The only rights someone has are those he is willing and able to enforce
upon the government. Governments are all about control, if their only
choice is to allow you your rights or kill you. You win. Because the
government can not control the dead, so if they kill you they lose what
they are trying to maintain.
If you are not willing and able to force the government to concede your
rights, but they let you have them anyway, they are not rights but
privileges because they are at the whim of the government.
To quote Robert Heinlein in "The Puppet Masters": "The price of freedom
is the willingness to do sudden battle anywhere, anytime, and with utter
recklessness."
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
P. J. Alling wrote:
Most of us in fact accept that there is no right to freedom
I'm just taking your statement to the logical conclusion sir.
If you have no right to freedom then there is no freedom, sorry maybe
you meant something else?
Bob W wrote:
I can follow a logical argument. It's apparent that you still have
some way
to go before you can. For instance, I did not say that freedom does not
exist. If you can't make the effort even to read the other person's
statements correctly, or repeat them accurately, then there is no
point in
having a discussion with you.
--
Cheers,
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: P. J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11
December 2005 17:00
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Update: The fur fellow's feet
Without responsibility rights are meaningless. I don't think you
even understand what freedom is if you "accept" it doesn't exist. I
think understand you much better than you will ever understand me,
but then you are already a slave.
Bob W wrote:
It is a lousy construction, but it was deliberate. The right
to freedom
is different from the right not to be enslaved. Most of us in fact
accept that there is no right to freedom - we accept that if
we break
certain laws we may be imprisoned. But we do not accept that
we can be
kidnapped arbitrarily, forced to act against our will without just
cause, or bought and sold in a marketplace. I'd be
interested to know
what responsibilities we could possibly neglect that would
justify our enslavement.
I say that rights have no entailments; I do not say that we have no
responsibilities - simply that rights and responsibilities are
separate, independent, and one does not imply the other.
Consider the situation of infants and small children. Most
of us accord
them certain rights, such as the right to be clothed, fed and cared
for. What responsibilities do infants have? If they fail to
live up to
their responsibilities, will you stop feeding them and
caring for them?
I say, and I'm sure most people agree, that infants have no
responsibilities, and there are no circumstances which could
justify taking away their rights.
