Freedom School – Episode 1: Government, Rights, and God
Posted by admin on September 15th, 2009
By criticizing his own arguments, Freedom Party of Ontario leader, Paul McKeever, helps you to improve your advocacy of individual freedom. Learn from Paul’s past mistakes.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
September 15th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
If you take away from the violation of man’s rights what rightly belongs to it, i.e., the initiation of physical force, then you start to erode at freedoms and end up violating man’s rights in the end.
What you end up doing is equating immorality to illegality. Free speech would no longer exist. That’s just one example.
September 15th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
In the time that it was taken from me, I may have been deprived the means of making a living. If I buy a can of coke from you and it was mislabeled, then because the implicit contract held that you receive cash value for a can of coke, you now hold MY money. The breach of contract dictates that you don’t own that cash. You physically hold it from my possession. cont’
September 15th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Whether it was an electronic pmt or not. Some physical action on your part needs to take place, for the money to be transferred back to me, which you refuse to make.
The difference with slander (defammation) is that, nothing is taken from you. You do not own other people’s thoughts which is exactly what their opinions of you are. They are free to believe or disbelieve any rumour about you.
September 15th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
*correction*
BECAUSE it was held in the possession of the non-owner.
September 15th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Freedom cannot be experienced in this life because its derived from a secular myth that man is born free and desires to be free. That is a false premise according to biblical teaching and man’s own history. Men are born with the desire to become subservient to gods of their choosing and to wives and to bosses and to loaners and to friends. We love our addictions and impulses regardless of their nature. Men do not want freedom, they merely want to percieve or presume its available.
September 15th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
People can take private property not just by force or without knowledge but by means of coertion or deception. Some people may become convinced to relinquish their property by mental manipulation and suggestion. Many marketers of unnecessary objects use this approach all the time, objects which end up in a corner or a trashcan while more endepted. Of course, they are responsible for their permitting themselves to be manipulated.
Bernardo
September 15th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Look Up “Proteanview” Paul Mckeever!!!! He really shows those Ayn Rand evangelicals.
September 15th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Hence you find that in the case of the US there is a reference to ‘the creator’ to which you can insert anything you want in its place; be it evolution, nature and so forth.
September 15th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Agnosticism is not contrary to reason or freedom. Concrete, objective, reality can co-exist with an immaterial spiritual dimension, compatible with freedom. Freedom can’t be absolute since there is a strong element of determinism in nature as proven by genetics. This determinism is not necessarily proof for the existance of God. Self-organizing processes are sufficient explanation for the emergence of life forms. God may be a formless not conscious non-interventive force in the universe.
September 15th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Just posted a huge one and I’m not seeing here so…
I believe that replacing the primary of what is needed for a just society; protection from the initiation of physical force; with; protection from the non-consensual; is opening another dam not unlike the dam that corroded with the governement’s regulation of SOME companies.
Fraud is physical force. Whether the goods are returned or not. WHY? BECAUSE I physically held it in my possesion. cont’
September 15th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
This man is someone that can be trusted. Why? Because we all go through stages of learning, but when we have a good base to start out with, the faults are smaller. I would rather have someone make an intellectual mistake in philosophy, than to remain in stupidity and harm many. Here in America, our Politicians stand in this mode and I am wholeheartedly convinced they are fully corrupt. With Menard and Croft and McKeever, you would have the greatest nation in the world…………
September 15th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Paul you are right on track. I just think as a politician you need more passion. For those concerned with freedom your message is clear as a bell. The people just going about day to day is where you need to make your mark. I thought I was libertarian until I became aware of you and your party. More spark and I think you can do something great for Canada!
September 15th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Thank-you melnick1985.
September 15th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Objectivists agree about a great deal, but there are many outstanding issues where there is disagreement (such as the morality of fractional reserve banking).
Objectivismonline[dot]com is probably the best place to go if you want to discuss Objectivism per se on a discussion board. There are other good sites for Objectivists of course (e.g., aynrand[dot]org, solopassion[dot]com ).
September 15th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Paul keep up the good work man, you are a beacon of freedom in a world running towards tyranny.
September 15th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Hey Paul do Objectivists agree on everything? Also where is a good place to discuss Objectivism if you have questions about it?
September 15th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
We have asset seizure without trial in the US as well – its called taxation. If the IRS disagrees with your tax filing, they can seize your property without trial.
September 15th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Ok, I had a problem with your answer, and a notion of how to respond, and I just saw it on wikipedia: The law of the excluded middle (P v ~P). If the sentence “alien life is possible” makes sense, as a statement, then either it is true, or its opposite is true. To say that it is neither true nor false, but arbitrary is to introduce a third option which the law of the excluded middle prohibits.
In other words, “the existence of such life is not a possibility” means that it is impossible.
September 15th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
This is refreshing. I rarely see Objectivists return to their earlier work and evaluate it in this fashion. Learning to be a solid Objectivist is, for most, a lengthy process. I hear little conversation regarding one’s “pre Objectivist” or “earlier Objectivist” mindsets, and the progression through the process. Thanks Paul.
September 15th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
In that case, it would not be a crime, but a tort (or, if he had an agreement with his spouse always to get tested in such situations, or to ensure that he is always disease free prior to having sex, then: breach of contract).
September 15th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Hmm, a crime of knowledge is a difficult situation. What if the man thought he might have contracted it, but decided not to get tested?
September 15th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Considering the wisdom in:
There are two freedoms – the false, where a man is free to do what he likes; the true, where he is free to do what he ought. ~Charles Kingsley
I think that the “ought” tends to successfully derive from religion thru ethics.
Because if all people are just apes plus 2 weeks, the point of freedom is entirely indefensible.
-D
September 15th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
I think the adverb “free” (in “free choice”) is probably best viewed as a redundancy. Galt, strapped to the torture rack, chose not to lead…that was possible precisely because it was impossible for anyone else to prevent him from choosing. Coercion vitiates consent, but it does not interfere with choice (hence, the pain only goes down so deep): ones choices are a metaphysical given to everyone else .
September 15th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
That makes more sense now. Thanks for clarifying.
Would it be correct to say that you believe a choice is “free” simply if it is made without the presence of coercion? Are other criteria necessary?
September 15th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
No time wasted. I’ve enjoyed answering. I might even do a blog post, as a result. Cheers, Paul.