Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's all a balancing act. Society is constantly balancing the rights/freedoms of people against each other.
Force isn't a requisite.
And the balancing act is offered as plain and simple reality.
There is no balance. No one has a right to initiate force upon anyone else for any reason. And if no one initiates force upon anyone else, every person has all of their natural rights.
There is no conflict between the natural rights of individuals. As no one has a fictional right to initiate force upon another. There is nothing to balance. There is no natural right which destroys the natural right of another.
The only force which would destroy the right of another is an initiation of force, which is not a natural right to begin with.
Okay, so you are basically saying we should just act like sitting ducks to preserve rights over enacting common-sense security measures to preserve lives?
What is common sense to a subject/slave/"citizen" is not common sense to one who believes in human freedom. You may choose to relinquish all of your freedom to "feel" safe, but that does not mean that everyone else would make thar\t choice, and it certainly doesn't mean you get to make that choice for them.
TSA should work smarter, not harder. They ought to be able to profile based on hard data. The insurance companies basically do it when they give women cheaper rates than men. Grandma and Grandpa should definitely not be harassed. I like security, but I wouldn't trade my freedom for it. That said, I don't really look at airport security checks as sacrificing freedom, more like protecting our freedoms. The terrorists win when we give up our freedoms, but they also win when their evil plots are successful. It basically comes down to whether or not you trust government. The government could definitely to do a better job at earning our trust, but since 9/11 we haven't had a commercial jet get hijacked by terrorists. Obviously TSA deserves some of the credit for that.
There is no balance. No one has a right to initiate force upon anyone else for any reason. And if no one initiates force upon anyone else, every person has all of their natural rights.
There is no conflict between the natural rights of individuals. As no one has a fictional right to initiate force upon another. There is nothing to balance. There is no natural right which destroys the natural right of another.
The only force which would destroy the right of another is an initiation of force, which is not a natural right to begin with.
The only person talking about initiating force on others is YOU.
Balancing people's rights has nothing to do with force.
As for your "no conflict between the natural rights of individuals", that's completely thoughtless. People who live together in communities, people who live together, period, have conflicts. People disagree with each other all the time, and it's mostly about boundaries, where at least one of the people in the relationship feels their rights have been impinged upon.
The only person talking about initiating force on others is YOU.
Balancing people's rights has nothing to do with force.
As for your "no conflict between the natural rights of individuals", that's completely thoughtless. People who live together in communities, people who live together, period, have conflicts. People disagree with each other all the time, and it's mostly about boundaries, where at least one of the people in the relationship feels their rights have been impinged upon.
If every human being has a natural right to any action which is not an initiation of force upon another, what rights need to be balanced?
"Balance" implies that natural rights can conflict. How is any action that is not an act of aggression upon another conflicting with anyone else's rights? It isn't.
The only time one's rights or natural freedoms are destroyed is when someone else initiates force upon them. That initiation of force is not a natural right.
You may "feel" like someone is impinging upon your freedom, but if they have not initiated force upon you, they have not. "Feelings" have nothing to do with it. There are only two types of force. Initiations (aggression) and retaliations. Initiation of force is always wrong and immoral. Retaliation against aggression is the only just use of force.
To not be able to understand this simple morality is to fail to even realize the wisdom of "do unto others".
No person, group, or government ever has the fictional right to initiate force to impose its will upon any other person, group, or government for any reason.
The only conflict that can ever arise between people is when one initiates force upon the other. There is nothing to balance. The aggressor is always wrong, and it is a natural right to retaliate against them, ie self-defense. Aggression is not a right, it is always wrong.
The only "balance" needed for a free people to exist, the only force needed for a free people to exist, is retaliatory force.
If every human being has a natural right to any action which is not an initiation of force upon another, what rights need to be balanced?
Any action that impacts another.
When people live together, their actions affect others. Sometimes those actions are unwanted. The unwanted action does not have to be an initiation of force. It simply has to be an action that has consequences upon others.
What is common sense to a subject/slave/"citizen" is not common sense to one who believes in human freedom. You may choose to relinquish all of your freedom to "feel" safe, but that does not mean that everyone else would make thar\t choice, and it certainly doesn't mean you get to make that choice for them.
TSA is a bad argument. You have the option to not be searched simply by not choosing to fly. Your argument would be a lot better if somehow the TSA/government forced you to fly.
It's not practical to NOT FLY when a person has to travel great distances. I have to fly for business when driving to the destination takes too long and is not practical. I avoid flying and will drive up to 5 hours in a car (1 way) to avoid the airports. If we were all retired and didn't have time constraints, your theory would make more sense. But, the sad truth is that American life is stressful with limited leisure time and high demands. Some like me use air travel as a last resort because we just don't have all of the free time to drive in our cars.
And how does that work out when 6 well-armed people take hostage of a plane at 35,000 feet altitude?
I take a pen and jab it in the jugular of the armed take their weapon and fight back.
I'll take my chances, I'll go out fighting not on my knees like a nancy boy.
That's the difference between myself and a majority of the populace. I'm not complacent.
Ya'll can do as you please. I'm not going out crying and begging for mercy on my knees.
If you won't act in the face of evil you're just as guilty as they are for enabling them.
Mock me, prove my point for me
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
