EVERY Individual has a (natural) right to life; their own life; self-ownership. EVERY other (natural) right is a corollary of this ideal. EVERY other (natural) right is NEGATIVE -- it requires no one to provide for it.
Government -- LEGITIMATE Government -- secures (natural) rights <period>.
EVERY action a Government does CONTRARY to securing (natural) rights NECESSARILY provides advantage to some at the expense of everyone else. Said government NECESSARILY violates (natural) rights.
What is a 'logical, agreed-upon' amount of theft?
I say it is ZERO and do not agree upon *ANY* amount greater. Therefore, it is not 'agree-upon'. No what?
You want a Government that does MORE? Fund it VOLUNTARILY rather than by theft. What better measure of 'want'? What better application of 'democracy'?
Regard$,
--MJ
"If the government can take a man's money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practise upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists." -- Lysander Spooner
At 05:38 AM 9/3/2012, you wrote:
MJ: Many of the 'natural rights' regard what one does with their own
time and money, not what gets done by governments after some logical,
agreed-upon portion of one's taxes get allocated to be spent by
governments. Most of these philosophical issues are ballooning out of
control, lately, because too many people see governments as the cure
for every ailment. You and I don't think that way, do we.
Personally, I'm unhappy with having so much of our money being spent
to fight largely un winnable wars. I'm with Ron Paul on what the
scope of governments need to be: smaller!
It offends my logic, greatly, that so many of the right-to-lifers
value the "innocent" blue-print-only early dividing cells following
conception more than they value the lives of grown men and women with
families who are getting killed and maimed in wars. I believe the
unborn have rights, but not beginning at conception. An aircraft
taking off on a runway will pass what is known as the point-of-no-
return—meaning that its ground speed is too great to allow slamming-on-
the-brakes and returning to the terminal. For me, I would place the
"pro-choice" time limit at 2.5 to 3 months. After that time, the
rights of the unborn should begin to take precedence. I'm offended,
even more so, by those people, including many say-anything-to-win
politicians, who think they are being pious-next-to-God for putting
diapers on a speck of cells too small to be seen without a magnifying
glass. Those same pious, mental lightweights think they are being
'closer to God' to suppose that the Universe was constructed in just
six days, and that any scientist who thinks otherwise is an
underling. Religions, taken as a whole, are divisive and hurtful
institutions offering little assurance that the various members will
be getting a favored route to heaven. When the Founding Fathers
wanted our government to be secular, they surely knew what they were
doing! Those who get mad at symbols, like the 9/11 cross in the
debris, simply need to be minding their own business, NOT trying to
tell others how to mind theirs. — J. A. Armistead —
On Aug 19, 5:37 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> I truly do not know WHY ....At 01:23 AM 8/19/2012, you wrote:The pending lawsuit is unconstitutional, because having no belief
> isn t a protected religion. Even if it were, the mere paying of some
> of one s taxes to construct the 9/11 museum would not empower Atheists
> to dictate anything to anyone. Yes, every right can have a
> corresponding opposing right so long as the latter isn t a crime or
> isn t disallowed by the present Constitution.Natural rights are negative -- they require nothing on the part of others.
> Rights have NOTHING to do with what some group decides is a 'crime' NOR what the Constitution allows/disallows.
> All legitimate (natural) rights are derived from an Individual's right to life; his own life; self-ownership.
> It is certainly IMMORAL as well as a violation of one's rights to have their money forcibly taken.
> Legitimate Government SECURES (natural) rights <period>. A Government that does *anything* beyond such necessarily violates rights and is immoral -- no different from any other gang.
> Regard$,
> --MJ
> There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him. -- Robert Heinlein
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment