famguardian.org — The philosophy of Liberty is based on Self-Ownership. Watch this simple, but elegant and hard-hitting flash animation to understand all that that means. It's a great tool anyone can use to educate children and adults about our right to life, liberty and property - and our responsibility to think, speak and act.
Aug 5, 2006 View in Crawl 4
macgabriel87Aug 6, 2006
moral of the story: we let bush walk pass us to wars we did not need. we are innocent, but we are blamed for what we think is nothing wrong. but does nothing result in nothing? i guess not with politics. he let us impose hatred upon the people of the world, and we are blamed for the cause, which i believe seems right.
drahknonAug 6, 2006
I don't think so. Do you mean real property? In that case, the land is that particular case was public, not private. If it were private, the situation would be different. If you mean a more esoteric kind of "property" encompassing someone's right to not hearing or seeing something, there is no such right.
bobzibubAug 6, 2006
Good luck.The talk of liberty won't help, however. The people to promote Liberty, Freedom, Democracy in the US are often fundamentalists, in that these good things are ends not means. (Much like communists, Islamic fundamentalists, and anarchists, etc.) Neocons "gave" these gifts to Iraq by toppling Hussein. To many Americans, these are tangible things and hence tangible benefits. To most in the world, democracy, freedom, etc. is simply a means to a better life. To me, this is one reason why the neo-cons in the administration still believe the Iraqis are better off now than before the war.A better idea is to ask your father: If conservatives believe that government programs or actions are typically failures, why would military action (the military being a branch of government) be an exception?Second, given the the horror and hate caused by Islamic fundamentalists on September 11th, would a country causing 30 or 40 September 11s on another country bring positive outcomes? For instance, if Mexico happened to be militarily superior and leveled some US cities, would the people in US support a newly imposed Mexican method of government and "believe in future peace and prosperity" or start an insurgency and "be dead-end supporters of terror"? If members of your family were killed by Mexican military forces (say some "smart weapon" that took out your entire block), would your father not join the "resistance"? If not, is your family not worth it? I'd bet he'd hate to admit it but he knows he'd go "kick some Mexican ass". For the same reasons, Israel is not going to defeat Hezbollah by invading Lebanon. Kill one member of an extended family and you've got a couple more terrorists joining up. Israel has killed 900 civilians so far which translates into many more terrorists--they just haven't been trained yet. It is not surprising that Muslim Hezbollah has even the support of 80 percent people of Christian sects in Lebanon. You just don't make friends by invading: Hezbollah started in 1982--when (Guess what!) Israel Israel invaded Lebanon. War did not solve Israel's problem last time either.I'm not saying that military intervention is never right: Would have been nice if the US decided free the people of Darfur instead of attempting to free the oil in Iraq. Again, Good luck. -b
bozodogAug 7, 2006
I find it fascinating that this Flash came from a "God Hates Fags" website.If they had their way, they would deny any liberty to all fags!How does that work?Fag's aren't worthy people, so fags don't have liberty!<a class="user" href="http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/SexualImmorality/Sex.htm">http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/SexualImmorality/Sex.htm</a>
firenuAug 7, 2006
@DocDEBTalk to any libertarian who understands the philosophy of non-violence and doesnt just rant on about his pet economic issue. While political coalitions and so on having to do with libertarianism are just that - political, there is a philosophical basis. We do not support using violence to further this or that goal, even when the goal is good. (Because force=bad and it usually doesnt work and always has unintended consequences, if you want the arguments all in one sentence :p). Back to the point: Libertarians are not insane social-darwinists who think anyone who aren't rich should starve in the streets. We just do not think that _forcing_ people to pay for them is not the way to go about the problem. To take the problem of the poor, "we should take care of the poor" too often translates to "we should take more money from people to employ bureaucrats who claim they know how to take care of them". Of course those employees will instead establish job security by a combination of two strategies: 1. covering their own butts and 2. Making sure theres always enough poor to go around, so they will continue to be needed.Thinking the state is the One and Only "right" way to deal with any social problematic situation is a common mistake of obedient supporters of Big Brother. It continues to surprise me how people who wouldn't trust a politician as far as they could throw him, just go ahead and say the state should take care of everything from schools to the elderly. Even when continually faced with close and personal evidence showing how awful they are at it. AGAIN, i don't think the poor should die in the streets, that the children should go uneducated or that the elderly should be executed. I just don't think state violence is a legitimate means of dealing with social problems. And if there is a more efficient solution to these things, who better to find them than free individuals in a market economy.And if you don't believe people would help a starving man in the gutter, just think what you yourself would do. And what you would do if there was no govt social programs for it, and half your money wasn't taken away to pay for them already.
wxtwxtrAug 8, 2006
Nice overview. Too slow for me. Should have been .ppt to click thru faster, pause or cancel.For a technical "how-to" visit "famguardian" and follow where it leads!If you can spend a day [or better a weekend] bouncing around it, you'll see exactly how you were converted from a sovereign american man living on the land, to a "public office" of the United States of District of Columbia CORPORATION and a fiduciary for the infinite debt."FlawedArgsToAvoid.pdf" is a good irs overview.Keep up the good work. Thanks again!
koosebaneAug 8, 2006
Unfortunately, this elementary exploration in the concept of liberty is somewhat flawed concerning what is good and evil.The use of Force is not automatically evil. A group can most certainly ask that force be used on their behalf against others. It is a concept of Law Enforcement. Criminals have their liberties removed on a daily basis.Force can also be used by leaders to end enslavement of others and remove other leaders who demand sacrifice of other's liberties and forcefully end lives.Force has always been an effective deterrent for good to use against evil. The act of using force is not in itself one way or the other.Back to the drawing board with this flawed attempt at indoctrinating children with ill thought out idealism.
scumbleAug 11, 2006
A common mistake people make in a critique of libertarian philosophy is making it too "atomistic". The "what if someone buys up all the roads and holds the residents to ransom?" problem assumes an absolute defense of property that can only be enforced by the state. Not all libertarians defend the absolute right of property in terms of just restricting access to land, and there are good practical reasons why many property claims can't realistically be enforced in a true free market (not a state capitalist "free market").In summary, many property claims are defended by state power and these claims aren't necessarily proper as they often result from previous history of violent expropriation - consider the land of a duke or monarch who holds on to inherited land originally aquired during war.
Closed AccountAug 14, 2006
If people vote, and there is no guarantee that their votes are counted, I can't see how they can be a free people.
patriotfilmsSep 13, 2008
A well done teaching tool. Although I can do without the Exorcist music. I expected some demon to pop up on the screen, spin its head 360 degrees and puke on me.