printAccolades are owed to a team that has rendered the philosophy of liberty in the simplest, purest of ways, to better popularize it. Ken Schoolland distilled liberty in words, and Lux Lucre (a very Randian label, given that lucre means money or profits) produced the animation. Watch it. Read it.
“The philosophy of liberty is based on the principle of self-ownership. You own your life. To deny this is to imply that another person has a higher claim on your life than you do. No other person, or group of persons, owns your life nor do you own the lives of others. You exist in time: future, present, and past. This is manifest in life, liberty, and the product of your life and liberty. The exercise of choices over life and liberty is your prosperity. To lose your life is to lose your future. To lose your liberty is to lose your present. And to lose the product of your life and liberty is to lose the portion of your past that produced it.
A product of your life and liberty is your property. Property is the fruit of your labour, the product of your time, energy, and talents. It is that part of nature that you turn to valuable use. And it is the property of others that is given to you by voluntary exchange and mutual consent. Two people who exchange property voluntarily are both better off or they wouldn’t do it. Only they may rightfully make that decision for themselves.
At times some people use force or fraud to take from others without wilful, voluntary consent. Normally, the initiation of force to take life is murder, to take liberty is slavery, and to take property is theft. It is the same whether these actions are done by one person acting alone, by the many acting against a few, or even by officials with fine hats and fancy titles.
You have the right to protect your own life, liberty, and justly acquired property from the forceful aggression of others. So you may rightfully ask others to help protect you. But you do not have a right to initiate force against the life, liberty, or property of others. Thus, you have no right to designate some person to initiate force against others on your behalf.
You have a right to seek leaders for yourself, but would have no right to impose rulers on others. No matter how officials are selected, they are only human beings and they have no rights or claims that are higher than those of any other human beings. Regardless of the imaginative labels for their behaviour or the numbers of people encouraging them, officials have no right to murder, to enslave, or to steal. You cannot give them any rights that you do not have yourself.
Since you own your life, you are responsible for your life. You do not rent your life from others who demand your obedience. Nor are you a slave to others who demand your sacrifice.
You choose your own goals based on your own values. Success and failure are both the necessary incentives to learn and to grow.
Your action on behalf of others, or their action on behalf of you, is only virtuous when it is derived from voluntary, mutual consent. For virtue can only exist when there is free choice.
This is the basis of a truly free society. It is not only the most practical and humanitarian foundation for human action; it is also the most ethical.
Problems that arise from the initiation of force by government have a solution. The solution is for people of the world to stop asking officials to initiate force on their behalf. Evil does not arise only from evil people, but also from good people who tolerate the initiation of force as a means to their own ends. In this manner, good people have empowered evil throughout history.
Having confidence in a free society is to focus on the process of discovery in the marketplace of values rather than to focus on some imposed vision or goal. Using governmental force to impose a vision on others is intellectual sloth and typically results in unintended, perverse consequences. Achieving a free society requires courage to think, to talk, and to act – especially when it is easier to do nothing.”
UPDATE (June 6): THE CLAIMS OF KIDS. Great points as always, Myron (in Comments). We here at BAB have an interest, not a claim, in your sticking around. Your commitment to your daughter, of course, is voluntary, although I recall participating in long, theoretical, libertarian discussion threads as to whether our children have a legal claim on us. In other words: should you be jailed if you secede from taking care of them? A fascinating, but futile, debate.
Liberty! Ilana is wearing her philosophical shoes today. Most eloquent and compelling. Murder, slavery, theft. Our country as represented by our various governments, especially federal, is losing freedom at a consistantly increasing rate. Great stuff Mercer. We’re going to put you on regular around here.
Actually, another person DOES have a higher claim on my life than me! (You met her!) With all the B.S. that I put up with at work and in general, I don’t have that much reason to hang around besides her – even if Anna can sometimes be a big pain in the butt.
Jefferson recognized self-ownership as a basic principle and the only principle on which to justify a “government” – namely “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”
Jefferson was mistaken to claim that this is “self-evident” when the mass of Sheeple regularly beg the government to rob themselves and others on their “behalf” and to commit aggression against others. How many Sieg Heiled Adolph, worshiped Stalin, carried little red books, and applaud the “courage” of Obama in ordering the Seals to assassinate a (likely) unarmed Bin Laden?
While I agree with Rand that men can believe in liberty within themselves but I’m OK if they evoke a “deity” to do the same!
[See Post.]
My 4 cents on the subject of BRATS (and I don’t mean sausage!):
(1) Baby Mustafa is born. If mommy or daddy want the baby, they now have a “contractual obligation” to care for Mustafa or find an alternative guardian if they wish to terminate the contract. While parents have a right to terminate the contractual obligation, they do not have a right to terminate the baby!
(2) Presumably, someone else – Myron Pauli or Pope Benedict now will assume the contractual obligation to care for Mustafa with the same obligations.
(3) The assumption, of course, is that SOMEONE care enough to take care of the baby/child. As long as that is true, the person(s) in charge have some ethical responsibilities such as not using Mustafa as an ashtray or punching bag, feeding him, not leaving him out in a blizzard, etc. Sort of gets back to LIFE and LIBERTY.
(4) Having said that, it is completely idiotic to force unfit parents to take care of children they hate. That is imposing a contractual obligation on the unwilling and hence is slavery.
The sanctity and freedom of CONTRACTS, of course, are an essential ingredient for liberty and property!
No one owns my life? Boy my wife has been pulling the wool over my eyes for 25 years haha!
99.9999% of Americans do not possess the innate intellect to process the initial paragraph of the Philosophy of Liberty sentiment.
It is apparent that particular percentage is increasing to the extent the sentiment is manifestly irrelevant.
I believe Rothbard wrote something about truancy laws and parent-child relationships, though I can’t recall what it was.