What "rights" does nature give us?

[Dante]

You prove my point. Thank you.

now all you have to do is go live in a world where government doesn't exist.

Not at all - my point was proven, by you.

Without government man is free to do whatever he can given his circumstances, not what he wants

Again, thank you.

without government I am free to murder my neighbor and get away with it if I can. I can then rape his wife and enslave his children.

cool, eh?

 

[Contumacious]

now all you have to do is go live in a world where government doesn't exist.

Not at all - my point was proven, by you.

Without government man is free to do whatever he can given his circumstances, not what he wants

Again, thank you.

without government I am free to murder my neighbor and get away with it if I can. I can then rape his wife and enslave his children.

cool, eh?

Adolh Hitler - a duly elected - 6,000,000

.

 

[Oddball]

conclusion: natural rights is an abstract notion in the minds of man

what a concept, eh?

So is gubmint.

Care to lend me a bucket of it?....I promise to pay you back with a barrel of it at the end of the month.

 

[dblack]

now all you have to do is go live in a world where government doesn't exist.

Not at all - my point was proven, by you.

Without government man is free to do whatever he can given his circumstances, not what he wants

Again, thank you.

without government I am free to murder my neighbor and get away with it if I can. I can then rape his wife and enslave his children.

That's exactly right. That's why we need government, because natural rights can come into conflict.

 

[Uncensored2008]

without government I am free to murder my neighbor and get away with it if I can. I can then rape his wife and enslave his children.

cool, eh?

A valid argument against anarchy.

But then, no one put forth an argument FOR anarchy.

 

[Oddball]

now all you have to do is go live in a world where government doesn't exist.

Not at all - my point was proven, by you.

Without government man is free to do whatever he can given his circumstances, not what he wants

Again, thank you.

without government I am free to murder my neighbor and get away with it if I can. I can then rape his wife and enslave his children.

cool, eh?

Yet another lame straw man argument...Nobody on this thread has advocated anarchy.

 

[Koios]

Not at all - my point was proven, by you.

Without government man is free to do whatever he can given his circumstances, not what he wants

Again, thank you.

without government I am free to murder my neighbor and get away with it if I can. I can then rape his wife and enslave his children.

cool, eh?

Yet another lame straw man argument...Nobody on this thread has advocated anarchy.

It's the natural byproduct of no functioning government. If you don't believe that, grab the wife and kiddies and vacay in Somalia. Fun for the whole family and no govmint decidin' ya'll's rights, bygod.

 

[Oddball]

without government I am free to murder my neighbor and get away with it if I can. I can then rape his wife and enslave his children.

cool, eh?

Yet another lame straw man argument...Nobody on this thread has advocated anarchy.

It's the natural byproduct of no functioning government. If you don't believe that, grab the wife and kiddies and vacay in Somalia. Fun for the whole family and no govmint decidin' ya'll's rights, bygod.

Nobody had advocated that either.

Grow the **** up, Gomer.

 

[Koios]

without government I am free to murder my neighbor and get away with it if I can. I can then rape his wife and enslave his children.

cool, eh?

A valid argument against anarchy.

But then, no one put forth an argument FOR anarchy.

M14 Shooter did, and it was ******* bolded. Need you eyes checked?

Quote: "Without government man is free to do whatever he can given his circumstances, not what he wants."

 

[Oddball]

without government I am free to murder my neighbor and get away with it if I can. I can then rape his wife and enslave his children.

cool, eh?

A valid argument against anarchy.

But then, no one put forth an argument FOR anarchy.

M14 Shooter did, and it was ******* bolded. Need you eyes checked?

Quote: "Without government man is free to do whatever he can given his circumstances, not what he wants."

Stating a truism is far afield from actually advocating it, you ******* blockhead.

 

[Koios]

Yet another lame straw man argument...Nobody on this thread has advocated anarchy.

It's the natural byproduct of no functioning government. If you don't believe that, grab the wife and kiddies and vacay in Somalia. Fun for the whole family and no govmint decidin' ya'll's rights, bygod.

Nobody had advocated that either.

Grow the **** up, Gomer.

Gotcha. Let's see now. How to come up to your level. Hmmm? Wait; I have ideas:

-Bang head on rock repeatedly
-Deprive brain of oxygen
-Tune into Fox News and Limbaugh
-Attend a GOP caucus.*

*guaranteed to kill maximum braincells!

 

[Oddball]

Oh, go light some candles at your Uncle Joe shrine, tovarich.

 

[Michelle420]

Yet another lame straw man argument...Nobody on this thread has advocated anarchy.

It's the natural byproduct of no functioning government. If you don't believe that, grab the wife and kiddies and vacay in Somalia. Fun for the whole family and no govmint decidin' ya'll's rights, bygod.

Nobody had advocated that either.

Grow the **** up, Gomer.

I advocate it

 

[Koios]

A valid argument against anarchy.

But then, no one put forth an argument FOR anarchy.

M14 Shooter did, and it was ******* bolded. Need you eyes checked?

Quote: "Without government man is free to do whatever he can given his circumstances, not what he wants."

Stating a truism is far afield from actually advocating it, you ******* blockhead.

Yes, but then, it was not a truism / maxim / manta, but a challenge based on the notion of no government, which itself was flawed.

So yes, it came up and was wrong to boot.

But you are essentially correct, inserting truth in lieu of truism. For example: You're an idiot (true, and indeed not something I advocate)

 

[Dreamy]

The same monies would be accrued by government. The difference in my new world is that the choice of education would be in play and we would end the money monopoly the government schools possess.

I would have education bucks to spend as I choose on the school of my choice. You do support choice in our personal lives, yes?

I am on a phone at present and thus cannot fully address the depth of your ignorance on the economics of what you proposed.

So check back in a couple hours.

Now then Dreamy. Yes, the same monies would be collected on property taxes, unless increased, even for folks like myself whose kids are grown and no longer in school. But an educated workforce benefits me, so no problemo, for me.

However, if lobbying by private education interests is successful and they bleed government money by selling enough retards on the foolishness that your child costs X and that should be your choice as where to spend it, things get fucked up. Here's why.

Your child's cost is merely an average. We'd still have schools, teachers and admin at the exact same level with or without your kid. But with your kid, the average cost goes down, albeit a fraction of a penny, state-wide. So no biggy, with or without. In fact, adding classrooms comes when student levels reach a point requiring it. Conversely, reduding classrooms and teachers for each grade level, and school, requires student totals to fall below a certain mark. So not all schools would lower cost, but would see diminished money coming in. And private concerns get all kinds of new govmint buckos, in case you're wondering why they spend on lobbying (a big ******* payday, hopefully, for them ... but not us ... since UP goes the cost of education, and soon after your and my property taxes, sales taxes, etc.)

Plus if private education was such a godsend, why are we in such a clusterfuck now with higher / trade school private "educators," suckling the student loan teet, and handing out "degrees" that are bullshit and worthless to potential employers? (answer: change in banko laws, thanks to GWB. Now poor folks can be hoodwinked into huge student loans for "educations" that ain't worth shit, and the poor schmucks are stuck with the debt and payments, without bankos as a way out.) All thanks to good old private "colleges."

You asked for an example and I gave one. I am not going to muddy this thread discussing this one precise topic but it is always a great one for another forum. My point is less government in our lives can be a goal and can be attained by various ways and mean.

 

[Dreamy]

conclusion: natural rights is an abstract notion in the minds of man

what a concept, eh?

I stand in awe without the idol worship or other nonsense concerning gods and creators. mankind is awesome to behold

Abstract? I am either born with my freedoms or I am not. I believe I am born with them. I then, in tandem with others, elect a government to protect those freedoms. Our freedoms come before government.

Love is abstract but it exists and can be shown with actions as can freedoms.

 

[Koios]

I am on a phone at present and thus cannot fully address the depth of your ignorance on the economics of what you proposed.

So check back in a couple hours.

Now then Dreamy. Yes, the same monies would be collected on property taxes, unless increased, even for folks like myself whose kids are grown and no longer in school. But an educated workforce benefits me, so no problemo, for me.

However, if lobbying by private education interests is successful and they bleed government money by selling enough retards on the foolishness that your child costs X and that should be your choice as where to spend it, things get fucked up. Here's why.

Your child's cost is merely an average. We'd still have schools, teachers and admin at the exact same level with or without your kid. But with your kid, the average cost goes down, albeit a fraction of a penny, state-wide. So no biggy, with or without. In fact, adding classrooms comes when student levels reach a point requiring it. Conversely, reduding classrooms and teachers for each grade level, and school, requires student totals to fall below a certain mark. So not all schools would lower cost, but would see diminished money coming in. And private concerns get all kinds of new govmint buckos, in case you're wondering why they spend on lobbying (a big ******* payday, hopefully, for them ... but not us ... since UP goes the cost of education, and soon after your and my property taxes, sales taxes, etc.)

Plus if private education was such a godsend, why are we in such a clusterfuck now with higher / trade school private "educators," suckling the student loan teet, and handing out "degrees" that are bullshit and worthless to potential employers? (answer: change in banko laws, thanks to GWB. Now poor folks can be hoodwinked into huge student loans for "educations" that ain't worth shit, and the poor schmucks are stuck with the debt and payments, without bankos as a way out.) All thanks to good old private "colleges."

You asked for an example and I gave one. I am not going to muddy this thread discussing this one precise topic but it is always a great one for another forum. My point is less government in our lives can be a goal and can be attained by various ways and mean.

Oh yeah; I forgot, since you might note we moved beyond that, But if you must recap, having govmint revenue fund private ed ain't quite an "answer to people's problems without government."

Moreover, in higher ed we have it right now, vis a vis govmint backed loans. And it's great for folks that can afford it, especially the really really great universities. (Over 70% of kids in Ivy League come from families in the top 10%) But charlatans in higher-ed-drag are fleecing the poor and unsuspecting to an extent that's borderline deserving of a bad faith class action. Doing that to primary ed, in America, would be stupid to an extent bordering on the wrong side of retarded.

 

[Koios]

conclusion: natural rights is an abstract notion in the minds of man

what a concept, eh?

I stand in awe without the idol worship or other nonsense concerning gods and creators. mankind is awesome to behold

Abstract? I am either born with my freedoms or I am not. I believe I am born with them. I then, in tandem with others, elect a government to protect those freedoms. Our freedoms come before government.

Love is abstract but it exists and can be shown with actions as can freedoms.

Like faking an orgasm?

 

[bripat9643]

What "context" alters the fact that Lincoln endorsed an Amendment to the Constitution that would permanently legalize slavery?

Fool, you stated that Lincoln proposed it. He did not. He did not even endorse it. What he did was in order to avoid a civil war, he stated he would not fight it, then he recognize the legitimacy of the amendment and the process.

Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, said of the Corwin Amendment:[14][15] Corwin Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service....[H]olding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

Just weeks prior to the outbreak of the Civil War, Lincoln sent a letter to each state's governor transmitting the proposed amendment,[16][17] without taking a position on it, and noting that Buchanan had approved it.[18]

In other words, he endorsed it. Your weasel attempt to ascribe good motives to his endorsement is a colossal fail. Furthermore, his motives were entirely sinister.

 

[Dreamy]

Now then Dreamy. Yes, the same monies would be collected on property taxes, unless increased, even for folks like myself whose kids are grown and no longer in school. But an educated workforce benefits me, so no problemo, for me.

However, if lobbying by private education interests is successful and they bleed government money by selling enough retards on the foolishness that your child costs X and that should be your choice as where to spend it, things get fucked up. Here's why.

Your child's cost is merely an average. We'd still have schools, teachers and admin at the exact same level with or without your kid. But with your kid, the average cost goes down, albeit a fraction of a penny, state-wide. So no biggy, with or without. In fact, adding classrooms comes when student levels reach a point requiring it. Conversely, reduding classrooms and teachers for each grade level, and school, requires student totals to fall below a certain mark. So not all schools would lower cost, but would see diminished money coming in. And private concerns get all kinds of new govmint buckos, in case you're wondering why they spend on lobbying (a big ******* payday, hopefully, for them ... but not us ... since UP goes the cost of education, and soon after your and my property taxes, sales taxes, etc.)

Plus if private education was such a godsend, why are we in such a clusterfuck now with higher / trade school private "educators," suckling the student loan teet, and handing out "degrees" that are bullshit and worthless to potential employers? (answer: change in banko laws, thanks to GWB. Now poor folks can be hoodwinked into huge student loans for "educations" that ain't worth shit, and the poor schmucks are stuck with the debt and payments, without bankos as a way out.) All thanks to good old private "colleges."

You asked for an example and I gave one. I am not going to muddy this thread discussing this one precise topic but it is always a great one for another forum. My point is less government in our lives can be a goal and can be attained by various ways and mean.

Oh yeah; I forgot, since you might note we moved beyond that, But if you must recap, having govmint revenue fund private ed ain't quite an "answer to people's problems without government."

Moreover, in higher ed we have it right now, vis a vis govmint backed loans. And it's great for folks that can afford it, especially the really really great universities. (Over 70% of kids in Ivey League come from families in the top 10%) But charlatans in higher-ed-drag are fleecing the poor and unsuspecting to an extent that's borderline deserving of a bad faith class action. Doing that to primary ed, in America, would be stupid to an extent bordering on the wrong side of retarded.

Simply put, sorry now I am on calls and distracted, many of us want less government in our lives because when we have more government we have less control over our destiny and our freedom and of course our money.