OT - I don't _hate_ McMansions

[Andy Bradford]

Thus said Levi Pearson on Fri, 27 Jun 2008 23:34:15 MDT:

> Even atheists can give  rational justification for inalienable rights,
> which exist due to rational codes of ethics.

Of course they can, natural laws  certainly do exist. So would you argue
that the non-agression principle is not  rational and not a natural law?
And for those not familiar with it:

``that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property
of anyone else.''

Where aggression is defined as:

``the initiation of  the use or threat of physical  violence against the
person or property of anyone else.''

Or in other words:

``No action should  be considered illicit or illegal  unless it invades,
or  aggresses against,  the person  or  just property  of another.  Only
invasive actions should be declared  illegal, and combated with the full
power of the law.''

> "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from
> the consent of the governed"
>
> This  suggests to  me that  the government  may justly  develop powers
> beyond  the  basic protection  of  natural  rights through  democratic
> means.

This does  not say  that government  can invent  new rights  that people
don't have to begin with. Government can only be empowered by the rights
that previously  existed in the  people. Anything else is  usurpation of
power.

> Our government has, by now, been long established itself. Not that I'm
> accusing you and  Von of being on  the cusp of revolution,  but you do
> propose fairly radical change.

I'm sorry,  but if returning  to a constitutionally sized  government is
radical,  then yes,  call me  radical! If  hoping that  we can  keep our
liberties in  tact is  radical, then  yes, call  me radical.  Is radical
supposed  to be  a  disparaging  term? What  exactly  does radical  mean
anyway?

Andy
--
[-----------[system uptime]--------------------------------------------]
  2:30pm  up 20 min,  1 user,  load average: 1.08, 1.16, 0.92