Good semantical point, Cory, but then I could point out that Jefferson was actually talking about unalienable rights, or would that seem to be a bit facetious? I'm having a hard time getting serious about this discussion, partly because this is not simply an intellectual exercise for me. It involves a lot of experience, mistakes, and ---- I quit. I'm going back to taking some idiot P.E.T.A. nuts apart so that I don't have to think too much along this line. I'll be back tomorrow. Again, its great to find an educated group on the internet who are willing to think and defend their positions without getting personally insulting and/or profane. Thanks to all of you!
Cory Nott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ken, An individual cannot "lose his freedoms" or give up his rights. He can choose not to exercise them, or be forcibly prevented from exercising them. This is what is meant by "inalienable rights." Cory From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ken Brewer Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 2:13 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Survey OK, Susan, your point then is that no war was necessary to create or defend this country. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that. Furthermore, I believe that they will be necessary in the future in order for us to maintain even a semblance of a free society. My point about Washington was that, even though he commanded a "volunteer" army, they lost their freedom once in. An Army can be run no other way and be expected to win a war. I'l close with a little motto that was engraved on untold numbers of Zippo lighters: [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] --------------------------------- Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
