Quote:
Originally Posted by White Fox
I agree with you completely, I'm just stating the logic behind the idea that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and property. The reason a government has to exist is to prevent people from taking away these rights from other people, which they would do in a state of nature. In that way, the government is a contract between the people not to violate life, liberty, or property and all of the citizens give their right to punish any offenders of these rights to the government. I wasn't really saying that people have a right to deprive people of life, liberty, or property, it's just that they do without a government. It all depends on how you define the word "right."
|
Oh, we're in total agreement; and while it may seem like we're just arguing 'schematics' at this point... the language here is critical:
The foundation of legal sanction is that upon the violation of the right of another, one forfeits their own right... we do not give up our rights in order to be governed. We are endowed by our creator with inalienable rights... They can neither be given to nor taken by another... but upon our OWN actions, we either earn them through our observation of our duty to not violate the rights of others or we reject that duty and thus by default the right, by failing to hold true to that responsibility.
When we begin to adjust the understanding, through failing to recognize the principles involved, we open the tent to the commie camel’s nose... and you know that nosey pain in the @$$ will never leave until ya kill'em and drag him out; and frankly who needs the hassle? It's best to just keep a tight line, hammer the principle home (its bed rock, so it can take it...) and give them no room to rationalize that they may be invited...