Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 > > I don't believe you've addressed the three basic rights of Life, Liberty and > > the Pursuit of Happiness. These are not " rights against the government, " to > > use your phrase. They are rights of human existence. Period. > > > > These are rights the government may not infringe. But which it has no > positive obligation to effect. I do not owe you your happiness; you merely > are entitled that I not kill you, steal from you, or otherwise interfere with > your going about your business of pursuing happiness.(You have the right to > PURSUE it, but no one owes you that result, and my pocketbook is off limits > to your pursuit of happiness unless I choose to open it.) You don't owe me that happiness, tis true. And you've misstated my argument, which clearly did NOT say that. I said the gov't owed it. In addition to natural law, at least in a weak sense, comes a social contract view of govt. Therefore, I contend the govt has the obligation to protect those rights. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 27, 2001 Report Share Posted July 27, 2001 > > No, pass better laws, and you better restrain the ability of business to > > > >And *I am naive? <rolling eyes> I didn't say it was that realistic. But it's certainly no **less** realistic than your thoughts. S. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2001 Report Share Posted July 29, 2001 Re: Sober as a Bush? > In a message dated 7/28/01 11:46:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > steverino63@... writes: > > > > It's simply a question of where and to what extent you want nannyism, in my > > view. It's a differencew of degree and nothing more. > > > > That would collapse all meaningful distinctions. Government only " owes " you > the protection of your life, liberty and property from those who would take > them. You have a right to be free FROM, but no rights TO vis-a-vis the > government, because the government has nothing to give you, unless it takes > it first from me. Again, I disagree. > > What is your moral justification for taking money from me so the government > can spend it as you, but not I, would prefer? If it is an insoluble > conundrum in areas such as, say, national defense, does that mean wholesale > robbing of money is justified by this hard case? If you really want to follow libertarianism to its ultimate conclusion, why have government at all? Even for police protection? Why not just let everybody contract for their private security? Let people drive as they will? If libertarianism's ideas are pursued with ultimate vigor, I can see them leading to anarchism as surely as Humean empiricism leads to solipsism. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.