Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,492
- 245
Of course you fail to see what "personal responsibility" has to do with robbing people. Because your value system doesn't include people.
Here's a hypothetical...If I filled the swimming pool in my back with PCB's and carcinogens instead of chlorine and algaecide, then allowed the kids in the neighborhood to swim in it, WHAT do you think would happen to me if their parents found out?
You're just embarrassing yourself now.
Unalienable rights are those which do not impede the rights of others. You don't have a right to poison people no matter whose property you're on.
This is the basis of Liberty. Do as you please, just so long as you're not hurting anybody else in the exercise of your own pursuits.
Your blind worship of the aristocracy is about to become YOUR major embarrassment...
If "personal responsibility" applies to me, then it applies to everyone. NO one has the right to rob another human being of their right to life, liberty or their pursuit of happiness. That includes not ONLY me, but Dow Chemical, Exxon Mobil, BP and any other polluter. If my kid develops asthma because he or she is breathing poisons from a coal burning energy plant, WHO is responsible to pay for their medical care? WHO will be 'personally responsible'? If my kid develops cancer from exposure to PCB's and carcinogens from swimming in polluted lakes, WHO pays for their chemotherapy and exorbitant medical costs...ME??? If my child is robbed of LIFE by those illnesses WHO will be 'personally responsible'?
Maybe you can make the case that it's the cost of PROGRESS, the root word of progressive...but that would expose your true hypocrisy...
You need to get an adult education, be taught the real price all of us pay for corporate socialism and corporate welfare; it's called cost externalization. And you need to be schooled on the REAL founding father's beliefs...
A word that appears nowhere in the Constitution is "corporation," for the writers had no interest in using for-profit corporations to run their new government. In colonial times, corporations were tools of the king's oppression, chartered for the purpose of exploiting the so-called "New World" and shoveling wealth back into Europe. The rich formed joint-stock corporations to distribute the enormous risk of colonizing the Americas and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company, and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had a lot of autonomy to do their work; they could pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce. They were not popular with the colonists.
Early corporate charters were explicit about what a corporation could do, how, for how long, with whom, where, and when.
Corporations could not own stock in other corporations
They were prohibited from any part of the political process.
Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done in the name of the corporation.
But most importantly, in order to receive the profit-making privileges the shareholders sought, their corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good
And when corporations violated any of these terms, their charters were frequently revoked by the state legislatures.
Jan Edwards and Molly Morgan: Abolish Corporate Personhood