To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.generalOpen lugnet.general in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 General / 22462
22461  |  22463
Subject: 
Re: Nuke Boston (was Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be...)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general
Date: 
Sun, 24 Sep 2000 04:05:08 GMT
Viewed: 
59 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
I wasn't aware that government was responsible for making the world safe.

Nonsense, although that's clearly overstating the point being made by the
previous poster. I give you In Congress, July 4, 1776. The unanimous
Declaration of the thirteen United States of America:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed..."

[ed. note: the phrase "pursuit of happiness" is merely Jefferson's lyrical
manner of restating the idea of property rights -- it is a fundamental concept
of the Enlightenment.]

So Larry, I think it's fair to assert that the U.S. government is indeed there
to protect my life against unnecessary dangers.  "You have the right to swing
your fist right up to the tip of my nose," etc. These are basic concepts in
civics.

Nobody has the right to drive a car that poses an unnecessary danger to
others. They may, but it's not a right.  I have seen enough evidence to think
that tall vehicles pose a danger worth avoiding.  I am not asserting that we
should "throw the baby out with the bathwater" (i.e. make SUVs illegal).  I am
saying that we should get them closer to the ground. So simple a thing.  So
reasonable.  Trampling nobody's inalienable rights...

The analogy with gun rights, and drugs, etc. is to cloud the issue with
extraneous matter.  My idea here (and one that is in keeping with your own
politics, I think) is: "An it harm none, do as thou wilt."  But the key
is: "An it harm none..."  I own guns -- I have never had cause to hurt a
single living thing with any of them (and I think gun ownership is a civic
duty that goes well back in our legal heritage).  I do not regularly take
drugs of any kind, but I do not oppose those wishing to do so if they can do
so responsibly (Intoxication is not a defense!).

Hugs and kisses,

-- Richard



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Nuke Boston (was Re: Resolved: Tall SUVs should not be...)
 
(...) Sorry, that Canadian education must have been letting you down: (URL) #3 sense 1: Made before or without examination) (...) Really? I wasn't aware that government was responsible for making the world safe. I don't see it in OUR constitution (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)

26 Messages in This Thread:











Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR