Subject:
|
Re: Rights to free goods? (was Re: What happened?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 4 Jul 1999 22:02:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
926 times
|
| |
|
|
On Sat, 3 Jul 1999 20:56:01 GMT, Larry Pieniazek uttered the following
profundities...
> I'm going to refer you to the federalist papers on this, and they're a
> hard slog, believe me, I'm re-reading them now, as I periodically do.
>
> Summarizing, though:
>
> I acknowledge that a quick read of the phrase "LL&PH" may leave one with
> the impression that because certain goods are required for life, there's
> a government committment to supply them.
>
> But the FFs did NOT mean free goods in that oft twisted passage. Life
> means the right not to be shot by the government capriciously, liberty
> means the freedom of action to do as you wish within the limits I have
> often stated, and pursuit of happiness means the right to strive to
> succeed materially or spiritually or to strive for happiness in other
> ways.
>
> Had the FFs meant free goods, surely they would have set up such from
> the get go either in the articles of confederation, or in the
> constitutional republic (their second try) we still have. After all
> other governments not that far removed chronologically specifically DID
> try to do so.
>
> But the FFs did not set up any free goods. They were capitalists, not
> socialists. Their intent is clear. I'm usually rather dismayed at the
> lack of clarity of thinking evinced by those who trot out this tired
> argument (that LL&PH means free goods). Shame on you.
>
> Think about difference between promising happiness and promising the
> freedom to pursue happiness. The latter speaks only to behaviours. And a
> central tenet of my arguments here has been that rights speak only to
> behaviours not goods.
>
>
I do not have these federalist papers to which you refer, so
must trust your *interpretation* of them. Assuming a copy
exists on the 'net, I shall read them. (Open invitation for
someone to e-mail me a copy of them, text-format, zipped, blah, blah).
Until then, the framework to enable pursuit of hapiness, then.
It is all too easy to just define *everything* as a good, &
that there is no commitment for anything to be provided. You
should therefore be opposed to government-funded and -run
innoculation programs, which have helped to protect *your*
children from many diseases, as well as others'. And by
innoculating the masses, have further helped to protect
your children. (I can be quite sure, however, that as
it is government-run, that there are almost certainly
inefficiencies and unnecessary bureaucracy and wasteage).
This is possibly the best example I can come up with,
supporting the notion of framework for protecting life.
(I still have yet to be convinced that the paranoia
exhibited by many on this forum, that the current US
government's only agenda is to kill you all, in order
to steal everything, as anything but hysteria).
By protecting the children from disease, you are providing
the opportunity for life. Or would you leave that, too, to
ability to pay and merit of position? (Class-based, non-
democratic, etc.) --
_____________________________________________________________
richard.dee@nospam.virgin.net remove nospam.(lugnet excepted)
Web Site: http://freespace.virgin.net/richard.dee/lego.html
ICQ 13177071 AOL Instant Messenger: RJD88888
_____________________________________________________________
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
433 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
