10 votes

What do we agree on?

I have noticed the back and forth on many issues here on DP dealing with many of the deeper and more decisive issues that people here take a position on. I had an idea while reading Nystrom's post addressing these discussions in his "Everyone sees what they want to see"

I thought maybe it would be a good idea to attempt to find out what we do agree on. The idea here is this:

I, and hopefully you, will attempt to state seemingly simple self-evident "truth" that is singular in its scope in the comment section to find out what we do agree on.

Each top level comment will have the singular statement of "truth" and then votes apply as agree or not. I ask that those who do not agree with the statement please provide counter logic and reason that demonstrates the invalidity of the statement of "truth" in the response section of the comment . Please keep the top level comment singular and fundamental in nature so that the debate responses can be focused where necessary. This exercise should enable us to easily see what we do agree on.

I thought this might be a good exercise for all us to see what we do agree on and help refine our own understanding of what is true. It might also help reveal how many voting trolls are roaming the cyberstreets of DP by seeing obvious self-evident truth down voted without response.

I started the list below not to dominate the debate but as a means to give examples of the simplicity and singular scope and fundamental "truths". With proper participation we might be able to find modern day maxims of our movement that are so fundamental and commonly true that no one disagrees. Can this be done? Lets find out.

Hopefully this will help us see the fundamental truths that really matter to all of us in our quest to realize a just and happy America...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

So no justice?

"All interactions between people should be by mutual consent."

Do you think that criminals consent to facing justice? Nobody ever wants to face justice, especially Anarchists. Anarchists are WORTHLESS to liberty, because they don't know what threatens liberty, and condemn the very idea of justice.

If that's what you believe, why are you not a gun grabber? Why shouldn't we just disarm the entire world?

You aren't alone in the world Anarchist. You're going to have lots of interactions with people that you don't necessarily consent to.

Can we agree that we should END ALL FOREIGN AID?

Especially when we cut domestic spending for life and death things like AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL!

The RATS in congress like Patty Murray who voted to cut domsetic spending while not touching foreign aid should be TRIED FOR TREASON.

The first one I would hang would be Lyndsey Graham who advocates for foreign aid which is THEFT from the American people and given to foreign governments.

Who then use it to KILL our military members.

ANY member of congress who votes to give out foreign aid is a TRAITOR in my opinion.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

Agree to be motivated by love, not fear?

It is an ideal, we all will be frightened by things in life, but making the conscious decision to choose love keeps us pointed the right direction overall.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

You love "the chattel" . That doesn't really work does it?

When you stop seeing people as chattel, perhaps you'll find some love in your heart.

Anarchism isn't a political ideology; it's a mental disorder. Good luck with it. I want you to beat it. I really do. I'm rooting for ya.

You're deliberately beligerant.

I view US as chattel because that is how our society forces us to be. Slaves to fiat currency.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chattel

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

don't pretend you love the chattel Fishy

You can say whatever you want, but don't pretend you love "the chattel" fishy. I say you hate them so much that you tried to kill yourself more than once. Anarchists may support a lot of things I find disgusting, but ultimately they are human beings.

You want to be free of the chattel rather than help free them. You live vicariously though their suffering and by trying to raise yourself above them. With your brand of love, their lives can only become something worse.

Chattel = Cattle = Soulless animals which you have dominion over.

Think of it this from now on Fishy, every time I hear you open your foul mouth and start calling people chattel, know I am taking it personally.

It's me you're insulting.

Lay all your poison on me and spare "the chattel" your disgusting version of love.

deacon's picture

chattle,cattle and animals?

a lovely quote form kissinger
http://my.firedoglake.com/jbade/2011/10/22/kissinger-militar...
so them words might be read here,they weren't coined here
do we just repeat for other's to question and who said that?
deacon

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

I love you so much

that I am adding you to my very short block list. You do not have to agree with me on anything at all, but you choose to always be disagreeable, and I don't want to hear anything more that you have to say. It is an act of love, I do not wish to keep you in a hateful place by interacting with you any further, and I do not wish to feel anger toward your insistence on being hateful.
Have an excellent life, I hope you find a way to become a person who is motivated by love.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

I'm not going anywhere, but you are, as usual.

"Have an excellent life, I hope you find a way to become a person who is motivated by love."

Spare me your BS Fish. You wish nothing but ill upon me and the rest of "the chattel". That's what made you want to be an Anarchist.

Hm... I'd say from nothing, to everything,

and something in between!

that ought to cover it all!!! .D

here's one current issue that invokes what we believe and not believe: Conspiracies, Peace, and Love, Oh My!

pardon the 'speaking in 3rd person'-headline:

AnCapMerc's OpenLetter to All r3VOL, on the Non-'Existent', but Existent, "Conspiracy"-Divide.

Began as a reply to Delysid:

I feel your pain Delysid.

That said, all the points you've brought up could equally apply to you, or anyone, or any ____________.

Step 1: Start with the premise that any tragic incident is a massive, intricate government conspiracy.

But the counter would be to assume everything, or majority aspects of some State-benefiting event are NOT a massive, intricate govt/corporatist Ruling Class conspiracy, a-priori. Which, is equally as presumptuous as assuming everything is a conspiracy.

If one lived in a vacuum of non-existent verifiable history of such? Perhaps, you may have a better position to argue from. But frankly, at this point in history, not to be intellectually lazy, but whenever an event that occurs with odd 'coincidental/circumstantial' timing, that arouses massive 'qui bono?', all the while MSM & Gvt responding to the event constantly change their narratives, obvious omissions, it'd be daft for any critical thinker to start off not suspecting a historically guilty party, aka. corporatists/govt, and exonerate them, a-priori.

I still find it odd, that govt/corporatists are still automatically deserved far more benefit of the doubt than ANY of us, when considering who/what they are, and what they've done, factually, and historically verifiably.

No one gets (or at least should be deserved) any brownie pts. for asserting that govt/corporatists/MSM/sycophants shouldn't be scrutinized, as if to overtly, extremely take a public position that they shouldn't 'automatically be presumed guilty.'

That would be, kinda like if one were to go out of his/her way to presume that a repeat pedophile/rapist/torturer/murderer should NOT be not suspected.

Sure, even the worst among us shouldn't automatically be accused, even with a verifiably bad, bad, baddie, bad, bad history. But, just as in any investigation, it always starts with circumstantial evidence pointing in one direction or another.

And as such, these events? Kinda always seem to involve the Ruling Class, and what benefits 'them.' So why WOULD it be absurd to withhold from them, the benefit of the doubt?

Step 2: Denounce any information presented by a mainstream, non-conspiracy source that directly counters the predetermined conspiracy narrative as corrupt and part of the conspiracy.

Name one MSM that is a "non-conspiracy source."

Oh you mean the more-opinionated-than-Faux'News' 'news network' MSDNC, the 51% owned by one of the largest military industrial complex contractors, and massive Federal Reserve 0% interest-'borrowing' beneficiary, GE? Rupert Murdoch's FakeNews empire? The AIPAC whorehouse that is Viacom empire? Post Knight-Ridder collapse-McClatchy? The de facto WhiteHouse organ WashingtonPost? Yellowcake Uranium-selling NYT? Gun-hating TribuneEmpire's LAT? Moonie's WasthingtonTimes & UPI? Euro-trash Thompson-Reuters? Election stealing-AP? Neocon WSJ? Ford-foundation lackey Amy Goodman/Democracy Now? The not-so-Pravda, but Pravda RT?

Sorry, who exactly were you thinking of when you stated a "non-conspiracy source"???

Credibility. Kinda high barometer for whom you assess to be trustworthy, no?

So, I'd ask you: what credibility does govt & MSM have at this point?
Even vs. Alex Jones' InfoWars, if assessed truly accurately, 80% of which is nothing more than linking to MSM headlines and exposing their own con via exposing their own narratives.

No, seriously, I'd ask you: what credibility does govt & MSM have at this point?

Step 3: Monitor these same mainstream sources for information that supports the predetermined conspiracy narrative, even if only remotely. Mainstream media reporting mistakes that support your conspiracy (or any conspiracy really) must be treated as rare moments of truth, glimpses inside the Matrix. Any mainstream media reports in favor of the conspiracy should be treated like the word of God. Spam that information everywhere.

So when you look to the same very "mainstream sources" to support your a-priori position that it ISN'T a 'conspiracy,' you mean, you're not doing the same exact thing that you're accusing others of?

So should I assume all your counterpoints, because in essence you're simply sick and tired of listening to others scrutinizing MSM & govt's ridiculous narratives, and whenever you rebut others' statements and claims that you personally feel are wrong, should I characterize your rebuttal as "spam," too?

Step 4: Imagination is the same thing as undeniable fact. There is nothing wrong with manipulating Youtube videos and using Photoshop to edit information to make it more obvious for the stupid sheeple to understand.

Oh, so you mean MSM never photoshop not just to enhance the quality of the image, but the narrative as well? Wow. I must have missed that parallel reality.

What are those "undeniable" facts that MSM & Gvt have offered?

IR pix from MA policestate chopper?

That's just an image of someone caught on their surveillance grid, nothing more; doesn't automatically prove guilt, or should be considered an evidence of guilt.

The dark grainy smartphone pictures that they're now claiming to "clearly" show that the younger one drove over his own brother, when there are countless witnesses claiming that the cops themselves ran him over. To most hilariously, now, the cops claiming that they used an empty SUV to "fool" them.

LOL. Now, we've officially entered the Monty Python-dom. And they (and you and others here) wonder why many of us don't believe ANYTHING that the corporstists/govt/MSM say??

No, really, you mean that "undeniable" unintelligible, grainy, lo-res, constantly narrative changing photos? Those 'evidence'??

Same for arrests. MSM cameras catching a fellow citizen in handcuffs does not equate guilt. Hey, if so, that ricin mailer must too be guilty, no? Oh right, they just cleared him, after ruining his life publicly, forever.

So, you presuming majority of ensuing govt and MSM 'reports' as "undeniable fact," is not "imagining"??

You're simply accepting one type of imagination to be real, while assuming others' assertions to be not.

It's only a matter of perspective on two equally subjective assertions that you personally, nor any of us, have any way of verifying in person, first hand.

So, we're down to assessing what entity has earned a public reputation to be credible and/or trustworthy. And if corporatist Govt or MSM is on that list, one has utter absence of any discernment to speak of, whatsoever.

So what exactly is the difference between what you're countering with, with what you assume others are doing to be the same?

Step 5: Reject the skeptics to the conspiracy theories aggressively. Call them out for being sheep, shills, Cointelpro, paid agents, et cetera. Do not ever doubt yourself, because if you think they are any of these nouns, then it is undeniably true. After all, the conspiracy theory you are trying to wake the world up to is a fact. Only a sheep would think otherwise.

Because all BS need to be scrutinized aggressively. No different than what you believe is BS, too.

So, what's the difference between what you're doing, and what you claim others are doing? It's just one faction thinking you're telling BS, and the other faction telling you to be doing the same.

Step 6: Bring up the founding of the Federal Reserve, the Bay of Pigs, The Gulf of Tonkin, and other well known deceptive schemes by the government often (every conversation if need be.) These actions were confessed by government, therefore every other conspiracy theory is true!

Yes, let's ignore historical facts. Why not? And, let's ridicule the fact that someone would dare bring up historical fact of govt-sponsored false flags and diversions as a pretext for more sinister ensuing events, to make a factually based premise to start debating from. Because you know, one has far more credibility if one DOESN'T cite historical basis to make his/her assertions. Yup, that makes so much more sense than citing actual verifiable historical fact as a starting point of discussion.

NOT.

All of this comes down to credibility and a societal delusion and faith in institutional liars, thieves, and murderers.

So... why SHOULDN'T reminding people of past documented events that illuminate who the real culprits were/are, be a starting premise to doubt those very institutional actors?

On any other subject matter, that would be called applying common sense, based on historical realities. No?

It's called prudence, and often jurisprudence.

Step 7: Cite declassified documents often, as they are invaluable. If the government reports that a secret program was started and ended 60 years ago- DO NOT BELIEVE THEM. The secret programs for sure are still occurring and are now more massive, sinister, and successful than before.

Again, credibility.

What credibility do murderers, rapists, and thieves have?

You'd actually be foolish to assume that they ARE telling the truth.

So why would you merely accept them at their word when they claim the likes of COINTELPRO, Op. Mockingbird, and MKULTRA has ended, when we're frankly drowning it its aftereffects, even now?

You mean you don't know that SPLC is the de fact privatized arm of FBI's COINTELPRO? You mean you honestly don't know that MSM still have govt minders on their editorial staff, and often an anchor, as in the case of Anderson Cooper, Mr. CIA himself? You do know that he actually graduated from the Farm, right?

With time things evolve and get fine-tuned. So, why wouldn't anyone at least weigh the possibility that such programs are "now more massive, sinister, and successful than before," especially when we live in a reality where DoD 'loses' $2.4 TRILLION into BlackOps/off-books budget, and CIA traffics drugs to fund their operation?

Why yes, it'd be prudent to assume they've stopped funding and fine-tuning those programs. Because that makes so much more historically plausible sense, than NOT assuming they used all those stolen funds to shore up their age-old programs.

Um, no.

So if you're assuming anyway, either way, while it'd be prudent to not assume at all, but if one were to logically extrapolate, wouldn't a clearly more likely historically proven trajectory be the more intelligent geopolitical assessment?

Step 8: Remember that most of witnesses and victims involved in conspiracy event are actors. Medical examiners, emergency responders, the police, reporters, they are almost all in on it. The innocent people caught up in the conspiracy were either killed or have been threatened by the conspirators and are too afraid to come forward (or they possibly never existed to begin with.)

Now this one, I whole-heartedly agree with you on. This current phenomena of calling everyone and anyone an 'actor' has a SINGLE point of origin: DallasGoldBug, aka WellAware, aka, convicted felon Ed Chiarini, an 'Anti-NWO Johnny-come-lately.'

But sometimes, crisis 'actors' are, crisis actors, ie. E. Howard Hunt.

Step 9: Blitz the world with the truth until everyone deletes you on Facebook or you are banned from your favorite web sites. Lay low for a period, regroup at your favorite alternative web sites, get encouragement and reinforcement from the other awakened truth seekers, and start the process all over again with a new conspiracy.

Never done it, don't have FaceBook, nor ever posted on it, so don't care, and personally wouldn't know.

But, how is that unlike anything most internet users do on social-media, again?

It all basically comes down to, WHAT topic one likes/prefers to spend time on, or approves of.

Granted, the level of 'evangelism' and fervor may differ on non-geopolitical matters, but how is that any different than anyone wanting to spread a meme, that 'evangelizing' individual likes, be a new movie, some 'great' new brand of tooth brush, good eats, great restaurants, particular gun model, cars, girls, tv series, etc.?

I personally find that most people I've encountered on or offline only apply 'annoyance-quotient' on non-pop culture items, to the level of degree that some express to detest.

I doubt you'd respond with the same level of public declaration of annoyance, if someone commented "Game of Thrones SUCKS!" on your FaceBook account repeatedly, even to the point of being banned.

LOL. Then again, since I don't know you personally, perhaps you would.

Well I assert that, only because pop-culture items are of pure individual subjectivity and preferences.

The issues maligned as "conspiracy theories" have real-world geopolitical consequences, and often personal, when it comes to the post-9/11 policestate policies, and something that locally entropy like the UN Agenda 21, and the ever ubiquitous Federal Reserve.

Personally, the fact that many do in fact have an almost autonomic visceral repulsion response to discussing some of these type of topics (that one would almost never observe equal displeasure with equal severity as expressed on irrelevant pop-culture topics), has always been a source of personal bemusement for me.

But, I 'get' it: ALL geopolitics and politics are, in fact, personal.

Whatever the response, it says more about the person reacting, than the person who merely posits a question, or a public query; like all political and geopolitical issues, people do not take kindly to, what they perceived to be, attacking their own personal worldviews.

So, in essence, I posit that you're not really pissed off that you deem some here to be incessantly blindly spamming you with nonsense, unproven, presumptuous 'conspiracy theories.' You're simply annoyed that you subconsciously believe that they're attacking your own worldviews. Otherwise, why the 'need' to overtly project your displeasure, so strongly, so publicly?

But, to be honest, I don't blame you: if I felt strongly about something, I may publicly do the same, just as I AM doing already, by replying you pt. by pt, in rather somewhat long-winded verbose manner! LOL ;O)

So, I gather that deep down, you may believe that the 'conspiracy theorists' are attacking your worldview, just as ANYONE outside of the R3VOLution would feel, when we discuss or bring up topics of concern most commonly debated here, on 'their turf,' like at the astroturf-'libertarian' portals like Glenn Beck's the Blaze, or Fcuker Carlson's TheDailyCaller.

That, is really the source of your annoyance, and the point of departure for your derision, no?

Be that as it may, I find it more troubling that these 'pro/anti-conspiracy theorist' discussions even NEED to be had, at the Daily Paul of all places...5yrs+ later, at this juncture in history.o(

In simplest terms, we ALL are individually a Cargo Cultist...about some things, some of the time (not excluding myself).

Humans are inherently subjective beings; none of us can 100% factually state that we're being objective, about anything.

I'd submit that diversity and range of an individual's experiences/encounters/interactions with various professions/other professionals/works/other individuals, life's lessons learned, various catharses, discernment skills honed, are some of what determine how we respond, analyze or look forward/extrapolate based on all those factors.

That said, I do not discount the depth of the legitimacy of the origin of your personal sentiments and displeasure, as expressed here.

Also, the part of your reason maybe that, as I too hold DailyPaul dear, you don't want to see DP go in a direction you feel uncomfortable with.

Ditto that.

But, what or who (other than the proprietor Mayor Nystrom) determines what that said range of 'comfortable direction' may be, when everything here always seems to be in flux, and topics discussed here range widely (as all spontaneous order tend to do), as diverse as the DailyPaul and R3VOLutionaries themselves?

In closing, I'd posit that it may just be the fact that this site began around a specific political campaign of Dr. Paul whose supporters views already encompassed a wide range of geopolitical and cultural topics, but it's become less topical of what may be interpreted as 'Dr. Paul's issues of concern,' to more reflective of diversity of ours.

I don't believe I'd be wrong to argue that the Daily Paul began, initially, to help get Dr. Paul elected in 2008, and spread relevant ideas as widely as possible with activism at the core.

And, frankly post-TWO election cycles, yes, the site does seem to have been consumed with other current events. And, for now, the one that seems to be on everyone's mind is the Boston Bombing, for all the obvious reasons: uh, like it happened last Monday, and as we've seen post-9/11 and Sandy Hook, govt a-holes always exploit such to bring forth and 'legitimize' more daily policestate tyranny.

Now, just imagine, if DailyPaul started on September 1st, 2001: you'll be drowning in 'conspiracy theories'!!! LOL. In fact, you won't be able to escape it!

Frankly, a lot of us have always put politics as a tool and platform, in context. But now, NOT out of apathy, but as a not-so-grand-catharsis, and not-so-unobvious-realization: many of us do not view politics as ANY engine of change, other than as Dr. Paul himself displayed so elegantly, a platform to amplify great ideas that were not heard broadly, previously.

It's only a tool, not a goal.

I do 'get' that while Dr. Paul has many voluntaryist philosophical leanings, along with many colleagues and friends who ARE voluntaryists, he himself is not an AnCap, yet.

Ironically though, even having followed his work since 2003~2004, I actually BECAME a voluntaryist, BECAUSE of Dr. Paul, post-2007! LOL!

So, my dearest Gray Champ, Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul, Dr. Paul the Elder, it's ALL your 'fault!'

LOL.

Personally I see no 'saving' anything.

I honestly used to think there was a chance that we can 'restore' the Republic, in the interim.

But, as currently observed, if continued on current Federal Reserve and domestic policestate and international warfare trajectory, a global currency collapse is a mathematical inevitability, period. As if, most of us don't know that, already. Well, at least I'd like to think most here are aware of that.

Besides, if we the R3VOLutionaries really were concerned as to move in some voluntarily agreed upon 'cohesive' direction, I'd posit that one of the best SOLUTIONS out of this mess, would be to focus on figuring out and applying daily to get there, what I personally call "thriving" post-collapse, ie. all the vibrant agorist leaning movements already being discussed heavily here: perma-culture, survival techniques, prepping, honing/living with/applying daily tactical and survival skills, alternative currency/barter, parallel econ models, renaissance of the soul, etc.

Speaking, again, personally, I just see all publicly expressed displeasure and qualms with this current set of 'conspiracy theories' as you label it, as a timely focus: simply because that is what is happening now.

That said, while it may simply be part and parcel of growing pains, I'm personally saddened and dismayed: I just don't see WHY all of this dissension among us have to spin out of control to the point of almost being vindictive.

I'm not accusing you of being vindictive with this thread, because it really isn't, but as a whole, there have been some recent nasty exchanges between many members here; I personally just don't like seeing brothers and sisters and cousins and other relatives and friends fighting at family picnic, with such venom .o(

Years ago, I've never seen even an iota of name calling like "you're a moron! Idiot! Asshat!" The worst I ever observed were calling someone a "TROLL!" But now, I just see way too much vindictive name-calling. Granted, some truly do deserve it, and I've done my share when such mommy-basement dweller's level of name calling was first initiated against me, but never would I ever personally initiate name-calling those who disagree with me, and never vindictively (unless rarely truly warranted, just enough for P0wnage to make a point, for them to stop).

Worse, a couple months ago a new breed of noobs joined to initiate unnecessary, uncalled for, vindictive cycle of infighting among libertarians and Constitutionalist, when we ALL got along just fine before, as if 'libertarianism' itself is some ghastly idea, of all places here at DP.

Then, came pitting paleo-conservatives/Constitutionalists, then somewhere between Randpocalpyse/Mutt WRONGney-endorsement and Gary Johnson came the Jack Hunter/Austin Petersen/Rand Paul-Republicans pitting themselves against...well, what seemed like everyone else, here! LOL.

Then, a whole new breed of newbies wanting to purge AnCaps/voluntaryists/agorists .o(

Yikes!

And now, the 'I know Ron Paul used to be ridiculed by the sheeple, neoCons, and MSM as a "conspiracy theorist" for constantly talking about the Federal Reserve machinations for over 40yrs, to regularly citing CFR, John Birch Society, North American Union/Amero, and going on the Alex Jones Show almost once every month, like clockwork, for over 14yrs. But now that he's a household-name and with Rand's 2016 POTUS prospect looming, and because to a certain degree, now those ideas have already entered the populist political discourse, I don't want to 'make the liberty movement look bad' by talking about other "conspiracy theories" because I don't feel like having to explain myself, again, to a bunch of morons'-unnecessary guilt and self-policing, translated into wanting to purge the last 'extreme remnants' within the Ron Paul R3VOLution and the liberty movement as a whole: the "_________ Truthers"!!!

LOL, you guys kill me!

er...er...actually, you guys are killing me.o(

As the world's foremost philosopher Rodney King once said: Why can't we all just get along??

With Love and Peace, Del.

And, with Love and Peace, to ALL.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

no matter what

we will never completely agree except on one strategy one candidate at a time

The right to be wrong cannot be infringed?

-

Free includes debt-free!

:) Yep! I love being wrong! It makes me a better person!

"For being wrong is erroneously associated with failure, when in fact to be proven wrong should be celebrated for it is elevating someone to a new level of understanding...furthering awareness." - Unknown

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

Thomas Edison asked about his failures retorted.

I now know a 1000 thing that won't work.

Free includes debt-free!

Cyril's picture

LOL

LOL

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

To give credit where credit's due.

I learned this from octobox. I have not found a flaw.

Free includes debt-free!

Cyril's picture

"I have not found a flaw."

"I have not found a flaw."

Unsurprising. As it quite resembles as the symmetric/dual of:

"The wrong that to be right can be forbidden."

Which does look sound as well.

;)

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Can be forbidden, sounds like an excuse for government.

Was this Javert's credo?

Free includes debt-free!

The Right to Knowledge

The Right to Knowledge

Just open the box and see

END THE FED!

END THE FED!

#3 The Non-Aggression Principle

I saw someone else posted this as below as the bedrock of libertarianism, but I'd argue it's #3. Now that we own ourselves, and our property, no one can take it from us, and we can defend ourselves.

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

#2 The Right to Own Property

If we own ourselves, then by extension we own what we produce and acquire through non-aggressive/non-coercive means.

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

does property extend to land?

because nearly all the land in this country was obtained through aggression and coercion.

Of course property rights extend to land...

Of course property rights extend to land, but your point is definitely well taken. I too am troubled by the savagivizing of Native Americans when all they were doing is defending their land against colonialist.

But to be pragmatic, clearly we cannot just force Americans to relinquish their legally acquired property, nor can we punish the future for the actions of the past...though many would argue that's what we're doing now with all our debt and terrible policies, and I would agree.

What we can do is recognize that "savages" and "terrorists" are relative to our perspectives. We can realize the unintended consequences of occupying foreign lands. We can recognize that forced and coerced taxation is theft.

We need a culture shift...we have a people problem.

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

Doesn't seem like

Doesn't seem like it will ever be yours if it can be taxed!

Just want what seems to be missing, Truth and Justice for ALL
What is fraud except creating “value” from nothing and passing it off as something?

#1 The Principle of Self-Ownership

I think without first recognizing self-ownership, we can't move on to property rights nor the non-aggression principle.

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

Cyril's picture

We may all agree on spotting a rather questionable thing

I also think we may all agree that "the thing" serving as "legal tender" (in the US) AND "reserve currency" of the world since August 15th, 1971, is...

... quite questionable.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

The Non-Aggression Principle

The Non-Aggression Principle is the bedrock of libertarianism.

NAP requires Self-Ownership...

I'd say the Principle of Self-Ownership is at the foundation of liberty, with the NAP coming in third. Ability to Own Property would be second in my opinion.

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

Maybe

it's more like the 3 as 1, an equal trifecta being liberty, rather than ranking them by subjective importance. If you removed any one of them from the equation then it wouldn't seem like liberty to me.