Has the HRF ever said anything about Ukrainian conscription? Last I checked, slavery violates human rights.
Discussion
Careful now. Slavery is the foundation of society #WageSlave #TaxSlave
It’s the price we pay to live in a surveilled and abusive society 🫡
Nah, goes against their narrative.
In addition to involuntary conscription being slavery, there are also other statements I use as litmus tests for how much a person believes in freedom like,
"Taxation violates property rights and is hence, theft."
"Property right is a human right."
"Property rights are necessary for freedom of speech and expression."
"Not all property titles are valid and just."
"Contracts can only be made with alienable ownership titles."
"Right to life and self-ownership is inalienable and cannot be violated."
"Freedom is not about popularity contests and free stuff. It is about the inviolability of natural rights."
How a person responds to these statements would give me a good idea about whether he is serious about human freedom or just virtue signalling.
I remember I heard Kinsella explain to Breedlove how a contract to sell yourself into slavery is inherently invalid. Do you have an explanation why? Struggling with that one, been a while.
It comes down to the difference between that which is alienable and that which is inalienable.
To say something is 'alienable' means you can transfer it to another person, while the word 'inalienable' describes that which cannot be transferred.
A man's property and the resources he owns are alienable. He can enter into legally binding contracts that involve the transfer of such things.
But a man's will is inalienable from his self. He cannot separate the two, which means he cannot enter into a legally binding contract that involves his self.
Such a contract would violate the right of his future will to ownership of his future self, making it contradictory and legally bogus.
Hence, if a person enters a contract of voluntary enslavement, that can only be considered as a promise, not a legally binding transfer of an ownership title.
Should a person who entered into an enslavement contract decide to stop being a slave at some point in the future, the contract then becomes void. The slaver cannot legally enforce this contract in a court of law.
If the slaver attempts to physically restrain him from leaving, he becomes an aggressor who shall be prosecuted.
P.S. Note that this makes the 'social contract' of citizenship under a government completely bogus. It's even worse in this case as it involves the will of someone else in the past violating the right to self-ownership of other people in the future.
Every modern government is essentially a slaver if this reasoning is taken to its logical conclusion.
I like adding that social contracts aren't real.
Yesssirr
I saw this note and remembered to make a mention of it here towards the end:
Boom! 💯
Your notes always hit!
Just standing on the shoulders of intellectual giants. Credit to this legend
I'm slowly starting to understand that Liberty is a discovery rather than an invention
Like most ideas and inventions right?
But an invention is creating something that didn't previously exist right?
Discovery on the other hand is about something that already exists.
Yeah.
People say that bitcoin was a discovery because all of its parts stay existed, satoshi just put them together.
"Not all property titles are valid and just."
What would you consider the proper stance on this?
Incredibly controversial if you live in a country with a history of some form of feudalism or serfdom. Or one in which eminent domain laws exist. So basically, everywhere.
Property titles are legitimate if they are acquired through first-use i.e. homesteading (mixing your labour with an unowned resource) or via a contractual transfer from someone who has already acquired a title through homesteading.
For example,
If you step on an uninhabited island and declare that everything on it is yours, then that's not a valid title of ownership. Only that which you homestead can be yours.
And following this declaration, if you forcibly prevent someone from homesteading a previously un-homesteaded resource, that is unjust.
Practically, we live in a world where governments have 'declared' that they own everything and consider their authority to be the foremost in deciding what to do with unused resources.
The function of a legal system, state-based or market-based, ought to be to determine what is valid and just property. We don't live in that world. I consider those who want to bring about such a world to be hardcore advocates of freedom, utopian and idealistic as they may seem.
