Private Property Rights Are Good, But Only If You Beleive Like We Do...
"If any private business said “I won’t serve a customer because of his race or sexual orientation,” would that decision be allowed by government?" (Well we know from the Colorado Baker case that the answer is a big fat no) "Would Hollywood or the media elite take the business owner’s side? Of course not. So “private property rights” are extended only to people with the same views as Hollywood?" (when speaking of Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson and the A&E decision to suspend him).
Why is it the Left/Liberals can't seem to get the contradiction even when pointed out? Is it pride? Anyone have any other glaring examples of contradictory policy coming from the mouths of Liberals?
Why is it the Left/Liberals can't seem to get the contradiction even when pointed out? Is it pride? Anyone have any other glaring examples of contradictory policy coming from the mouths of Liberals?
They liberals say we must leave the forest floor (ripe for fires) untouched, yet say nothing when HAARP continues to heat the ionosphere and change climate in unpredictable ways (and at what cost to taxpayers). The left tells us we must save energy and the environment with Mercury filled bulbs, but fail to mention they emit several other gases, are bad for humans and will cost a fortune to recycle as soon as everyone is stuck with using them. They did not even view the German study warning of the health dangers.
Liberals pushed for easy mortgages, even when it led to financial disaster, yet at the same time support UN Agenda 21, which would do away with private property rights and the right to own a home, when fully implemented.
Actors push for "green" homes for New Orleans residents, but then live in big mansions and use jet fuel for no other reason that to fly in special caviar for their enjoyment - not exactly green.
The Prez and politicians are protected by armies of armed guards, yet would legislate away the right of citizens to own guns to protect themselves.
The D.C. crowd carry on about first global warming, which fizzled and became "climate change", yet the Prez uses HAMP to change conditions (ask Christie about that one) and Pelosi had no problem filling the skies with pollution when she took two jets to Calif. when she was Speaker. Do as we say, not as we do.
The D.C. bunch tell us to drive fuel efficient cars, while they take limos.
Actually, the list is endless, and it shows that the left is both stupid and underestimates the intelligence of others.
A business is owned by men and men have the right to to think and to act - to make choices. This includes the right to discriminate against others. To deny this suggests that it is acceptable to force one man to serve another. Not only does this deny his right to think and act, it enslaves him and sacrifices his life to another.
Because legitimate government derives its power from men, government cannot do anything men cannot do, including initiating the use of force (or threat thereof) to prevent an individual from thinking and choosing as he sees fit. When government becomes illegitimate such as when it denies men their human rights, men have the moral right and obligation to change the government. Men also have an obligation to act morally regardless of the law, but must weigh the potential consequences of defiance in making such choices.
Where do you get such stuff from?
Power and control with end of life issues.
Power and control with recreational drug issues...
Power and control with health insurance by corporations rather than individuals being able to decide.
What about control by the individual?
A peaceful society cannot exist without laws and regulations to govern the behavior of its citizens, not even on an individual's private property.
No one, no group, no government, no special interest LGBT owns me, my mind, my business, or my voice.
Does 'any gang or criminal' include the government? Do your laws give me a legal and non-violent method of seeking justice from the bureaucracy that permeates every pore of our society when they wrong me? Does a law that's 2600 pages long, that no single person can understand, protect me?
You seem to desire abdicating any responsibility for yourself, relying on a law to take care of you. That, my friend, is the epitome of slavery. Living in safety at the whim of your rulers.
Total anarchy sounds fine to a lot of people that have lived their lives shielded from the things that go on in the rest of the world. Make no mistake; if our government completely collapsed tomorrow we would be dealing with invasion from every corner of the globe. You would not have to worry about criminals and roving gangs in that situation. The Chinese, Russians, Koreans, Mexicans, etc. would be the issue then… and standing on a hill dual wielding your AR’s would make no difference at all.
IP has been abused. Common sense in all things.
Our democratic system as practiced in this country is too fallible when faced with career politicians and the numbers of uneducated (some might say not educable) populace swayed by popularity, good looks, and bull-sh$t. Expanding the vote to those with no 'skin in the game' (welfare, non-working, non-property owners, etc) and limiting the numbers of Representatives (therefor decreasing the accountability of each to constituents) has transformed our Republican form of governance.
Personally, I also favor the strangely lost original 13th amendment favored by Thomas Jefferson.
We lost the only true method of federal restraint when we gave up state's rights during the Civil War and later when T. Roosevelt and then Wilson manipulated us into foreign wars and international entanglements. As well might be mentioned Andrew Jackson's extremes of Executive Power and refusal to follow the directions of the Supreme Court..
As for standing on a hill wielding an AR (I prefer the M14), remember that only 3% of the population of the Colonies beat the largest, most proficient military in the world. There was a German General invited to observe some Civil War actions, particularly Gettysburg that wrote back to his council and government after that battle that advised in the strongest words that his country should 'never try to fight these people.' I don't advocate war either, been there - done that. But as for trying to invade this country, the Northeast and California would fall pretty quick. The rest of the country outside the major urban centers, I wouldn't bet on. -
Also saw a video review of the Saiga 223. Fairly cheap... but I'd probably go with the Saiga 12 if I had a choice and could afford either. My eyesight isn't what it used to be, and 100 yards would be extreme as far as my ability to be accurate, I think; at least without a scope, so I'd probably be better off with a 12 gauge and fighting at short range. I could be wrong, however; I'm far from an expert on the subject.
I prefer the AK47 location for fast action. If you are handy with tools and have a Tig welder you can buy a $40 kit and do the conversion yourself or a gunsmith will charge around $250-$300 for the job.
Either way, they are great fun and a super good weapon for close in work.
"The author was a member of a group of foreign officers that had witnessed the bloody fighting at Gettysburg. Upon writing home one officer warned his government:
“We must never fight these American’s for they fight without any regard to pain or
death. Honor and victory are their only battle cries. I have seen whole regiments laid to waste only to see men from both sides readily step up to the battle line. An
outside invader could never stand against such madmen.”"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTcaRk0ZR...
If I find anything I'll post it here.
("me" and "I' in this context is the generic "one").
A law's proper application is to outline the consequence of a violation of individual rights, not to "govern the behavior of its citizens". If we accept your premise then we accept that the citizens behavior needs to be governed by a third party without limitations, or only with the limitations imposed by a majority vote. You can't say behavior needs to be governed without specifying the standard by which it is to be governed and how that standard is determined. This is the root of the argument/posts I've been making, which you fail to address. By what authority does a baker have to serve a gay couple when another business is able to deny employment for the very same beliefs? Why does one get to choose but the other doesn't? Its because the "group" has decided that when its concerning the interests of "this" particular group, an individual has no right to hold an opinion or belief and he should be "punished" if he does. By what right does the group get to deny this man his right to have a belief system? Who determined what belief systems were allowable? This flawed logic is the basis of moral relativism and all statism. The ends justify the means according to this thought process. The baker is wrong in his opinions, and Christianity is flawed therefore people shouldn't stick to those ideas and beliefs, its ok if we trample on their rights because in the end the fewer mystics we have the better we will all be. I reject this premise outright because its a flawed contradictory premise and the longer you promote it on an Objectivist board, the dumber you look.
Business owners have a right to determine how their businesses are run, certainly, but only within certain legal limitations. A total absence of any laws or regulations is a form of anarchy.
This is why I've said before that Objectivism is a derivative of anarchy, which exposes one of the greatest logical contradictions of Objectivism (of which there are actually quite a lot). Even though Ayn Rand said government was necessary, she still said laws and regulations were not, and therefore her philosophy is anarchistic in its essential functions. After all, what practical purpose does a government serve if not to enforce laws? Without laws, a government has no means or method by which it can determine if one man has truly violated the rights of another.
A government without laws is like a sword without a blade; it can no longer perform its essential function, and therefore becomes as useless towards that end as if it did not exist at all.
Of course it's obvious that having too many laws and regulations, or laws and regulations which are counter-productive and harmful is very bad, and can even be destructive. Yet at the same time, having no laws or regulations strips men of their ability to legally and peacefully defend themselves. But then this hits on the fundamental paradox of government, which is the question of whether it's possible to establish a government to protect man's rights without at the same time trampling on those rights.
So what then is the solution? Personally, I think Aristotle gave us the solution when he said that the ideal lies at the median between two extremes. That is, we should have neither too many nor too few laws, and the laws we do have should have an empirical and scientific foundation as their basis.
In once sense we are making no limits on a man's actions. He is free to do as he chooses, but not avoid the consequences. In the other instance, we are trying to "govern" his behavior. He is not free to choose as he wishes and he may be free to avoid the consequences of his actions. Case in point. A 60 watt incandescent light bulb as of 2014 is an endangered species in the US. The goal there is to "govern" behavior by passing a law restricting the production or sale (I'm honestly not sure how they did what they did), and push folks into the "green" agenda, under the guise that its "for their own good" with the assumption that they are too stupid to know what's good for themselves." Forcing me to wear a seat belt is another one that governs behavior, or seeks to put limits on my behavior. Making laws that force me to work for people I'm ideologically opposed to is a way to "govern" my behavior. The reality in those situations is that not a one of them has any demonstrable violation of any individuals rights. The collectivist will argue that "global warming" necessitates that we use Compact Florescent lighting over incandescent because they are more energy efficient and global warming is killing the planet or pollution etc, but lets be honest, this is not "scientific" in foundation as you put it (we can argue on another thread about global warming if you like). Me not wearing a seat belt doesn't violate anyone else's rights And refusing to do work for anyone for any reason doesn't violate their rights either because they don't have a right to the product of my labor. But each of those laws is seeking to govern my behavior, just like passing a law that says I have to buy health insurance is trying to "govern" my behavior but who's rights am I violating if I don't buy health insurance? When we talk about laws that describe punishment for a violation of rights, such as murder, rape or arson, certainly some people may not do those things because they are afraid of the consequences, and you could say that those laws seek to "govern" those specific behaviors and you would be right, but what is the fundamental difference between Obamacare and Capital Murder? What is the difference between not wearing a seat belt and rape? What is the difference between limiting my choice of light bulbs and burning down a man's house? The fundamental difference is that in each of the later cases, there is a specific victim that was harmed. So yes, while all laws with a punishment have the potential to curb a man's actions due to consequences, not all laws are written to "govern" his behavior.
Oh yeah, here in NH it is illegal to text while driving, unless you are a cop. Tell me what message that sends!
Just let the insurance companies add a clause or two that says that if you're texting while driving or are not wearing your seatbelt in an accident, some or all of your insurance coverage is forfeit.
Works for me... I love my seat belts!
Oh, and btw, do you know why it's as important that your back-seat passengers wear theirs? Y'see, if you're driving and hit something hard, your seat belt and air bags may save your life, but if the passenger sitting BEHIND you (or behind the future victim next to you up front) is NOT wearing their seat belt, they will smash into the BACK of your seat and essentially crush your chest with YOUR seatbelt. Low survivability.
Think about it.
But, don't drive works too :)
:)
Not laws to govern the behavior of its citizens; that's slavery.
Laws to protect the rights of its citizens.
I'll bet that's a surprise to them.