Be a Supporter!

Credits & Info

Uploaded
Oct 24, 2002 | 11:41 PM EDT

If you liked this, check these out!


Plenty more like this here!


  • Politics
    Politics Rather than trying to choose sides, we find it is much more fun to bash everything political.

Author Comments

An entertaining presentation about the Philosophy of Liberty. A Spanish-language version can also be viewed under my Other Submissions.

Reviews


minute-kofyeminute-kofye

Rated 5 / 5 stars

Very Nice

I really liked this submission. It defined what liberty is very clearly. In reply to the last review: I think the 'fancy hats' was just to symbolize the powerful.



The-Hydra-of-SporeThe-Hydra-of-Spore

Rated 4.5 / 5 stars

Gd

I like it it is very...deep. put i find 2 problems...
1. you assume if u ask govermants to stop using force they will. i doubt George Bush would do tht.
2. WHAT IS IT WITH U AND THE HATS?!??!?!



AmonZethAmonZeth

Rated 5 / 5 stars

Good ideas, but you miss some points.

1.) You assume that if people stopped asking their governments to initiate force, they would stop. This is assuming that all societies are free and that dictators initiate force due to popular consent. I seriously doubt that Hitler, Stalin and Saddam Hussein would have stopped initiating force if their populace asked them to stop- they were after their own aims, not the aims of their people.

2.) You do not comment about what to do when other people's natural rights are violated. You say that you are allowed to have people protect you, but there is no comment on others' rights. You also make no comment about the use of force to end an initiation of force and coercion. You have the right, even the duty, to protect rights and stop initiated force, even if it is not your own rights but rather those of another that are threatened.

Otherwise, great libertarian philosophy.


People find this review helpful!

pubadubpubadub

Rated 4.5 / 5 stars

Great points but something is overlooked

While I agree with most of the author's definitions, including most importantly the definition of liberty, I find that the author's premise that all it would take for governments to cease using force would be popular implied or expressed consent by a population exposed to a truly heterogeneous world, endowed in its entirety with liberty as defined by the author, lacks true merit. I would recommend reading Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations". Huntington’s thesis is that it is not the violations of other's liberty that causes wars, but a fundamental difference in values. Different groups of people have different vales, which for the purpose of the author's thesis could be defined roughly as goals. Western civilization places a high value of material wealth and relative freedom to say and act as one wishes. it also places a high value on a representative society, or one in which both the minority and the majority maintain amicable and open relations for the purpose of security, progress, and general stability. Confucian nations on the other hand place a higher value on an ordered society. This order comes at the price of free expression and the ability to pursue material gain and progress without hindrance, due to societal norms. Muslim nations specifically those in the Arab world consider the pursuit of material gain to be an absolute wrong (in theory) and place a high value on obedience to social norms (conformity). These other value systems stand in direct confrontation with the cornerstones of Western ideals. This is not to say that individuals cannot come to some sort of compromise. However, societies as a whole lack the flexibility and must therefore rely in most instances on their internally accepted modes of operation for guidance as to how they should address and relate to other value systems. We see a woman stoned to death for being raped and as Westerners we are appalled. Individuals in the Arab world may also be appalled but at the suffering of the woman, not the act itself. A man in China may have his home sold off by the government for mere pennies of what he invested in it. Westerners are appalled that the government should have such power. A member of a Confucian society however, would be appalled if the government did not live up to its paternal obligations and offer some other form of welfare to the man. Its value's, not infringement of liberty that start wars.



runescape12345runescape12345

Rated 5 / 5 stars

This is Educational.

I agree on everything on this. I wish the government saw this.
If they did, they would find their faults.
They have executions, in other words, murder. It opposes the vision of a free, just society.
They steal property, money, and sometimes items.
(Property from the people, money from the people, and items from people as in bribes, or from nations, such as plans)
Beautifly rendered.