OT - I don't _hate_ McMansions
charlescurley at charlescurley.com
Sat Jun 28 07:45:25 MDT 2008
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:55:48PM -0600, Levi Pearson wrote:
> Von Fugal <von at fugal.net> writes:
> > Such is also the danger of not following the above litmus test. *My*
> > right to property is being violated, money is taken from me.
> You are voluntarily giving your money to the government, just like you
> voluntarily pay rent to your landlord. It's part of the contract. If
> you don't like the terms, you'll have to look somewhere else or try to
> renegotiate, but they're pretty well established by now!
"voluntarily giving your money to the government"? Hardly! Try not
paying taxes and see what happens. Try not showing up for induction
into the military when you've been drafted, and see what happens. A
better analogy for government would be the Mafia. "We're going to
protect you whether you want us to or not, so pay up!"
There must some evidence that there is a contract before it can be
enforced. It's clear that if you rent an apartment (your analogy)
there has to be a prior contract, occasionally oral, usually
written. Major purchases such as a car or a home come with a written
contract. Surely signing up with a government is a major decision. Ok,
where is the evidence for this "contract" with the government you
Come to think of it, where's the evidence that you have a contract
with this government? Did you sign the Constitution? Did they give you
a notarized copy you can show us?
No, of course not. So the whole "contract" analogy fails.
> Legislation doesn't need to be *necessary*, it only needs to be deemed
> beneficial by the polity. And, by the way, I mean social security
> (when not capitlized) in a far broader sense than simply the Social
> Security fund.
So the whole structure of a limited government with enumerated powers
gos by the board. Anything the polity (for which read: the political
class) wants, goes.
Why, then, even bother with the fiction of a written constitution?
Except, perhaps, to hornswaggle poor deluded souls like Von here, who
naively believe that a written Constitution means something?
> Again, your litmus test idea is based on a flawed concept of what a
> 'right' is and a narrow view of the role of government.
Von's view may or may not be "flawed"; that's an opinion call. That it
is consistent with the view of the Framers is easily shown. You said
above that if he doesn't like the way things are, he can move
elsewhere. Under that standard, it seems to me that all the folks who
want government beyond the "narrow role" set out by the Framers should
be the ones to move elsewhere.
Charles Curley /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
Looking for fine software \ / Respect for open standards
and/or writing? X No HTML/RTF in email
http://www.charlescurley.com / \ No M$ Word docs in email
Key fingerprint = CE5C 6645 A45A 64E4 94C0 809C FFF6 4C48 4ECD DFDB
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://plug.org/pipermail/plug/attachments/20080628/7b311ac8/attachment.bin
More information about the PLUG