What Is Your Political Philosophy?

I think these are the right questions, but they require a philosophical debate to attempt to answer. What is Justice? Plato demonstrated that it cannot be known. Any attempt to define justice falls short. As in the time of Plato, we are too often divided between those who believe justice is the will of the majority on one side, and those who believe justice is the interest of the stronger, on the other. Collectivism vs. Individualism. Neither side insures justice. Liberty, in my mind, is not only the freedom to engage in a philosophical debate, but the freedom to act on principles that are the product of those debates, in the pursuit of truth.

 

*shrug* As long as the single currency, market, and government are ours.




​

 

Neither pick my pocket nor break my leg. Otherwise do what you will.

 

can I tell everyone I meet you're a pedophile murderer? It's only words after all, no real harm done?

 

Only if you have evidence that I am one... otherwise I will sue you back into the stone age. Do you understand the meaning of the English word metaphor?

By the way, by 'pedophile murderer' do you mean someone who kills pedophiles or someone who is both a pedophile and a murderer? Because if the former, I wouldn't mind one bit if you called me one of those.

 

So you want to ban me from saying certain words then? What a blatant violation of my god given freedoms.

I meant it as a pedo and a murderer. How confusing the english language can be.

 

I never said I would prevent you from saying anything. Read carefully.

 

You said you'd sue me. Isn't that the same as saying that it's okay to hit me, but I'll shoot you if you do.

 

The distinction is of little importance - Britain would not look all that much different under a Republic, neither would Australia.

 

Yes it would.
The fact that you're saying that tells me that you don't actually know enough about how Britain works.

 

Just because you are free to do something doesn't mean you are free from the consequences of doing it.

 

A rather useless and confusing understanding of freedom then.

 

Freedom's corollary is responsibility. You will not have one without the other and they are directly proportional. In order to be free, you must also be responsible for the outcome of your actions and accept the consequences. And your freedom stops at the end of my nose! You have no right to assail my character with lies about me -- as this causes harm to me. My freedom is not less important than yours. So, make up all the lies you want about me, but the consequence is that I will end up owning your house because I will sue the taste out of your mouth...

 

So you do want to forbid me from saying certain words then? Saying that I am free to say what I wish, but that you will sue me for it, is exactly the same as saying I'm free to hit you, but that you'll hit me back if I do. If that's your understanding of freedom, it's a very confusing one.

 

I do not wish to forbid you from anything provided it does not harm another. Yes, of course I am going to hit you back if you hit me. YOUR RIGHTS STOP AT THE END OF MY NOSE. You are NOT free to hurt me... Or anyone else. Get it? Neither pick my pocket nor break my leg...

 

Can I get a yes on that you actually do want to forbid me from saying certain words then? otherwise, this makes no sense.

 

You are free to say whatever you wish.

 

Unfortunately the Electoral Process no longer functions as intended, and it wouldn't matter if it did because the clowns paraded before us as Candidates all come from the same polluted Political Pool.

I really can't see any meaningful change being accomplished thru 'debating' the fact that we are being subjected to rule by a very corrupt, self-serving, and, many agree, oppressive two-party monopoly now in control of 'our' government. The United States Federal government may be the biggest anchor in the Mall, but someone else owns the Mall... 'they' are the ones who write the Leases and dictate the terms.

Throughout the History of the World there has not been one single case where a corrupt, self-serving, and/or oppressive Leader or government has 'voluntarily' given up their seats of power and wealth. Do you think the one now occupying 'our' Nations Capitol is any different?

 

'Just because you are free to do something doesn't mean you are free from the consequences of doing it.'

Too bad that applies to the people and not those who govern them.

 

The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the government.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

 

Early in this thread I believe I expressed that my political ideology is based upon the Social Contract upon which America was founded.

A simple statement of political philosophy that only becomes complex when we try to actually understand it and few Americans take the time to even attempt that. They know the words but don't understand the meaning.

The obvious key is to understand what is an inalienable (unalienable) Right but it's not something taught in our schools. It took me years of reading to finally come up with the criteria necessary for determining what is, and what is not, an inalienable right of the person. I have shared this before but will repeat it again:

An Inalienable Right is that which is inherent in the person, not dependent upon another person, does not violate the rights of another person, and does not impose an involuntary obligation upon another person.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

Reaching that understanding was not a easy endeavor by any standard but in finally realizing it is key to understanding the political ideology upon which America was founded. It has also lead me to some startling realizations. For example:

In the United States ownership of property is based upon statutory law and is not based upon "natural law" that is reflective of the Inalienable (natural) rights of the person. When people refer to the "right of property" they're actually referring to "statutory title to property" and not to the "natural right of property" as established by the arguments presented by John Locke in his Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter V.

http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.htm

There is a huge difference between the "natural (inalienable) right of property" and "statutory title to property" but and those that refer to their "right of property" based upon the statutory laws of the United States are confusing the two different forms of property ownership. Statutory title to property is based upon the Divine Right of Kings whereas the "natural right of property" is based upon the sweat equity of the person and is inherently limited by the physical labor of the person. Property ownership overall in the United States is not a "Right of Property" but instead is "Statutory Ownership" of property that violates the words expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

As a Libertarian I was shocked when I discovered this fact. What I'd long believed to be true was false when it came to owning property in the United States and it all came from beginning to understand what the "Inalienable Rights of the Person" really were.

 

Shiva_TD..... I think that I should go back and read your post again but I am curious as to how you think that the right to own property is affected by what we Caucasians did to the First Nations Peoples of Canada and the USA.

 

So are you saying that I don't have a natural right to my house if I don't build it all by myself with my own two hands? That doesn't seem right.

 

When European settlers arrived in the Americas they brought with them ideologies established under the Divine Right of Kings and property ownership was based upon that. In 1776, just like today, there were the "conservatives" that sought to keep that which benefited them so the revolution in political ideology that the Declaration of Independence represented was never realized. The plantation owners of the South represented the "conservative" ideology of the Divine Right of Kings as they became the "untitled nobility" of America for example. They had virtually all of the powers of a King but merely lacked the title of King.

In my signature I cite a statement made by Pres Andrew Johnson from 1866 and he was a "conservative" from the 19th Century. He was a Democrat but his political ideology was very conservative for the times and is fundamentally not much different than the "conservative" political ideology of the 21st Century. "Conservative" political ideologies are about retaining the past that often violates the very political ideology upon which America was founded.

John Locke in 1690 actually addressed the Native-Americans in his Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter V, that addresses the natural right of property. He specifically established that the nomad had equal rights related to the use of the land with the settler. He limited private land ownership with the caveat that there must always be "enough, and as good as" left for all other individuals but we no longer have that and haven't had that for quite sometime. Try going out and finding 40 acres that you can settle down on, raise crops to provide for your survival and comfort, without having to purchase it from someone else today. Locke limited the amount of land the individual could own to the amount of land they could physically, with their own hands unassisted, work. A person hand tilling a few acres expending their personal sweat establishes a natural right of land ownership (so long as "enough, and as good as" remains for others) but sitting in the cab an air-conditioned tractor that automatically tills a thousand acres using GPS technology while listening to AC/DC is not "expending personal sweat" that establishes ownership of the land. Installing a fence around 1,000 acres does not establish ownership of the land, it establishes ownership of the fence. The fact that the government granted "title" to the land does not establish a Natural Right of Ownership to the land. We use the term "title" when addressing land and that is a direct reference to "royal title" under the Divine Right of Kings.

But I will admit something. I've come to understand better the "Natural Right of Property" which also gave me the understanding that we live under a system ot Statutory Ownership of Property instead of living under a system of property based upon our Rights as a Person. I've identified a problem but have yet to figure out how to resolve the problem. It is the same challenge that faced America in 1776. How do we change from the "Statutory Ownership of Property" based upon the "Divine Right of Kings" to ownership of property based upon the "Natural Right of Property" of the person?

 

That is not what I state. What I state is that your ownership of your house is based upon Statutory Title granted by government and is not based upon you're Natural Right of Property. You may indeed have a Natural Right of Property related to your house but your ownership of that house is not based upon your Natural Right of Property in the United States. It is based upon Statutory Ownership and your house can be taken away from you even though you may have a Natural Right of Property related to it.

We can also note that under the arguments for the Natural Right of Property there must always be "enough, and as good as" land remaining so you should also be able to find an unused piece of land to build your house with your own two hands. Many miss the caveat in the arguments for the Right of Property that "enough, and as good as" must remain for all other people regardless of whether they're the nomad or the settler.

We are so far out of whack with the Natural Right of Property today that it introduces a problem that I haven't come close to being able to resolve. I was reading a story recently where the top 10 property owners in the US have statutory title to an average of 300,000 acres each and there is no way on earth that they can individually work 300,000 acres establishing a Natural Right of Ownership to that land. You can't just work a piece of land for a few months or years and assume indefinate ownership of it. That "sweat equity" has to be continually put into the land to retain ownership. The day the farmer stops farming their forfeit they natural right of ownership to the land. The rancher that used the land for grazing cattle never "owned" the land as they invested no sweat equity in the land. They owned the cattle but not the land. They might have built a fence and it could be argued that they owned the fence but only if that fence did not violate the rights of others to use the same land that they did not own because they invested no sweat equity in the actual land (except where the fence was installed).

Seriously, I don't know how to resolve the problems we have related to property but I know the problem exists because we haven't based our ownership of property based upon a Natural Right but instead we've based it upon Statutory Laws that are gemerally in conflict with the Natural (Inalienable) Rights of the Person.