principle. We don't need anything more complex based upon a combination of values like justice, compassion, equality, which seems to me to be a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (someone correct me if I am wrong).
You don't need to explain them, but it doesn't hurt. I'm not quite sure what the significance these pillars are of Harry's. For instance, the NAP would allow justice, compassion, equality, and much else to flourish. That's what liberty does. It creates diversity and that's the virtue of libertarianism versus socialism (which wants to crush diversity. Socialism is very uncreative).
If these pillars are virtues, then there are tons more virtues than this. The significance of virtues and goods are they are the fruit of a human flourishing (pursuing happiness), in other words, how a human attains quality in his or her life. Without a human flourishing, being excellent, and having quality, well, rights wouldn't exist. A bunch of vice oriented individuals not flourishing and life would definitely not be excellent (in virtuous kind of way).
Here's an example of how much more to being human isn't strictly a rights issue (but rights not violated make this possible): A basic good of a human is health. A mentally healthy human will uphold the NAP and thus liberty. They won't go around coercing others. That's the argument for insanity based cases in which the health of the individual destroys their ability to uphold the rights of others. This was just one example.
But stating and discussing NAP does simplify the understanding and is an excellent way to introduce to people our basic, but significant stance. We don't coerce others. It's our non-aggression principle and libertarians are very principled people. We stick to our principles without swerving too far off course. Ron P. is a very principled person. He could be a north star guiding ships across the ocean. He doesn't change his stance much at all.
I like the apple example...
So now you tell me that it is compassionate that this apple will nourish you, who has no other access to food, and you tell me it is my social responsibility to give you the apple by sacrifice, because I have the apple, I must be better off...
Without touching me your tears have aggressed against my property because sacrifice and compassion are not the same...
But we are not born with the respect of other free willed rational beings, this is why man dominates man by nature...
Liberty Student: Capitalism is a system of private property ownership.
Capitalism is a system of private property ownership.
Yes, this system describes voluntary interaction based on value given for the receipt of goods, services, etc (or property if you prefer). It is because of volition that capitalism is moral, it is the free will of the buyer and seller that we witness the virtuous nature of capitalism. Anything less than capitalism is not moral because of the trespass upon free will of any party of the exchange of said property.
Liberty Student: Overall, I am struggling with this notion of liberty being contingent upon so many complex subjective factors.
The issue is you are looking at it from the perspective of your interaction with another and not from another interacting with you
Compassion does not only concern the less fortunate, it is a protection of the givers of charity from legal plunder
Example: Just as it is compassionate to give to the needy, that is volunteer property, time, anything of value, it is compassionate to keep the charity voluntary and not force the productive to be slaves of the less productive.
Equality is more to the point of respecting the one factor that makes us all "similar" we are all free willed individuals and thus have the natural rights inherent to this property, ability is where we are not equal, but treated equal in regard to the value of the ability we have.
Example: Individual A is a "good carpenter", and B is a "poor carpenter"...
Now Individual A demands a higher wage than B because his work has a greater value (less repair, more satisfaction of the customer, more professional, etc.). Now it is a violation of Individual A's rights to arbitrarily devalue his work to the level of B's for the sake of equal wages, because equal work is not done. Similarly, you do not give a plumber a surgeon's wage for clearing a drain, you pay him the value of the work done, just as you pay the surgeon the value for the work he does, and this is the notion of equality that I speak of.
Justice does not indicate the government over the people, but the equal protection under the law of all individuals as opposed to the implied aristocracy of political connection and the individuals personal responsibility in regard to the actions voluntarily taken. Justice is only arbitrary when you take it from the stance of the end result of a violation, the sentencing, the justice I speak of is: the Law (either Natural or Arbitrary) apply evenly, that is no arbitrary advantage given, and when action is taken, without coercion or force, the sole responsibility rests on the individual voluntarily acting
Example: There is no justice in the United States today, we see countless politicians using political connections to skirt the Law and take no responsibility for their actions...
The way NAP is talked about it seems to me like I am pulling it apart with my ideas, not so much trying to, I first heard about NAP from you guys and these articles predate this conversation, but, and this is my opinion, if you look at what I propose with these "pillars", using them morally (as I put it) derives this NAP, I would like to know yours and wilderness' thoughts on this...
Liberty Student: But again, one does not have to actively promote their liberty in order to have it.
But again, one does not have to actively promote their liberty in order to have it.
No, one does not, but the one who does not is choosing to not have direct control over the maintenance of his Liberty, thus is more apt to lose it...
Liberty Student: Because that implies they begin without liberty.
Because that implies they begin without liberty.
Not True, it applies not only to the achievement but the maintaining of such liberty...
I do know where the contention is, and I feel the fool for it not hitting me sooner...
I am not speaking of free will, I am speaking of living free, as one sees fit
wilderness:Sees them how?
Laying on the desk, or on the screen of Tom's computer - Dick was at an engagement at Tom's House, so he was invited into the home, I thought I said that...
wilderness:And the rest of your scenario...
That is what I want to know from the people who think IP is wrong, how does this play out...
Harry Felker: So now you tell me that it is compassionate that this apple will nourish you, who has no other access to food, and you tell me it is my social responsibility to give you the apple by sacrifice, because I have the apple, I must be better off... Without touching me your tears have aggressed against my property because sacrifice and compassion are not the same...
No. Aggression is only physical.
Harry Felker:But we are not born with the respect of other free willed rational beings, this is why man dominates man by nature...
This is utterly false. Man has a mind, and the innate capacity for reason, which allows him to understand that trade and tolerance are beneficial. Animals dominate each other, animals are not capable of rational thought. Don't confuse evil (revolt against reason) with nature.
Harry Felker:Yes, this system describes voluntary interaction based on value given for the receipt of goods, services, etc (or property if you prefer).
Capitalism is a system of private property ownership. Capitalism is not the act of exchange.
Harry Felker:It is because of volition that capitalism is moral, it is the free will of the buyer and seller that we witness the virtuous nature of capitalism.
Capitalism is value free. Morals are irrelevant to capitalism. It is a rational system.
Harry Felker:Anything less than capitalism is not moral because of the trespass upon free will of any party of the exchange of said property.
Capitalism is the ideal system, because it is rational. The alternative is socialism, which is irrational, that is to say, without private property ownership and the market exchange which flows from that, there is no way to ascertain prices, and without prices, you cannot rationally order scarce resources. You would have chaos. Capitalism has nothing to do with morality of free will or exchange. It is a system based on a rational ordering of a world of scarce resources.
Harry Felker:The issue is you are looking at it from the perspective of your interaction with another and not from another interacting with you
No, the problem is that as you have laid out these various values you place on things, you add subjectivity, and if my subjective valuation differs from yours, then I may come to different conclusions about liberty. Since our values are subject to change, it means that the definition of liberty (as you define it) is fluid and not solid.
The compassion, equality, justice portion of your post is not necessary for liberty. If we have non-aggression that's all we need. And there are simple and plain cases to be made for a moral system based on non-aggression. You're making one of the mistakes of the Constitution. By trying to be too specific, it is too easy to circumvent.
Harry Felker:The way NAP is talked about it seems to me like I am pulling it apart with my ideas, not so much trying to, I first heard about NAP from you guys and these articles predate this conversation, but, and this is my opinion, if you look at what I propose with these "pillars", using them morally (as I put it) derives this NAP, I would like to know yours and wilderness' thoughts on this...
The NAP underpins what you have written and more. It cannot be a derivative from your position (which is narrow and prone to defintion errors) and likewise your position cannot be derived from it because you eliminate all sorts of possibilities for moral judgements based on the NAP outside of your own.
Harry Felker: Liberty Student: Because that implies they begin without liberty. Not True, it applies not only to the achievement but the maintaining of such liberty...
I don't know how many more ways I can say this. Being free willed is a natural state. It isn't something you have to achieve, and it is not necessarily something you must maintain.
Harry Felker: I do know where the contention is, and I feel the fool for it not hitting me sooner... I am not speaking of free will, I am speaking of living free, as one sees fit
They are the same thing. How can you possibly live free as you see fit without free will?
wilderness:yeah, it was long... I thought about that on and off today while I was out and about. I'm trying to sharpen my use of those concepts. Agreed. I also want to throw too much out there sometimes - I get excited...lol I do have an excess at times no doubt. I need to work on it more. Thanks for the feedback.
Not so much long as staccato. We're all works in progress.
wilderness:You don't need to explain them, but it doesn't hurt. I'm not quite sure what the significance these pillars are of Harry's. For instance, the NAP would allow justice, compassion, equality, and much else to flourish. That's what liberty does. It creates diversity and that's the virtue of libertarianism versus socialism (which wants to crush diversity. Socialism is very uncreative).
By being so narrow (trying to define everything) it's inviting epistimological errors.
wilderness:Ron P. is a very principled person. He could be a north star guiding ships across the ocean. He doesn't change his stance much at all.
He doesn't have to change course because he understands his direction. I don't know if you have read any of his books, (Revolution Manifesto does not count), but even his short book about Mises, Ron Paul is one very smart and intelligent cat. He gets all of this, objectivism, praxeology, austrian economics and a whole lot more.
Harry Felker: wilderness:Sees them how? Laying on the desk, or on the screen of Tom's computer - Dick was at an engagement at Tom's House, so he was invited into the home, I thought I said that...
So he violated property rights. He didn't merely copying them - he stole them. He walked onto his yard, into the house, and fiddled around his desk. He's a criminal. What's this have to do with intellectual property?
Harry Felker: wilderness:And the rest of your scenario... That is what I want to know from the people who think IP is wrong, how does this play out... Did Tom lose value, but he is responsible because he did not hide it when he had guests? Did Tom lose value, and Dick has violated Tom by going into the study despite being invited in the home for a social engagement? Did Tom lose nothing because he had not attained a production contract before Dick did? How does this reconcile if Tom decided that he did not want the invention to reach production?
Your whole scenario is about a theft. It didn't even get to the issue of intellectual property yet. Dick is a snooping thief.
Harry Felker: The way NAP is talked about it seems to me like I am pulling it apart with my ideas, not so much trying to, I first heard about NAP from you guys and these articles predate this conversation, but, and this is my opinion, if you look at what I propose with these "pillars", using them morally (as I put it) derives this NAP, I would like to know yours and wilderness' thoughts on this...
You pulled apart NAP, but then you derive this NAP? So you took it apart and put it back together again? Sounds fun, like playing with blocks.... but joking aside, I'm still not getting the significance you are giving these pillars.
If individuals are not aggressing against each other, then a flourish of virtues and goods are active. Not only these pillars of yours.
Harry Felker: And the letter A is a product of the concept of the mind... It was... The person(s) who generated the concept of the English language had voluntarily shared it with others, in some cases the recipients were not so voluntarily accepting it, but this is irrelevant, so the right to "own" the letter "A" was given up at that point....
So, if someone throws away a chair, no one can ever own it again?
Harry Felker: And if a power company is given a monopoly to provide power to a region, starting another power company to compete with it is "a violation of the right of the" monopoly holder as well. It does not mean they should be given a monopoly in the first place. Apples and oranges, at the point were the "firm" produces the power, it is already in place over the particular area, giving the "monopoly holder" a clear cut advantage over all other firms looking to provide the same service....
I don't see how that negates the fact that they are both just monopolies.
Harry Felker: What does this have to do with anything? Without copyrights, painters can still paint and sell their paintings. Writers can still write and sell their writings. They just will not necessarily make as much money. Who are you to dictate what value the painters and artists receive for their work?
So you think monopolies are a good thing? You think politicians should just arbitrarily decide who gets a monopoly?
Harry Felker: The law may state, "it is illegal to copy some things", but that does not make it theft. So please quit saying it is stealing. It is just illegal in certain cases to copy. As such, it is a completely arbitrary law. Politicians just decide arbitrarily which things are illegal to copy and decide arbitrarily how long it is illegal to copy said items. Ok, is the answer to take you work, copy it and produce it without your concent, and without paying you for the right to do such?
Of course copying should not be illegal!
wilderness: So he violated property rights. He didn't merely copying them - he stole them. He walked onto his yard, into the house, and fiddled around his desk. He's a criminal. What's this have to do with intellectual property?
So invitation in the home does not mean one has access to the home?
So it is theft, and not copying, to copy something on someone else's desk?
wilderness: Your whole scenario is about a theft. It didn't even get to the issue of intellectual property yet. Dick is a snooping thief.
Is he still a snooping theif if Dick sees the schematics in passing, remembers them and reproduces them at home?
Harry Felker: wilderness: So he violated property rights. He didn't merely copying them - he stole them. He walked onto his yard, into the house, and fiddled around his desk. He's a criminal. What's this have to do with intellectual property? So invitation in the home does not mean one has access to the home?
Common sense, that I'm sure you do have, says a guest is that, a guest. Once invited into a house that can't roam around the house shuffle through somebody's papers on a desk and access their computer. I'm a guest in somebody's house does that mean I can put my muddy boots up on their table and be offended that the home owner tells me I can't do that? Surely the guest shouldn't be offended.
Harry Felker: So it is theft, and not copying, to copy something on someone else's desk?
If you're saying I was invited into the room, allowed to walk around the desk, and the home owner is allowing all this to take place (allowing you into his study/den). Also if the home owner is watching you look through some papers on a desk without making you go away, then I would say the home owner allowed you to look at the papers on the desk. Wouldn't you? So no theft.
Harry Felker: wilderness: Your whole scenario is about a theft. It didn't even get to the issue of intellectual property yet. Dick is a snooping thief. Is he still a snooping theif if Dick sees the schematics in passing, remembers them and reproduces them at home?
I don't know the whole context of this, but what I outlined above shows a situation in which the home owner allowed Dick to look around and see the schematics and thus no thief. Maybe you're thinking of another situation?
liberty student: No. Aggression is only physical.
So implementation of a system of taxation that compels your children, without their consent to abide by is not coercion if I do not need to bera physical force onto them?
liberty student: This is utterly false. Man has a mind, and the innate capacity for reason, which allows him to understand that trade and tolerance are beneficial. Animals dominate each other, animals are not capable of rational thought. Don't confuse evil (revolt against reason) with nature.
So are you postulating that the world actively revolts against reason?
liberty student: Capitalism is a system of private property ownership. Capitalism is not the act of exchange.
Well then what is it when you wish to exchange your apples for steak?
liberty student: Capitalism is value free. Morals are irrelevant to capitalism. It is a rational system. Capitalism is the ideal system, because it is rational. The alternative is socialism, which is irrational, that is to say, without private property ownership and the market exchange which flows from that, there is no way to ascertain prices, and without prices, you cannot rationally order scarce resources. You would have chaos. Capitalism has nothing to do with morality of free will or exchange. It is a system based on a rational ordering of a world of scarce resources.
Why is capitalism rational, price assignation is how socialism solves this issue, but that violates the natural right to private property ownership, making it immoral. It is private ownership of property that puts the decision (by volition) of the fate of said capital goods (scarce resources), the market exchange based on your voluntary decision (derived from property ownership) ascertains the price, thus your right to property ownership is represented by Capitalism, anything else, either by price assignation or confiscation, is immoral, as it violates the NAP.
Example: There are 100 widgets (scarce resource) and you own 50 of them, you can choose to sell them on the market, price ascertained by this, you can choose to keep them, price increases because scarcity increases (supply decreases) as you are not releasing your 50 to the market or you may give them away (decreasing demand) and therefore decreasing price. (I know this is very simplified)
Now a societal contract (government for sake of argument) decides that it is not good for society for you to have this choice and confiscates half the widget supply for redistribution (obvious violation) or fixes the widget price, making your choice concerning widgets irrelevant to price (still a violation as your benefit to having widgets is artificially tampered with). Now, a lesser resource, we will say cogs, are not tampered with either way, and it is more beneficial because of this to own cogs.
In regard to the example:
liberty student: No, the problem is that as you have laid out these various values you place on things, you add subjectivity, and if my subjective valuation differs from yours, then I may come to different conclusions about liberty. Since our values are subject to change, it means that the definition of liberty (as you define it) is fluid and not solid.
I disagree, the definition of liberty is very concrete, I just propose the most logical formula to achieve a life of freedom while interacting with others, and I use reason to assign these values, through examples of voluntary interaction of individuals as compared to compulsory interaction. Much in the same way that presentation to the market voluntarily of scarce resources derives a value to said resources, giving natural order to a world of scarce resource, presentation of these principles in a society derives a moral value to living free as an individual in a society of individuals.
liberty student: The compassion, equality, justice portion of your post is not necessary for liberty. If we have non-aggression that's all we need. And there are simple and plain cases to be made for a moral system based on non-aggression. You're making one of the mistakes of the Constitution. By trying to be too specific, it is too easy to circumvent.
How does the NAP stand against those that disregard it? I think you are falling into the Utopian Trap, where everyone would abide by it, and this is not the case, as those that would not can use any of these principles not present to circumvent NAP:
Example: If you believe you are not equal to others, let us say you are above... then how does NAP apply to you against those you believe are not your equals? If you believe there is an inequality between you and others, violating the NAP is justifiable, just as it is justifiable to not concern the NAP to animals and the environment...
liberty student: The NAP underpins what you have written and more. It cannot be a derivative from your position (which is narrow and prone to defintion errors) and likewise your position cannot be derived from it because you eliminate all sorts of possibilities for moral judgements based on the NAP outside of your own.
This is your opinion, but it is only based on the brief of a much larger work, I have found that brevity keeps readers, and the remainder of the series is the in depth logical argument of these "pillars", I had thrown this into the gauntlet to really give you a compass to see where I am coming from, not for you to think that this is the extent of my work on the project.
liberty student: I don't know how many more ways I can say this. Being free willed is a natural state. It isn't something you have to achieve, and it is not necessarily something you must maintain. They are the same thing. How can you possibly live free as you see fit without free will?
I am not questioning free will, I am questioning the automatic connection, that if you have free will you live free, this is just not the case, you live in a world with other people and at some point interact with them, at this crossroads you can live free or you can not. This is the liberty you can chose to maintain, or not, and in the case where living free is opressed by a social contract (government) it must be achieved, or not. What I am saying to put it bluntly is that having free will alone and nothing else is not enough to live free, without it it is impossible, this is true, but it is equally impossible, when interacting with others, to only have free will (a wholly internal concept), and invariably keep said free life.
If you think this postulation is wrong, ask the Native Americans...