Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    SamIngram            10-31-2011, 12:57 PM Reply   
I just read his latest book and I think he pretty much nails it on every issue. Someone has created a pretty good website to go along with the book, although it isn't completely finished yet...

Liberty Defined

I would love to have a good conversation with my fellow Wakeworlder's about this book and web page. I would like to discuss what, where, and why you disagree with any of the 50 topics or the 10 principles. Thanks! I am hoping for a good discussion, not name calling, etc...

Here are his 10 Principles of a Free Society.
Attached Images
 
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-31-2011, 1:15 PM Reply   
If only it were so simple. For example... define "justly acquired property". The moment you allow private possession of the planet and it's resources you've created a social contract that nullifies the notion of a completely free society. Everything is debatable after that unless you subscribe to the "might makes right" paradigm. Then the only thing that matters is your ability to take what you want.
Old    Seahawks #1 Fan Robert T (cwb4me)      Join Date: Apr 2010       10-31-2011, 1:36 PM Reply   
Good points John.
Old    SamIngram            10-31-2011, 1:48 PM Reply   
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. I think we will have difficulty having a discussion if you want to debate what "justly acquired" means... I don't think anything is ever mentioned anywhere on the website or in the book regarding a "completely free society", at least no one is advocating for one... They even partially expand on this saying that some government is necessary.

As far as "justly acquired" goes, I guess you could use one of the definitions of value that real property appraisers often use:

Market value is the amount in cash, or on terms reasonably equivalent to cash, for which in all probability the property would have sold on the effective date of the appraisal, after a reasonable exposure time on the open market, from a willing and reasonably knowledgeable seller to a willing and reasonably knowledgeable buyer, with neither acting under any compulsion to buy or sell, giving due consideration to all available economic uses of the property at the time of the appraisal.

Using this definition as the basis of my definition for "justly acquired", I define justly acquired as the purchase of property with cash, or on terms reasonably equivalent to cash, from a willing and reasonably knowledgeable seller to a willing and reasonably knowledgeable buyer, with neither acting under any compulsion to buy or sell, giving due consideration to all available economic uses of the property at the time of purchase.

Again, I don't understand what you are trying to say; are you trying to say that private possession of land and its resources is antithetical to a free society? If so, I would argue that opposite; that private property is basis of freedom, but that is my opinion.

I still think that you might adhere and believe in many of the ideals of the Austrian School of Economics, is this what you mean regarding your comment about private property? That is what Ludwig von Mises believed and wrote regarding private property.
Old    SamIngram            10-31-2011, 1:49 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwb4me View Post
Good points John.
Can you please expand on what you think is good about John's post?
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-31-2011, 3:43 PM Reply   
I'm saying that once you allow people to own the planet's resources you have an obligation to the rest of society. Nobody is free to do or have everything they want. It's all debatable. This guy wrote down a bunch of principles for a free society. It's nothing more than his opinion.

The idea that their shall be... "no welfare distribution" is simply an opinion. Nothing more. There is no moral basis for the claim that a bunch of people can own the planet and it's resources and even use them up so the next person that comes along is at a disadvantage. That's the might makes right paradigm. Wealth has no meaning when there is no society.
Old    SamIngram            10-31-2011, 3:48 PM Reply   
Are we talking about your philosophy or what the website says, you seem to be arguing about things the website doesn't even mention...

BTW, the guy is Ron Paul...
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       10-31-2011, 5:18 PM Reply   
You have to realize the goal of a good business is to stay in business. The goal of a person to survive is not work themselves to death (among other things). The natural order of things when you own resources is to maximize the profit from said resources while having to do the least work for yourself. Unfortunately you can not shut certain resources away from all people by maximizing its profit. That is why Ron's statements are somewhat simplistic.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-31-2011, 5:19 PM Reply   
This is philosophy as it relates to your post. I haven't checked out the web site yet. I like a lot of what RP stands for and I would probably vote for him if he is a candidate. But that doesn't mean I agree with what he says 100%.

The point about justly acquired isn't as simple as buyer and seller. It relates to the idea there is more to rightly owning something than simply being able to get possession. For example, what gives us the right to buy oil without consideration to how much we get vs many factors involved in other people now and in the future having access to it? I doubt anyone can claim on a completely moral basis that a dictator has justly acquired the rights to the oil he sells us. These are the kind of philosophical points that blow the simple concept of... "society has no right to what I have" as a moral axiom.
Old    SamIngram            10-31-2011, 5:52 PM Reply   
Please help me understand... Do you think that Ron Paul hasn't considered your point? You do understand the idea of summarizing?

As I mentioned before, von Mises hits on this very point, that almost all property can trace its origin in the chain of title to being taken by force. If you are truly interested in this (what I see as pointless) you can read von Mises's discussion on this by following my previous link or by reading his treatise Human Action. Why discuss something that has been the basis of society for over a thousand years...
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-31-2011, 7:08 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
Why discuss something that has been the basis of society for over a thousand years...
Because it's always a consideration any time you are arguing over social economic issues. Just because it's been the basis of society for thousands of years doesn't mean that the people debating the issues understand it. That's the crux of debating how free we are in a free society. There are many issues that seem to restrict an inherent right when it's debatable that they do.
Old    SamIngram            10-31-2011, 7:11 PM Reply   
BTW, I would venture to guess that Ron Paul has read Human Action more than a couple times...
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       11-01-2011, 12:25 PM Reply   
This is one of my favorite books. It should be on every American's reading list. He has it right on all these topics, and although prior to reading I agreed nearly 100% it did slightly change my views on some things such as capitol punishment.
Old    Joe (jcfox00)      Join Date: Mar 2009       11-01-2011, 6:55 PM Reply   
The summary didn't say what he said about taxes. Can you summarize that for us? I didn't get a chance to look at all of them, but it seems like he is on track for giving liberty back to the people.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       11-02-2011, 8:03 AM Reply   
So with his 10 Principles, specifically referencing #4, would RP rid Washington of lobbyists? And with #9, would 18 year old males no longer be forced to sign up for selective service?
Old    SamIngram            11-02-2011, 4:29 PM Reply   
Sounds good to me... I'll get the summary up on taxes when I get home.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 4:56 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us