Subject:
|
Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Mar 2003 17:58:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1037 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> Morally, you may be correct, but practically, it is better to proceed under
> the generational contract as long as the new generation has the means to
> modify it.
And I pay my taxes and vote my concience. I just think it's messed up to call
it a contract. It's a dodge. I'd be happier if we just enunciated the fact
that we are partially or sort-of owned by the state. As long as they control
our right to our own body's labor, we are vassals.
> In the case of the Africans, they were brought here by force, and
> never entered into a contract, either individually or by previous
> generations.
Does that mean that the descendants of those slaves have a different set of
obligations to the state?
From the perspective of the individual, how is being brought from Africa with
no choice, different than being brough from the womb with no choice? I reject
the possibility of being born into a contract.
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
164 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
|
|
|
|
