The philosophy of liberty (for all you socialists)

[chris]

I've seen this so many times but it never gets boring...I love it.

http://www.libertarian.to/images/animation/PhilosophyOfLiberty-english.swf

[h1s_l0rdsh1p]

That was actually pretty good.

[chris]

That was actually pretty good.

It's beautiful.

[h1s_l0rdsh1p]

I think I will send it to my grand father...

Ex-Cop of all fucking things.

[joss classey]

i don't own my life

i am life

[h1s_l0rdsh1p]

I just can't stop watching it. I mean, it's soo fucking simple, but it's just right.

[kblood]

This is so very deep, thoughtfull and with so much wisdom to back it up, that I believe it could make for a way of life on its own. Nice music and good animations. Nice use of symbols and so on. If anyone know those that made this flash animation, then please say thanks for making such a great flash animation :)

Maybe I should get back to making flash games? Could be nice trying to make it up on some of the things I read and learn here on the Icke forum. So easy to make games with flash, that I feel kind of lazy that I havent made any real games on it yet.

Thank you for posting it Chris :D

Live free and prosper (star trek quote?) :)

[Anders Lindman]

I've seen this so many times but it never gets boring...I love it.

http://www.libertarian.to/images/animation/PhilosophyOfLiberty-english.swf

Brilliant! Individual sovereignty. Individual integrity. :cool:

[chris]

It gets better each time you watch it:)

I think this philosophy will not only help society but also help but also your mind as all your personalities are conflicting and pulling from each other but understanding liberty will help them prosper in your internal world which will benefit the person tremendously...Its the reason why I think a lot of the old texans were great, bill hicks went by this philosophy and was so intelligent.

[caleb_11]

I don't necessarily think that you should just say this to socialist, rather anyone who supports rule. I agree with a lot in liberarianism, but there is one fundamental flaw and that is the "right" to property. Property is theft. Property is inline with capitalism which is not freedom at all. In fact, it is the opposite to what love is. If it is the oppostite to what love is, then fear and hatred is bred...and so on. If you think that no one should be in power and you still advocate property then you seem to be in favour of anarcho-capitalism. But then, is it not government that helps moniter and distribute property? What then would we define as someone's property? There would be greed and envy of someone's elses property.

We need to go beyond the concept of property and accept that all is one, and not tho think in terms of division, only then will we have freedom because property implies possession and possession is constraint and is the opposite to what freedom is all bloody about.

[h1s_l0rdsh1p]

I don't necessarily think that you should just say this to socialist, rather anyone who supports rule. I agree with a lot in liberarianism, but there is one fundamental flaw and that is the "right" to property. Property is theft. Property is inline with capitalism which is not freedom at all. In fact, it is the opposite to what love is. If it is the oppostite to what love is, then fear and hatred is bred...and so on. If you think that no one should be in power and you still advocate property then you seem to be in favour of anarcho-capitalism. But then, is it not government that helps moniter and distribute property? What then would we define as someone's property? There would be greed and envy of someone's elses property.

We need to go beyond the concept of property and accept that all is one, and not tho think in terms of division, only then will we have freedom because property implies possession and possession is constraint and is the opposite to what freedom is all bloody about.

Welcome to the forums.

I completely understand what you mean on the right of property. (Proudhon was a great thinker that almost NOBODY gives credit to, imo)

However, I disagree with any form of power deciding how property is shared or used. The fact is, is that property in land, is merely space that you occupie. The concept of property is just one of safety. People own a house because they want to be somewhere safe. When you are sleeping in your home at night, you don't want anybgody just coming in. Even if they are not up to no good, it's still the fact that, you are trying to sleep, and something has just awoken you. Also, if you made it, it's yours, isn't it? Unless, your creation chooses not to be your property anymore. But if it did so, that means it has a thinking mind capable of having will. In which case, you do not have the right to claim it then.

[caleb_11]

Hey, yeah Proudhon doesn't get much credit and is only mentioned by his line of "property is theft". I agree with you there in part, we do need somewhere to sleep and have a roof over our heads. It is when we get petty and literally draw a line and set up fences, (barriers - divsion and therefore conflict) and claim "right" to property and say, "this is mine, "that is yours" and if I have more, then tough. In some libertarian communes around the world, they take up a libertarian approach and reject the concept of property and there is peace. There is of course one's own house, which everyone accpets as an instrument for their living but have no defined boundaries and property and it works quite well.

If you have property this means you have something to defend, sort of like a nation, ideology or whatever, in that defence to protect property, there will inexorably be conflict.

Oh and by the way, nice flash clip.

[h1s_l0rdsh1p]

I can understand the peace in there though. But the problem is, is that people need to ask permission. Not to the "owner" but if anyone is looking to use something because they would like to use it soon.

[Anders Lindman]

If you have property this means you have something to defend, sort of like a nation, ideology or whatever, in that defence to protect property, there will inexorably be conflict.


I only need to defend my property if other people are thieves. There has to be some form of exchange of goods and services. And money is the most efficient method for this as far as I have seen. I don't want to be handed some one model concentration camp clothes. I want to buy my own clothes, and I want to have plenty of models to choose from.

[caleb_11]

I gues it lies in co-operation and is ideological. For example, those within libertarian communes without having property are in general agreement and no coercion is needed. They of course don't use the same bed someone else is using. Also, I have noticed that they do have variying types of clothing and do trade...it's just different. I want to make some more observations of these communes as they are very interesting. It also makes me laugh when people say without government there can be no roads, when these communues, without coercive force have successfully created roads for themselves. Of course, these roads aren't as sophisticaed as something in the city, but it's a start.

[mightiswrong]

Libertarians do promote self interest a lot. Very interesting philosphy but I agree love trumps it and I have seen anarchist communities that get on very well. All the land, (a valley) was legally owned by someone who didn't seem to be around and he had allowed this community to be there for 20 years or so. One person had fenced off a section and seemed to be seperate from the rest who had their teepees and little homes and so on but all got on fairly well. The only rule was that there were no rules oh and no fires in the forest. Anarchism is the way to go.

[Anders Lindman]

I gues it lies in co-operation and is ideological.

I'm not against such lifestyles but I don't think we should use it as a blanket template and force everybody to live that way. It would be better to have a more sound monetary system that would allow both competitive business and other lifestyles.

[mightiswrong]

A free market allows for any money that two persons agree to use.

[Anders Lindman]

A free market allows for any money that two persons agree to use.

We need as few laws and regulations as possible for society to be as flexible as possible. One start would be to replace fractional reserve money with real reserve money. That kind of money would not need much regulations and manipulations and most of all, it would stop the debt-interest vampires from creating money out of thin air and sucking people (and whole nations) dry.

[caleb_11]

I still do not equate freedom with capitalism, but if you want a capitalist society then you will need some government intervention, which is what you call objectivism. But then there is a problem. To retain capitalism you need to have the "necessary" evil known as government to help decide in property and trade, yet, you do not want the coercive force to enforce it...it can not work then. Youtube Objectivism and anarchism.

[Anders Lindman]

I still do not equate freedom with capitalism, but if you want a capitalist society then you will need some government intervention, which is what you call objectivism. But then there is a problem. To retain capitalism you need to have the "necessary" evil known as government to help decide in property and trade, yet, you do not want the coercive force to enforce it...it can not work then. Youtube Objectivism and anarchism.

The government can be made much smaller. That's what Ron Paul is saying. Much smaller. Far less regulations than today. And the transition from huge government to a core government can be done gradually and smoothly, so that society and all people have time to adapt, except for fractional reserve banking; that crap has to be transformed immediately!!! :mad:

[caleb_11]

Yes, I do agree that we need to decentralise governtment in order to have more freedom but coercion is still coercion. Voting for a libertarian party would sure help but I also think that in order to have fuller freedom with equality ( I sure as hell don't agree with and even more powerful murdoch empire) we need to get rid of privatisation too. I do not advocate blueprints, but my theory goes that if there were a radical change in the individual and everyone were to love and tolerate one another it would look someting like an anarcho syndicalist society, not following that blueprint of course, but more an anthropological view of society.

[Anders Lindman]

we need to get rid of privatisation too

Take houses for example. If there was no privatization, then all people would have to live in the same kind of houses. That would be worse than the Soviet Union! I want a small house, but with one hell of a sea view, situated in a beautiful area. Such house is very expensive.

[cruise4]

Try designing a society you want from the ground up, not the other way around...

So we want everything to be free. No personal Tax.

So no-one owns land... occupiers are caretakers. You can choose where you want to reside. If there's a house there, its yours for as long as you want it. If there isn't the Builders can build one for you... for free. The builders will be people who 'wish' or 'choose to' build. Architects will use the opportunity to express their chosen 'Art'. Or self build with no restraints bar the immediate community concerns. As much land as you want for free is not allowed. If you wish to be a large scale farmer you can be but the occupation of land over and above your personal requirement needs public compensation.

I am confident individual free energy for all is possible right now.
I am confident eco-friendly water treatment is possible now.

Transport fuel cost will also be free and again exists now.

Food can be grown by anyone and no chemicals used at all right through the production process. Community markets will become as they are in parts of France (loaded with fresh produce on a daily basis). Towns and Villages will once again become infused with smaller shops selling higher quality produce. and character and individuality will arise again. Supermarkets, like banks will be gone.

Only one bank. Owned by the people and overseen by a broad based meritocratic body.

We go back to Community values. Old people are rightfully looked after by family and/or friends 'within the community'. Education is up to the local community. They can have schools as they see fit. Playing fields, whatever they want. The community will teach the young. A Policeman will be a member of the community and living amonst them.

Medical will encompass everything from production to treatment and include alternative. Medical training and education will also be this bodies responsibility once a certain standard is required and its a vocational based choice. You might have a space guild along these lines or environmental body etc.

Start with No Laws and then discuss which laws are required.

Massive Fibre optic infrastructure (or other) to everywhere that wants it delivering all content for free.

This is a huge subject. But notice how so far we have elements of a system that enables everyone to do whatever they wish. Few wish to do nothing. Shops, engineers, architects, musicians, sports... you can do whatever you choose. You become an asset and get 'standing' from service to, but its up to you.

But what about materials, goods.... well these take resources. Those are publically owned so the taking requires public compensation. The introduction of a exchange medium could be worked into this scenario to take care of the remining issues. One bank so anything pertaining to interest pays the citizen either directly or through decided upon infrastructure.

So you end up with free basic everything, the ability to buy more goods than you really need should you wish, and the freedom to pursue anything you want through life. No passports, documents, councils... none of it.

Decisions are made via all citizen debate (like on the internet for example), a broad based meritocracy council comprising professional body reps and citizen segment reps.

When expanded upon this sort of loose outline is so alien to how we do things now that its hard to work out the impact on some fields. But the more I think about it, the more workable something like this becomes. Initially you can say all sorts, like how could I cross the sea... but people want to live on boats and be sailors. Questions are answerable with a bit of thought.

Anyway this is the sort of thing I want.

[Anders Lindman]

You can choose where you want to reside. If there's a house there, its yours for as long as you want it.

Some areas would be very popular and so there would be competition for those areas. The only way to solve this is that those areas would be more expensive. To use lottery would be horrible. :eek: Or to use some voting process, or 'social status points' would be equally horrible.

[cruise4]

"Some areas would be very popular and so there would be competition for those areas"

No there wouldn't. There cannot be competition for a house under the plan I oulined if its occupied. If the area is in such demand then it will expand. Eventually such an expansion might well detract from the attraction.

You are espousing the eugenics argument here, albeit in different terms.

Remember Cities and many Towns where everyone is herded together is an unnatural construct these days in many ways. Its necessary to see past the artificially created society we have now, and its attributes, to see how this sort of thing could work.

An empty house could be allocated on a first come first served basis.

And there's no-one with multiple house ownership any more and much land is released from the robbers back to the people, eg. Prince Charles's land.

[kblood]

Food can be grown by anyone and no chemicals used at all right through the production process. Community markets will become as they are in parts of France (loaded with fresh produce on a daily basis). Towns and Villages will once again become infused with smaller shops selling higher quality produce. and character and individuality will arise again. Supermarkets, like banks will be gone.


I do agree all this is possible, but it makes for small closed societies. There will always be those that are starving, and they will be forced to steal from others. Wether it is free or not. To make a society like this, take alot of cooperation and understanding of each other. I do hope we can make it like this one day.

Another thing is, it sounds a bit too much like communism. What ruined communism (as I see it) was the fact that you did not get any higher salary working 24 hours a day as a top scientist compared to the person who sweeps the streets. Many kinds of jobs today are jobs I do not think would be done if we did not have some kind of currency and those kinds of rewards. We do need some kinds of "carrots" for those that work harder than others. Otherwise we might end up with alot of freeloaders that does not see any reason to work at all, since everyone else seems to be happy doing it all for them. I guess it can be done if the discipline required for this kind of society is there from the beginning.

And another thing: French farmers are able to produce all those good fresh produce each day, partly due to EU funding. French farmers today does not seem to be efficient enough to make it all run around, and therefore they are part of the reason why the EU supports farmers inside the EU. This leads to farmers outside the EU, especially those in other countries, end up with our surplus of produce. Their own possible surplus only gets to rot for all the EU cares, since we got so much here in EU. I hope they find a way to fix this, since the farmer lobbiests in EU have gotten way too many priveledges. I guess something like EU simply cannot be done and still make for a better world. It does seem to make for a better EU (so far).

Well, seeing our current problems will not make them go away. It is a nice idea Cruise4 :) I hope we will get a society like this, where everyone can find his or her own place. A society where it is about filling the "gaps" to make yourself usefull and finding these gaps. Helping where help is needed, and working where work is needed. Hopefully makes for less corruption as well :) I believe it would.

[Anders Lindman]

"Some areas would be very popular and so there would be competition for those areas"

No there wouldn't. There cannot be competition for a house under the plan I oulined if its occupied. If the area is in such demand then it will expand. Eventually such an expansion might well detract from the attraction.

You are espousing the eugenics argument here, albeit in different terms.

Remember Cities and many Towns where everyone is herded together is an unnatural construct these days in many ways. Its necessary to see past the artificially created society we have now, and its attributes, to see how this sort of thing could work.

An empty house could be allocated on a first come first served basis.

And there's no-one with multiple house ownership any more and much land is released from the robbers back to the people, eg. Prince Charles's land.

I don't think there is a coincidence that certain areas are very expensive. Nor do I believe that there would be no competition for these areas. The best way to solve competition is by using money. It becomes more and more evident that fractional reserve money only serves the elite and especially the banking elite. A much better form of currency should be possible. My suggestion is to use what I call value currency (I wrote about that in another thread).

[cruise4]

"Another thing is, it sounds a bit too much like communism. What ruined communism (as I see it) was the fact that you did not get any higher salary working 24 hours a day as a top scientist compared to the person who sweeps the streets."

Communism has never been seen in this world. The communism we are used to is actually a dictatorship. Why should a scientist, doing something he loves and maybe has a gift for, be paid more than a streetcleaner who could be just as blessed but rates community cleanliness as a necessary job? There is no reason. Instead of Dollars we have notes called 'Hours' so you'd have a 'half an hour' note and a '5 minutes' coin etc. You get this 'wealth' by service (or job). You'd buy food, clothes and produced goods using this stuff. There's nothing else left to buy. How many hours worth of potential plumbing services do you want to accrue?

"I don't think there is a coincidence that certain areas are very expensive"

No... I'm not suggesting it is a coincidence. I'm saying its social engineering that has resulted in an unnatural lifestyle at personal and conurbation level.
Where I live is beautiful, but there's hardly anyone here, because they deem the 'work' is elsewhere.

"I do agree all this is possible, but it makes for small closed societies"

Not necessarily,and towns and cities do have something to offer. For example lets suppose these underground cities exist and they were made with 2 mile a day laser tunnelers that auto coat the walls in Obsidian.

Now remember the in series hydro power generators that can be placed in the water supply piping system? Put them down a tunnel and maintainence becomes as simple as freeze blocking a segment to fix. No more roadworks.

And a fibre optic network to deliver all content and communication? Down the tunnel.

And the free energy mag-lev transport systems that might exist? Could we maybe have an automated underground distribution network? No more lorries on the roads... what a boon to congestion that would be.

And if we suggested a scheme such as this to the Civil Engineers and involved bodies do you not think here is a project worthy of getting out of bed for?

Then there's Tesla. If distributed energy is possible... then no more wires and poles everywhere.

[Anders Lindman]

Why should a scientist, doing something he loves and maybe has a gift for, be paid more than a streetcleaner who could be just as blessed but rates community cleanliness as a necessary job?

I would like to see a society where there was no need to 'work' at all. To work sounds so boring. Best would be if everybody could do what they loved and wanted to do, and that would fuel the entire society. I don't know if that's practically possible though.

[kblood]

The biggest problem with that kind of system is that it is very much depending on us being capable of keeping "peace" and no one going out of their way.

Lets face it... We cannot keep peace. Peace is at best, something that lasts for a long time. Untill something new will come and ruin it, make the system stop working, and unbalance the system.

I do think that most the new technology comming out, will make the possibility for such a society to actually be possible, much greater :)

Here in Denmark, it seems to me that we all have money. Those who doesnt, are simply given money. Almost no questions asked. This is what is called our "Wellfare" system. Our society is built mostly on the idea of a wellfare system that takes care of everyone, especially the weak. It seems to me, that it is working out quite well. It still has its flaws of course, and it probably helps that our country is very fertile as well, in the ways of crops and farming.

I have even heard rumours that Denmark is a kind of experiment, to see how it will accept such things as new technology. How it is affected by changes in the world and so on. At least there seems to be alot of tests going on in Denmark. Wether it is the country as a whole or due to high level of Internet connectivity per person, which makes it easier... I dunno. But who knows, everything is possible :)