pull down to refresh

Everyone claims he is for FREEDOM. But to most people, FREEDOM represents the condition that exists when their own views prevail over all others. This is NOT freedom.
FREEDOM IS THE SOCIETAL CONDITION THAT EXISTS WHEN EVERY INDIVIDUAL HAS FULL (i.e. 100%) CONTROL OVER HIS OWN PROPERTY.
In this definition of FREEDOM, no one’s views can be used to dominate or to rule over others. Everyone can rule himself — but not others. This is so, because no one has any control over the property of another without the owner’s voluntary consent. This necessarily follows from the definition of FREEDOM because, were someone’s property controlled to any extent by another, then he could no longer be 100% in control over his own property, and the original definition would stand contradicted.
Thus, in a free society, anyone may do anything that he pleases — with no exceptions — so long as his actions affect only his own property; he may do nothing which affects the property of another without obtaining consent of its owner.
In FREEDOM, therefore, aggressive coercion of any kind by any one individual (or group of individuals, or organization) over another is totally outside the scope of proper activity.
This is because aggressive coercion always has the effect of seizure, destruction, regulation, or unsanctioned use of the property of another; this converts the property into plunder and contradicts FREEDOM.
He stands for FREEDOM, then, who respects property absolutely and works for the establishment of a society in which all property is fully under the control of its owner.
If you want FREEDOM — respect the property of all!
PROPERTY PROTECTION PRODUCES TRUE FREEDOM.
From THRUST FOR FREEDOM - No. 3, by Joseph A. Galambos
Secure property rights have only ever and can only ever exist where they are formulated and enforced by collective agreement- ie government. The 'freedom' you are talking about is pure anarchy and can only lead to the law of the jungle and survival of the fittest and the slaughter of the weak. Life itself is about the competition for territory and resources and naive musings about 100% freedom ignore this age old harsh reality.
reply
can you not imagine a scenario in which you're not owned and ruled? does that give you so much inner peace that you cling to it so desperately? Do you think nothing better can come out of humanity that the current sad state of affairs?
Your position is one of desperation and futility.
reply
How are property rights secure if not via government based rule of law and law enforcement? You cannot credibly and convincingly answer this because it has never been done on any scale. You cannot give any example of what you are proposing working in practice because it is simply not workable.
My position is a realistic one based on real world experience, evidence, history and human nature...extending to the nature of life itself.
Complex and wealthy economies rely hugely upon the consistency and rules based enforcement of property rights. This cannot be done via a voluntary 100% 'freedom' arrangement where anyone with greater ability to exert force upon others can seize their property, and inevitably will. I am all for maximal individual freedom but it cannot exist in isolation and without the presence of good government and property law that is fairly and consistently enforced.
reply
0 sats \ 9 replies \ @daolin 15h
Bitcoin is a game-changer. It's never been done on a large scale because we didn't have Bitcoin. The state's monopoly on violence is over.
reply
Previously there were bank notes issued by private banks and backed by gold. Since WW1 fiat money increasingly replaced gold backed bank notes with the final straw when Nixon removed all remaining gold redemption ability for USD. Since then debasement and inflation firstly in consumer goods and later in asset prices has distorted the economy and reduced the competitiveness of western economies. Chinas incredible economic revolution using state direction of capital but allowing some competition and private enterprise has resulted in China beating the wests crony capitalists at their own game. Neoliberal banksters have captured and corrupted western politics owning most major parties via patronage and lobbying. Bitcoin does provide an alternative to the state imposed fiat debt slavery but whether it can achieve widespread adoption for MoE remains to be seen- its not looking likely with bankers now capturing a growing portion of Bitcoin issuance for use as a speculative commodity. Nearly all governments have obstructed Bitcoin MoE in west via subtle but effective tax impositions and in most of the rest of the world via outright bans on MoE use.
reply
0 sats \ 7 replies \ @daolin 13h
It doesn't look very revolutionary from the outside. It kind of looks like they simply eased up on the statism, and then the economy did what all economies do when the state leaves the private sector alone instead of micromanaging every plot of farmland.
Widespread adoption is a meme. It was never designed to benefit everyone equally. It benefits only the entities who act with rational self-interest. The individual who bought it for $50,000 is happy. Bitcoin works for that guy. If the German government doesn't want any, they don't have to buy it. It's all voluntary.
reply
Wrong. China experienced what western imperialism does to all others. And they learned from it. Because Chinese culture has for millennia been the dominant culture, economy and government of their region they have a belief in their role as the centre of the world. That belief was severely challenged from the Opium Wars and the following 100 years, but since regaining self determination after WW2 China has gradually adopted a stance that recognises westerm imperialism and makes possible China determining its future without the hegemony of western powers over riding Chinas self determination. Their current economic program is revolutionary in that it does not operate subservient to western imperial dictates- it organises Chinese capital and labour to produce goods and services in a very competitive manner by maximising Chinas natural advantages of manpower, scale and geographic positioning. China rejected the patronising 'help' of western power and determined its own development is best advanced with a mixed economy where the government provides strategic leadership while Chinese entrepreneurs are able to operate and compete as long as they do not start to exercise undue market dominance or influence- ask Jack Ma what happens if you do. The west used to operate in a similar manner- regulating and limiting anti competitive rentseeking by corporates- until the corporate bought and owned the politicians and came to direct the governments. In China the government directs capital allocation toward productive purposes and infrastructure- their now global infrastructure construction capability is unsurpassed. Decadent neoliberalised Britain can no longer build its own nuclear power station- it contracts Chinese engineers working with French to construct Britains first new nuclear power generator in more than 30 years. The west led industrialisation but crony capitalism has taken over with wests politicians now nominees from banks and corporate interests- in China in contrast the politburo is composed of over 70% trained engineers- building a global empire that is beating the wests decaying crony capitalist economies. USA has had 60 years of trade deficits and fiscal deficits- China enjoys annual trade surpluses of over $1 Trillion and growing. The mixed economy was what delivered the best results for the west and now China has adopted that model to its advantage. Corrupt neoliberal west is ruled by wealthy capital and is in decay.
reply
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @daolin 10h
I promise you central planning or a mix of central planning isn't what made the West rich. Whenever any state attempts to manage capital, it means someone is taking a cut of what someone else produced, or someone is dictating to someone else what to produce. The parts of the West in the worst states of decay are those that trusted their governments to manage the economy. The richest countries in 2100 will be whichever ones adopted Bitcoin first, because that alone is a dismantling of state influence.
you haven't replied to my yesterdays question about definition of government for you.
its a structure of governance yes, but at what scale? what are its roles? you're throwing the word government around but there's a lot of governments out there.
theres governments that are fairly laissez faire, and theirs governments that are up your fucking asshole for everything.
your position is lack of imagination and indoctrination into the way things are. going from first principles you don't need anything remotely what resembles todays western government for society to exist
reply
If you want the agreed and commonly understood definition of government look up a dictionary. That is the definition I am happy with. As I have more or less said several times already, governments develop to a large extent in response to the apathy or activity of citizens. We are all the government- but many, usually most people fail to be active in keeping their governments honest- its easier to bleat and moan and dream about 100% freedom than to deal with reality and fight for what freedom can be achieved realistically considering the apathy and self interested nature of most of humanity. Without government of some form most people would suffer- this is why if there is ever a lack of government people clamour to construct one. Most people want to be governed as it is a lot easier than managing your own security, infrastructure and rule of law. If you don't want government then go somewhere there is little or no government- but you won't because you know it would be at the very least uncomfortable and quite possibly fatal.
reply
reply
I kinda rather sit or lay tbh
reply
Nice short definition, if "property" also includes own life and personal information.
reply
i should've linked the previous one in the post #1086360 :)
reply
Freedom isn’t about forcing your view over others. But respect for your own views, without necessarily hating anyone. What matters most is:
  1. Ownership: who owns you and who owns what you have?
  2. Responsibility
reply
not israel for sure.
I choose Freedom every time because it makes things convenience for me when it becomes difficult, I tend to just leave it there for the next guy
reply