 |
 |
Slide Show - Reason, Use of Force, Role of Government, Soveriegnty
Posted March 3rd, 2008 by Republican Liberty
output
This sums up the philosophy of the movement in a nice package.
Please enjoy and Share.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
No conflict between the Objectivism and faith in God
To me there is no conflict between the Objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand and belief in creation by God and in the claims of Jesus as being the Christ.
Here are two great books to provide objective and scientific evidence supporting the claims of Christianity through a rational process.
http://www.amazon.com/Kno...
and
http://www.amazon.com/Evi...
Simply because Ayn Rand did not belive in my religion does not mean that she does not believe in freedom of religion.
Simply becuse Rand states that man is an end unto himself does not conflict with my Christian faith.
Man has a rational mind and free will. God created us that way. We can either follow him or not.
With my "free will" I have to choose to subordinate my will to the will of God or , according to the Bible, suffer the consequences of disobedience.
Therefore, my obedience to God is to obtain my own satisfaction and ultimately my own self interest.
What greater "selfishness" is there in man doing what he belives must be done to save his own soul according to the Bible?
This has to do with Ron Paul because Ayn Rand's political philosophy very closly aligns with the philosophy of Ron Paul. Her non- fiction is worth reading and studying to understand the philosophy behind this movement.
Wrong - Christianity and
Wrong - Christianity and Objectivism can not be reconciled.
Christians have no ability to tell the difference between right and wrong.
A presupposition that there are imaginary entities is not the basis for a valid epistemology.
Objectivism is reality.
agreed
I just had to tell you that your comment could have been written by me. Ayn Rand did more than anyone to convince me into a belief in a "worth worshipping God". Naturally it was inadvertent on her part. I wouldn't be able to comprehend half of Ron Pauls' directives if it wasn't for the confidence Ayn Rand helped me achieve in my own abilities of conceptualizing.
To take responsibility, versus resigning our personal responsibility for thinking and accepting consequences of choices and actions is the only question that needs to be asked or answered on the part of individuals. The answer to this will determine the type of government we accept by default or create by resonsibility. The endless debates are only about whether or not it's worth it or important. Ayn Rand put it plain and simple: which do you chose? And we don't have a choice about the existence of the choice, we only have a choice to chose. Our problem today is we don't want that to be the only choice. She seemed unfun to some because of that, but that doesn't matter - she considered it a supreme priviledge to make that choice and hold others accountable also. Some thought she was too rigid and cruel. What they're really saying is that the choice is too rigid and cuel for them to accept.
Perhaps the philosophy
behind the movement is the idea that when you take an oath of office you should conduct the office in accordance with the oath. The movement could be a simple effort to alert the country to the fact that this simple ethical principle has been shunted aside at the highest levels of our government for the benefit of selected constituencies (chosen on the basis of ideological, philosophical judgments, both openly expressed and surreptitiously obscured, that might not be so roundly applauded by the electorate if they were encouraged to think things through a little).
Lets meet people where they live. People can understand this philosophy...It is evil to be a liar, swearing to god to do one thing and doing another. Play by the rules! Assuming, of course, that the movement wants to reach more than a select group of "right thinking" people. And frankly, many of the people intimate with Ayn Rand and her unapologetic embodiment of her philosophy in her relationships with actual human beings might remark that one Ayn Rand was plenty.
An oath is neither good or bad.
What matters is what or who one makes an oath to.
This movement is about.
1. Liberty and Freedom vs. Statism
2. Rule of Law vs. the Rule of Majority (Democracy)
3. Man's Rights and Individual Liberty vs. Rights of the "Society" (Collectivism)
4. Soverignty of the nation, state, community and individual vs. globilzation
5. Individual Responsibility vs. Blame and scapegoats
6. Liasez Faire Capitalism vs. Controlled Economy (Fasicism, Communism, Socilism).
7. Objective standards vs. arbitrary reletavistic standards
not to be argumentative...
as an example, all economies are controlled and occur within a structure of law and social convention...you may or may not like the structure and may even consider it "objective"...but it just isn't that pure, its organic. The world does not work in dichotomies, minds do...but principled dialectic and dialogue remain an always fertile possibility. I just think we need that most in our political life.
structure of law
Fortune Favors the Bold
would be the coercive force part, whereby the market ceases to truly be "free"
the law is a coercive
force only on those who break it, and if laws result from behavior that violates the mores of the culture, then laws only infringe on those who defy cultural mores. So laws are not necessarily bad, even if some people are "unfreely" constrained from certain illegal activities before they act. I'll assume that the fact that humans live in cultural groups of many sizes and shapes on earth is not some form of communistic propaganda. Big assumption, I know.
My point is that every human activity necessarily occurs within some cultural matrix, like it or not. Even if you are a capitalist, you serve a market, not yourself. The market never was "free", whatever that exactly means. There was no golden age.
The key is having a lean constitutional government that can be effectively challenged on its own terms (and taken down if it does not adhere to its terms of existence), not pretending no government at all is an option. Because that is all it is, a pretense. Often for something much worse indeed.
What?
Free market capitalism is not controlled. It is the standard. The ideal. The mark.
That is what we need most in our political life.
Freedom is objective.
free market capitalism
is a myth, a seductive sound bite that conflates the fluffy idea of complete personal freedom we all dream about with the rather mundane and sharp business of buying and selling and accumulating and controlling. Capitalism is a great economic system, the best...but the last thing any established capitalist really wants is a truly free market and open competition all the time. Unless the rhetoric leads to greater control of the government and a greater ability to influence the playing field.
We talk alot in this country about freedom...our rhetoric is full of alot of grand sounding words...kinda floating out there in space, sounding good. And a politician has to use them, of course. They are all for them, right? But have ya ever had someone tell you they love you, but you know that they are only saying it to bind you to them, to influence you, to satisfy a need that they might have? Makes you think about the actual use of certain words, as opposed to what they might mean in the storybooks.
When we went to Iraq for their "freedom", I wonder if they knew what was coming their way or if we knew what we were really up to. Maybe I'm just old and thick, but the bigger and more slippery the word, the less time I have for it.
Sorry to go on and don't intend to argue. Good luck in your quest for freedom. I'd be more than satisfied if someone in this damn country would just simply do the job they were elected to do and swore they would do...uphold the constitution. They do that, maybe the storybook freedom follows. Thank God for Ron Paul.
You are confusing distorted versions of the ideal with the ideal
I am speaking of the standards, the ideals.
Liberty, free markets, constitutional government.
So what would you propose as the standard that we benchmark all decisions against? Communism?
why is there always
one against the other, black/white, good/evil, etc? In the real world there is no black/white...that is a construct of your noggin, which may be quite a bit less objective than you think. If you take that as the "objective" truth and attempt to impose it on the world you may just be creating a utopia as unrealistic as any communist. The distorted versions of the ideals are what you get when you try to impose the ideals on reality with a bunch of words...that is a particular fact that never makes it into idealistic philosophies of government...but the propagandists get it. All the 20th century tyrannies were based in ideals.
Ill say it again, start the revolution by reviving the constitution...base the government in that hallowed national consensus. I just think we are in an era when the big ideas need to stand down in campaign rhetoric to get the broad Disaffected Majority because they have been so roundly distorted as to be, at least temporarily, shams.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Get married, try to be rational/ideal with your wife...lol. Again, not to be argumentative.
Because rights are defined and are inalienable
This is the time more than any other time that we can no longer compromise. We do not need consensus. We need men and women of principle that are unwavering.
Man can not live justly based upon moral relativism.
The use of force is never justified except in self defense.
One is has a right to ones life and the fruits of ones labor.
Men have an inalienable right to liberty.
There is no moral relativism there.
ok
Hitler never compromised, or needed consensus, he needed unwavering principle in his SS officers to do the "right thing" as they slaughtered millions, justified his territorial claims as defending German peoples spread around Europe, the Jews were "stealing" the fruits of the Germans labor...any idealism can be abused and history is awash in the blood of the victims of man's ideals, political, religious, etc.
We don't need any isms, we have a constitution, imperfect and open-ended as it is...we can certainly both agree not to compromise on that. Isn't that what Ron Paul is all about?
the greatest of all gods: "I". ??
He lost me on page 12. This is a modern repackaging of the serpent's temptation in the garden. Liberty is the freedom to do what is right, and the greatest 'right thing' that any man can do is to love, worship, serve and enjoy his Creator. The greatest God is the One who is referenced in the Declaration of Independence, by Whom all our rights are endowed.
If you remove God the Creator from the equation, WE HAVE NO RIGHTS. All we have are strongly held preferences. The only two alternatives are Creation and Evolution. Either God made us, or we just happened to occur. If the latter, you have survival of the fittest, and our ideological opponents can argue from nature that they are more highly evolved, that they are more elite, that they DESERVE to rule over us. And in an evolutionary model, there is no cogent response. To replace God the Creator with "the greatest god: I" makes each of us a little god in our own little created world and completely detaches us from Reason, which is the linchpin of the whole argument. Little people thinking of themselves as gods in their own little worlds sounds like the definition of an insane asylum. Is that really what we want?
I don't understand why Libertarians tend to have an objection to Creation, especially since God is willing to be our greatest ally. But if you reject Him, you also necessarily reject all that proceeds from Him, starting with our unalienable rights. We are not gods: we are creatures made in the image of our Creator and endowed by Him with certain unalienable rights. Let's get this right, people. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty.
www.rogershermansociety.c...
Worship
If you want to worship anyone or anything, then you better start by worshipping yourself. If you do not understand the importance of this, I beg you to search the answer.
You've got it wrong
Rand clearly states that there are objective standards between what is right and wrong.
She does not promote moral relativism.
And what difference does ones religion have on the "right" to believe what one desires?
Remember:
Legal:
Protecting the freedom to worship is the responsibility of the government.
Moral:
Convincing one as to what to worship is the responsipbilty of the church and the choice of the individual.
The cogent response
>>And in an evolutionary model, there is no cogent response.
This is the informal fallacy usually called "Argument from Ignorance".
The cogent response is something along the lines of:
If you are biologically superior to everyone else, you shouldn't need to use public policy to hold other people down. You will dominate the gene-pool based solely on your superior genes.
Or perhaps...
It's been said before. And where are the Aryans now?
Or maybe...
Superior in what environment?
Don't blame Eistein for Hiroshima. Ever. Don't ever do it.
It isn't fair to Einstein.
It trivializes the meaning of Hiroshima.
It makes you look like a fool.
Don't talk about evolution unless you actually know something about it. Learn it from a textbook, a teacher (ie, a scientist). Do NOT try and learn from someone who claims to know the truth.
You have been warned.
I can't speak for libertarians at large, but it might be reasonable to ask if the objection to God is that God makes people easy to control.
Muslims blow themselves apart for God.
Societies tolerate polygyny because God says it's ok.
Christians vote this way or that based on what their pastor says God wants.
Cultists drink cyanide laced Koolaid.
God is an argument from authority, an argument from ignorance, and (in this context) an either-or fallacy.
Go back to school.
My Shelfari page
Like hell.
"If you remove God the Creator from the equation, WE HAVE NO RIGHTS."
Speak for yourself, sunshine. My rights don't depend on your imaginary friend.
-jcr
The Rock of Our For Fathers Revolution was
Read John Lock..!!
He wrote "The Natural Rights of Man".. The words, "God Given Rights", as I understand, came from his work.
Lineage
Aristotle to Voltaire and John Locke then to Thomas Jefferson then to to Von Mises to Ayn Rand to Ruthbard and now Ron Paul.
Each building one upon the other.
The 2nd Age of Enlightenment is upon us. Ron Paul is our great 21st century philosopher. He will be remembered in this lineage in the History of Liberty 1000 years from now.
There has not been in history...
one incidence of a human being living out of community as an individual, excluding the imaginary world of the insane...not one. It simply is not human nature. It is also not in the way of things for human reason to know the world as it is in anymore than a functional practical way. We use electricity, we don't know what it "is". And individual human beings, without the society they live in, would quite simply starve...especially after a few hundred years of enlightenment thinking have eroded the average human's basic survivor skills.
It all sounds good and reasonable to base society on the individual, but it is not the way life is given in this world. The typical human being, and I am sure I am one, has the reasoning power of a pet rock.
It is wonderful to develop a coherent philosophy of government. Where is the one based on human beings being group and hierarchically oriented creatures that have historically based their ultimate structures of group meanings on what is commonly accepted as holy rather than a respect for individuality, and having no problem at all enforcing this on its members and outsiders unlucky enough to fall into range. Once forthrightly declaring their group as acolytes of the true god, now reduced to proclaiming their "values" or something.
I know I am goin' on...but I take the movement as a contemporary constitutional movement with a solid respect for the value of principled negotiation embodied in the living constitution, rather than reliance on the triumphal, maybe a little naive, enlightenment philosophy of its time. I mean, the right and left have one thing in common (other than grandiose philosophical justifications from hundreds of years ago), they both are annoyed by the constitution...Voila! Perhaps thats where we start again.
Society Defined
"For society is nothing but collaboration." - Ludwig Von Mises
There is nothing mystical about it. People divide labor and benefit from their peaceful exchanges.
You missed a vital definition
You missed a vital definition: "community" does not exist as a thing in itself any more than a "constellation" exists. The idea of a "community" is just an abstraction that refers to a number of individuals, similar to how "forest" refers to a number of individual trees, or a "constellation" refers to a number of individual stars. So given that, I could turn it around and point out that there has never been one instance in history of a "community" actually existing as a thing in itself, and that people have always been individuals. The idea of them being "part" of a community is a secondary abstract concept which is hierarchically subordinate to individuality. After all, you can’t have forests without trees, or constellations without stars.
Not true, google "Alone in the Wilderness"
Every freedom loving individual should watch the movie "Alone In the Wilderness" ... it is absolutely amazing and inspires me every time I watch it.
When we was 52, Dick Proenneke carved a life for himself in the harsh Alaskan wilderness using only his wits and his inner strength. He lived there happily for 30 years after that. He created the film himself (a documentary) on 8mm while he was doing it.
Sometime's this movie airs on PBS. You can also order it.
Check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w...
LF
A remarkable man.
Certainly the exception and not a model of what we expect people to be, but an inspiration. Guess I might say that if we expected everyone to act like him we would be often disappointed, and might need to adjust our lenses a little. If free only means solitary, we have a huge problem. Hopefully a more attainable freedom in community can still be achieved.
I don't think the
I don't think the libertarian philosophy, or any other one with individual rights at its core, says that we should abandon community. They simply seek to remind the community that it only exists by virtue of individuals, and for this reason the individual must be respected and protected above and beyond the community.
As to humans being hierarchical creatures by nature, I beg to differ. I've just finished reading Before the Dawn, by Nicholas Wade (and highly recommend it). It reinforced what I've always innately understood about our prehistoric (or, more correctly, pre-settlement) forebears. As much as I hate to admit it, Marx was correct about what he described as "primitive communism." We are wholly egalitarian (i.e., classless) creatures.
Primitive man (albeit modern in form and overall behavior) did not have a concept of property in the same way we do today. Everything was shared, because to not share your kill today might mean going hungry tomorrow when your clanmate is the one who gets lucky.
Hierarchies evolved only after we settled down, which we did because it allowed us to accumulate surpluses against hard times. But these surpluses needed to be protected constantly against raids, which immediately creates two classes: hunters who must leave the settlement (agriculture seems to have developed some time after settlement, although this is not yet universally accepted), and defenders who stay home and develop fighting skills. Then, once we began planting domesticated grains rather than simply harvesting wild ones, we needed weather to cooperate -- enter the dedicated priestly class to continually appease the gods. And so on.
Yet hierarchies did not bring about individual rights -- far from it. Like Ron Paul says, "tyranny is ancient." This was the birth of the age of tyranny, under increasingly powerful chieftains and then kings. But, at the very least, this age taught us to accept the very concept of property and the rights that are based on it -- the problem was that these new ideas only applied to the elites, but it was a start. Then, after many millennia of these hardline class divisions, most of it unrecorded, that the voiceless peasantry began looking for something more -- they wanted to be kings, too.
And here we are. It was just yesterday, in the grand scheme of things, that the first brave voices began question such notions as "the divine right of kings." Just a few hundred years of thought have given us what we have today, and already the elites are plotting to take it all back. Some want to go back to those "divine" rights of the few. Others want to go back even further, to Marx's primitive communism -- on steroids. Those of us who have chosen to support Ron Paul want to continue forward. We are not quite ready to abandon this brand new idea of ours, and intend to see it through.
----------
Liberty for Dummies
Interesting.
Thanks for the post. I guess my point is that I believe that in a very deep strata of human nature the mass of people are still motivated, if unconsciously, by forces that may easily be seen as ancient history. Similar to the idea that the human brain evolved on the savannah and oddly has trouble adapting to some current situations. Some social circumstances, mores, cultures etc. have changed but I doubt man has evolved in his nature much over the last thousand years.
Given that, I believe that developing a democratic political philosophy based on what we believe the mass of humans could be, rather than what they have proven to be, is risky as hell. Frankly, I think anytime man strays into this realm of creating a society based on a grandiloquent view of man's supposed abilities and aspirations we are in trouble. Having lived through the communist 20th century that is clear, to me anyway.
I say pass on the imaginary world of high ideals for awhile, maybe before we blow up the planet in the name of freedom. We are fortunate to have a seasoned working constitution and really blessed to have a worthy politician touting it. Lets let the freedom of man evolve from the honest, down and dirty working of a functional, decent constitutional republic. Its practical, widely supported by the broad voting public and just may save the country.
Um...
>>As to humans being hierarchical creatures by nature, I beg to differ.
I refute your disagreement.
Stanley Milgram: Obedience to Authority.
Human beings work naturally in systems of authority. It doesn't have to be authority by rank or badge. It might be authority by muscle. Or authority by knowledge. Or authority by virtue of social force (I have stronger friends than you do).
---EDIT
A family is a hierarchy. So is a band of warriors. So is a church. So is a classroom.
Human nature has evolved as humans have. We have a refined ability to work in hierarchies because we can reason. But the reason hierarchies are universal in human society is because we naturally organize ourselves in that way.
That is why the Constitution is so elegant. It balances three separate hierarchies against eachother with the aim of keeping the system honest.
---/EDIT
>>Marx was correct about what he described as "primitive communism."
Primitive communism is the idea that people are all equal by virtue of universal poverty. In the economic sense of the word "equal", then yes. People in their natural state are all "equal".
But consider how economic inequality happens (naturally, not by manipulation or inherritance). If I am a better hunter than you are, I will be able to support more children and keep more allies. I am more equal than you are for reasons that are strictly biological. Marx and Marxists (and Behaviorists) have always hated genetics for this reason. The existance of genetics implies that humans have a biological nature. And as a direct consequence of this, all humans will be subject to a nominal amount of inequality.
So, yes. Humans have a variable amount of egalitarian tendencies. But at the basest of levels, they will *always* favor themselves and their kin. In that order.
Egalitarian sentiments are for comfortable times.
My Shelfari page
I haven't time to address
I haven't time to address each of your points, but I'll choose one:
"...the reason hierarchies are universal in human society is because we naturally organize ourselves in that way."
"Society" being the key word. My comment began with pre-settlement. It is true that "civilized" man is hierarchical, for reasons I carefully addressed. But our history is far older than the societies we have created (unless you believe we were created by a deity a few thousand years ago, in which case we are at an impasse).
As to the rest of your comment, I'll only say that you appear to be misinformed about the ancient history of our species.
----------
Liberty for Dummies
In a free society most everything is shared
I can prove it. Go to the grocery store. All of these food producers are sharing their crops and food items with others in exchange for what the others will share with them.
I bet there were no men in the primitive soiety that sat around and said 'hey you guys go out and hunt, when you get back, lets eat."
In order to survive they all voluntarily agreed to give up their time and energy to go and hunt. They would set down and enjoy what they all collected.
Likely if one was not contributing to the group he was banished.
"Likely if one was not
"Likely if one was not contributing to the group he was banished."
Where have I said otherwise? Did you read my comment?
The natural state of man -- that is, the one in which he has spent the most time -- is effectively communist. That doesn't mean we should go back there, as you seem to desire (if I understand your comments).
That's not to say everything about the past was bad. There is good reason to believe that a return to their diet would be extremely beneficial for all of us.
----------
Liberty for Dummies
Man stayed with the pack not for their interest but his own
Man has always sought his interest first. In this case man desires to eat and to provide for his family. As a result he joined the group to provide for a better defense and to share responsibility.
Likely even in these primitive cultures men excelled in the group and were rewarded based upon their hunting ability or other features.
Voluntarily living in a commune is not statist (controlled by the government) if you can freely come and go. It more likely resembles a voluntary agreement similar to ones job.
So, Marx attempted to use to voluntary associations like this to justify his forced statist philosophy.
Again, I'm not sure I
Again, I'm not sure I understand the motivation of your replies. Are you trying to discredit something in my first comment? So far you've only added to it.
Of course the motivation was the self. The means to achieving the desired ends was to live an utterly egalitarian life. We agree here.
As to any rewards for prowess, indeed there may well have been some. Most likely in the form of access to females. But in a classless, nomadic lifestyle, there would be no hoarding of riches. That came much, much later in the human story.
Members would have been free to come and go in the same way a rogue or outcast male lion is free to linger at the periphery of the pride in relative isolation. But knowing no other way of life, and being barely capable of survival without the group, primitive humans were only free to "leave" in the figurative sense. Even after the dawn of civilization and its hierarchies, those who were outcast have remained dependent on society, to one degree or another. A perfect example would be the original "outlaws," a word which comes from the Scandinavian utelager, which meant "no longer protected by the law" -- anyone was free to kill you without punishment. Such cursed individuals would still have lingered at the periphery of society and taken sustenance from it.
And yes, Marx was a bad dude. I wasn't sure you agreed, but I'll take your last point as such an implication.
But we're almost arguing here, and seemingly for no reason. My point (or more accurately, Wade's point) was to refute the claim that man is a hierarchical creature. This is simply not the case, unless you define man as having been born at the dawn of the hierarchical civilization he created -- which would be silly.
----------
Liberty for Dummies
Jeff, I would like to
Jeff,
I would like to respond to this comment:
It all sounds good and reasonable to base society on the individual, but it is not the way life is given in this world. The typical human being, and I am sure I am one, has the reasoning power of a pet rock.
Reply:
It is through the reasoning power of great men and women that all great inventions and all great advances in medicine have been achieved.
Tell me one thing "society" created. There is nothing. There is no such thing as "society." "Society" is a form of collectivist (socialist and communist) double speak used to demean the concept of the individual and individual liberty.
All that has been created (other than by God) has been created and developed by individuals or teams of individuals. And the greater the freedom and liberty of the individuals the greater the desire to dream and to create.
Society created the need for creative endeavour...
It is the basis of the economic system, for instance, man cannot profit from creation that does not meet a need. Society does not dictate, but it reveals opportunity to an entrepreneur.
I don't intend to overweight either side of the debate. Really. I just see the current situation at the beginning of the 21st century as a tremendous opportunity to learn from the fundamental unreality, of both the "communistic" and "individualistic" viewpoints. We learned the collectivist lesson early in the century and are gradually learning the individualistic lesson today, both are prone to being propaganda facades when it comes to being governmental philosophies.
I really think the constitution can clear a space between, beyond ideology to a practical working through of our way of life, out of the clouds and on the ground, and get the Paul movement into the political sweet spot in the future.
I also tend to play devil's advocate on this forum, intending to create good discussion. I hope that I don't create trouble. Thanks for the insightful question.
There is one person...
Dick Proenneke
Alone in the wilderness
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
This is how I want to live.. :)
Yes!
Dick Proenneke was the last of the real pioneers. That movie changed my life!
Glad to meet another fan of
Glad to meet another fan of the late Mr. Proenneke. :-)
----------
Liberty for Dummies
He was
AMAZING!! One of my heroes.
Part of it is contradictory
Never is this power to be used to initiate force, but government is only permitted to retaliate and defend against those who initiate force.
Is not compulsory taxation an initiation of violence?
Nothing contradictory
It never said that that government is permitted to tax an individual against his will.
The primary purpose of government is to protect your liberty and freedom.
All taxes should be avoidable (i.e. sales tax, import tax, license tax, etc.).
All tax revenue should only be to fund those "necessary" functions of government. If the function is not "necessary" (i.e. Art. 1 Section 8) it should not exist.
OK, so can one opt of being ruled by the State?
If the taxation aspect of the State is voluntary that is more logically consistent.
WGPITTS, would one also have the choice to opt of of being ruled by the State?
If the answer if no, then that would be a logically inconsistent position.
Yes, one can opt out by voting with thier feet and leaving
.........This is how the founders intended. They sought to have competitive states.
Was that pre-Constitution era?
I'm not very knowledgeable on that time period...
Another question, do you know if the competitive states (that they sought to have) allowed one to opt out without moving?
Of COURSE compulsory
Of COURSE compulsory taxation is an initiation of force, and therefore there should be none. There are plenty of ways to raise money without coercive taxation. Look at the success of the lotteries, where people happily give their money freely and as much as they want to without anybody threatening to shoot them or send them to jail.
www.paulforronpaul.com
An initiation of force by
An initiation of force by implied threat of violence or detention, certainly.
----------
Liberty for Dummies
Here's some more on taxation:
Taxation is coercive, since if you do not pay your taxes, you are kidnapped at gunpoint and thrown in jail – where if you try to escape, you are shot. - Stefan Molyneux
Thanks for that. It reminds
Thanks for that. It reminds me of the flash animation in my signature. (Check it out!)
----------
Liberty for Dummies
Great video
That was fantastic.
It is essential that everyone fully understand these fundamentals to understand the movement.
Thank you.