Sadly WF... those aren't rights. Like Abortion, they are acts which deprive others of their rights, thus they violate the responsibility inherent with your Right to your life's fulfillment, to not infringe on the Rights of others.

Again I have not conceded any right to any government... and a government that requires I do so, except for in cases of extreme emergency, is not a just government and indeed one which the duty inherent in my Right requires it be dispatched.

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."

__________________
The White Fox Uncertainty Principle states that:
You can never know the position of a liberal and the logic behind it at the same time,
because the closer you get to finding one, the more unknown the other one becomes.

I offer you proof that my uncertainty principle stands true:

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...

Yeah, hairy, this exchange has been interesting. I guess we must part agreeing to disagree.I don't think you'll find too many folks agreeing with you here, hairy. At least the Cuban ruler has brought more equality and fairness to his masses than we have in the US, and that's preferable to whatever other advantage life in the US might bring. Again I must disagree. The Russian system failed to the point that strong enforcement of policy had to be combined with isolating the masses from the outside world. The Soviet Union was, of course, the solution that came to the rescue of socialism, and would have still been viable today with proper leadership.If you believe so much in the individual's ability to solve one's own plight, then why not join the capitalist conservatives who have always believed in self reliance and personal liberty. Perhaps you agree with them that less government intrusion into personal lives and personal property would encourage accountability and a competitave spirit that strengthens individuals and produces better mousetraps. But this can never meet our ideals or produce uniformity and fairness.

Socialism is the only fair system, regardless of the price of liberties and property that must be forfeited. We in the US have furthered our socialistic growth by developing strong control over the masses through environmental regulations, animal rights agendas, gay rights agendas, judicial dictates, indoctrination campaigns through our media and public schools, and many legal forms of political correctness compliance. Strong rules and enforcement are necessities lest head-strong individualists would rebel causing the system's collapse. Universal healthcare could never begin to be established. No............In light of the very examples of strong rulers in Cuba and the USSR that you provided, I'll rest my case.

Good points, well argued. I guess we come from totally different traditions which explains our differences. I am openly a Marxist and I believe that Marx offers us some fantastic insights which I believe are more relevant today than when he was writing in the 1840s and 1850s. I am reminded of a comment made by a guy called Quintin Hogg (yes, that was his name) before he became Lord Hailsham. He said, "If we don't give the people reform, then the people will give us revolution". You see, to my mind, that comment alone encapsulates the limits of your notion of socialism. Lord Hailsham was clearly not a socialist but a member of the ruling upper classs here in Britain.

What he meant by 'reform' was the very limited version of socialism that you allude to. In Britain 'reform' came in the guise of the formation of our national health service after WW2, immortalised in glowing terms by Michael Moore in his documentary "Sicko". It also meant a system of free universal and comprehensive education and a massive heavily subsidized house building programme. Now, as welcome as these concessions to capitalism are, they nevertheless represent the crumbs from the ruling class table, and in my opinion ultimately have the effect of undermining a socialist revolution, as Marx understood it.

Most people it seems to me, are unaware of just how close we came to a genuinelly global socialist revolution following the greatest of all revolutions in Russia 1917. But unlike 1917, when capitalism was in its relative infancy, it is now is spread throughout virtually every corner of the world. The working class is bigger than it has ever been and the potential to overthrow capitalism in its entirity has never been greater. Perhaps, you are right and I am wrong. Maybe, the crumbs from the table are the necessary pre-requisite for socialism in its totality, but I think not.

Both ruling class individuals like Hailsham and the reformist socialists, remain tied to the existing system because they are the main beneficiaries from the current status-quo being maintained. I think we human beings can, and indeed should, aim far higher. How this is achieved is not through 'socialist' peacemeal reform, but through the smashing of the entire capitalist aparatus of which parliamentary democracy is its apex. But we cannot smash the system blindly as the anarchists assert, nor can we smash it with an un-elected elite who claim to act on our behalf, rather we need to smash it with a compliant and fully conscious working class majority. Thanks for participating. I've enjoyed it.

Like the imminent revolution of the proletariat and the collapse of capitalism and class warfare in the streets. Yeah, that is even more relevant today than it was then.

__________________
The White Fox Uncertainty Principle states that:
You can never know the position of a liberal and the logic behind it at the same time,
because the closer you get to finding one, the more unknown the other one becomes.

I offer you proof that my uncertainty principle stands true:

Socialism sucks and marx was a monster..

From somebody who clearly hasn't read a word of Marx and contributes to the debate with one short sentence. lol. An ill-informed opinion based on prejudice is a waste of time.

I assure you that I have read Marx, and I can also see where his opinion came from. However, your opinion seems not to be based on logic and I would like to see some of your logic behind your Marxist opinion. If you can't, then that doesn't really make your opinion any better informed than anyone else's.

__________________
The White Fox Uncertainty Principle states that:
You can never know the position of a liberal and the logic behind it at the same time,
because the closer you get to finding one, the more unknown the other one becomes.

I offer you proof that my uncertainty principle stands true:

Publius got banned??

Its about time lol.

__________________
"The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments"

--George Washington

"Never spend your money before you have earned it."

--Thomas Jefferson

"One man with courage is a majority."

--Thomas Jefferson