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.
This certainly pertains....try to stay on topic, people
You give 'em an inch...they wanna take a mile......
3rd paragraph from the bottom....sums it up
Nobody has "the right to do business with anyone they want." because that takes consent out of the business deal.
People claim to be "pro-freedom" by saying that the "rights" of gays must be respected, yet they ignore the fact that they are advocating using the threat of violent force to coerce people into business transactions that they do not agree to.
You can't just make up "rights" like the right to buy cake. Rights are part of rights theory, which lists specific rights... the right to "buy cake from whomever I want" is not included.
Rights can not violate self-ownership, or they are illegitimate. If you force someone to give up labor of the fruits of their labor against their will, you are violating the self-ownership principle.
The fact that you are saying that you can legitimately force people to give away their labor, is a claim of at least partial ownership over them.
I am not anti-gay. I couldn't care less if someone is gay, but I base my political belief structure on freedom and individual rights, that is why it is so insulting when you people claim you are fighting for "freedom". It is more than obvious that you have not read the philosophical works that established rights as a political system. The claims you are making are in DIRECT opposition to the most basic principles of rights theory.
The right to "buy cake" clearly violates self-ownership, and the non-aggression principle which are key tenets to the ideas of rights and liberty.
Ya'll should chew over this quote from John Locke's Second Treatise of Government. His works were greatly influential in rights theory and the founding documents of the United States:
Quote:
"To properly understand political power and trace its origins, we must consider the state that all people are in naturally. That is a state of perfect freedom of acting and disposing of their own possessions and persons as they think fit within the bounds of the law of nature. People in this state do not have to ask permission to act or depend on the will of others to arrange matters on their behalf. The natural state is also one of equality in which all power and jurisdiction is reciprocal and no one has more than another. It is evident that all human beings – as creatures belonging to the same species and rank and born indiscriminately with all the same natural advantages and faculties – are equal amongst themselves. They have no relationship of subordination or subjection unless God (the lord and master of them all) had clearly set one person above another and conferred on him an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty."
Forcing somebody to give up their labor or fruits of, is a violation of natural law.
Quote:
"The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that... no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions"
He begins by asserting that each individual, at a minimum, "owns" himself; this is a corollary of each individual's being free and equal in the state of nature. As a result, each must also own his own labor: to deny him his labor would be to make him a slave.
I don't understand how people believe that other people need to be forced into behavior can also claim to believe in "freedom". You subscribe to the basis of Thomas Hobbes philosophy, fearing the war of "all against all" but you claim to believe in "rights" which are based off of Locke's philosophy... weird.
Quote:
Locke’s political philosophy is compared and contrasted with Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan. The motivation in both cases is self-preservation with Hobbes arguing the need of an absolute monarch to prevent the war of “all against all” inherent in anarchy while Locke argues that the protection of life, liberty, and property can be achieve by a parliamentary process that protects, not violates, one’s rights.
I could also quote Voltaire, Bacon, Smith, etc... all day on the issue. Pretty much every philosopher who believes in intrinsic rights believes they are established by self-ownership and protected by the non-aggression principle.
Obama is NOT forcing anyone to get gay married. He is simply doing the complete Opposite of forcing, rather the ones who are forcing anything are the traditionalists who want to keep gay marriage banned.
He is simply doing the complete Opposite of forcing, rather the ones who are forcing anything are the traditionalists who want to keep gay marriage banned.
I believe gay marriage should be legal. 14th Amendment.
The baker should continue to refuse. Refuse to participate in the wedding he objects to, refuse to comply with the absurd "anti-hate" laws, refuse all the way until Leviathan puts him in chains or shutters his doors for him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Atlas Shrugged" , in part
"Do you mean that you are refusing to obey the law?" asked the judge.
"No. I am complying with the law - to the letter. Your law holds that my life, my work and my property may be disposed of without my consent. Very well, you may now dispose of me without my participation in the matter. I will not play the part of defending myself, where no defence is possible, and I will not simulate the illusion of dealing with a tribunal of justice."
"But, Mr. Rearden, the law provides specifically that you are to be given an opportunity to present your side of the case and to defend yourself."
"A prisoner brought to trial can defend himself only if there is an objective principle of justice recognised by his judges, a principle upholding his rights, which they may not violate and which he can invoke. The law, by which you are trying me, holds that there are no principles, that I have no rights and that you may do with me whatever you please. Very well. Do it."
"Mr. Rearden, the law which you are denouncing is based on the highest principle - the principle of the public good."
"Who is the public? What does it hold as its good? There was a time when men believed that 'the good' was a concept to be defined by a code of moral values and that no man had the right to seek his good through the violation of the rights of another. If it is now believed that my fellow men may sacrifice me in any manner they please for the sake of whatever they deem to e their own good, if they believe that they may seize my property simply because they need it - well, so does any burglar. There is only this difference: the burglar does not ask me to sanction his act."
(emphasis mine)
He should refuse to sanction this tyranny. Let the tyrants use force as is their wont, but do not agree with them, do not participate willingly in your own enslavement to other men, and do not submit. Make Leviathan show you its true nature, its inherent evil.
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.
