Philosophy of Liberty
The International Society for Individual Liberty created a flash animation entitled “Philosophy of Liberty.” The animation is a wonderful introduction to the philosophy that our country was more or less founded on. As you’ll see in the animation, the philosophy of liberty is based on the concept of self-ownership. This is a hard concept to argue against: If you don’t own yourself, then who owns you? And what right then, would you have to defend yourself against ANY, even blatantly unethical, action taken by your owner.
It is my contention that the distance we stray from this philosophy is proportional to the despotism, racism, hardship, and other atrocities or inconveniences we face. The idea that one person or group of people has authority over another is the root of most of our problems. Public policy should be developed strictly within the bounds of this philosophy in order to protect the liberty, and promote the prosperity of the people.
June 30th, 2007 at 11:15 am
“If you don’t own yourself, then who owns you?”
“Public policy should be developed strictly within the bounds of this philosophy in order to protect the liberty, and promote the prosperity of the people.”
The concept of compulsory public policy is in direct conflict with the concept of self-ownership, so “public policy” *cannot* be developed within the bounds of the concept of self-ownership. *That* is why any government, of any kind, is immoral right from its inception, despite any claim to protect liberty or promote prosperity.
June 30th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
you make a good point. the late robert nozick, harvard philosophy professor, in his book “anarchy, state and utopia,” made a very concise argument for the justification of a very limited form of government: a government that had the sole responsibility to defend the rights of the citizens within it’s borders. I have not been completely convinced by his argument, but it deserves a great dewal of consideration. murray rothbard, wrote a relatively short rebuttal to this book entitled “robert nozick and the immaculate conception of the state,” in which he points out flaws in nozick’s thinking. rothbard has also written many great books defending his anarcho-capitalist position. no matter which one you side with, it’s clear that neither of them approved of the type of government we currently have in this country, which is both inefficient and a danger to our liberty. though i personally haven’t accepted any one particular doctrine, for now, i favor a practical approach to restoring as much liberty as possible.
June 30th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
anarchy, state and utopia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia
robert nozick and the immaculate conception of the state:
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twentynine.asp
June 30th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
I didn’t watch the video until just now.
The video’s statement that, “you have no right to designate some person to initiate force against others on your behalf,” is dead on, and is *precisely* why voting in government elections is morally wrong.
All in all, that’s an excellent video.