As soon as the rights of one individual are infringed, the concept of rights as a whole is undermined. Women must be allowed to maintain full an equal rights to their own bodies under the law, or else the concept of rights begins to lose its meaning. Under such conditions then no rights are safe.
The abortion debate is the canary in the coal mine for a much broader and more critical issue. Congress needs to formerly define the concept of rights under the law. A legislative definition of rights based on a moral assessment of objective reality, could effectively mitigate not only the abortion debate, but also many other issues pursuant to individual rights. This should have been done by the founders of this nation. The sooner it is done, the closer we will be to the promise of the America.
Thanks. This is a great idea. For sure it should go to Congress. A better definition of rights should be a Constitutional Amendment. What do you think?
I generally agree with this (except for the state, of course). However, I have my doubts about where individual person begins. Maybe rights appear with the first signs of consciousness (a child recognizes objects, chooses one and rejects another) rather than from birth? In any case, the mother should have the upper hand over the infant.
I realized that people don't appreciate the truth. They like comfortable flattery, comfortable lies, they like the same old thing and repetition. I gave in my article on anarchy and in my 5 part article on religion the strongest arguments and the most sincere words, I said straight up what I thought, I gave no comfort or flattery. For both I did comprehensive research, I found the strongest arguments against anarchy and for anarchy, I even created my own arguments artificially and by my own frameworks, I studied and considered the Objectivist argument for minarchism in its fullest strength and presentation, I found information on the economics, laws and customs of 6 or even 7 different cultures and developed a rigorous epistemological framework, not even one but a series of such frameworks. The stronger the arguments the more sincere and more real your words are, the more people hate you. I used to think only Christians were like that, but I see that's not true.
Thank you so much for unsubscribing from me. I just don't have reason and an innate value of goodness, I can't learn and there's no need to even write me any objections. I now realize that I shouldn't rely on the content of ideas, I should rely on the way people process new and strange information. I enjoy many of your articles, but it pains me to read them now. It's my dependence to others maybe, or maybe I just want to meet a person of integrity and perception who is present in the real world all the time, not when he has comfort and habit. Thanks anyway for expressing some ideas, that's important too.
I do not believe that government is a legitimate institution or that it prevents crime. In my opinion, it rather expresses the maximum acceptable level of crime in society. I'm an anarchist.
With anarchy you get war lords. If your ambition is to be the biggest and baddest so people cower in your shadow, just say it.
The purpose of all government is to punish people who don't obey laws. Some laws are right, some are wrong.
The law of contracts requires an adjudication process. Killers have their own rules. At least the mafia know where their turf ends and government takes up the slack.
Anarchy is the cause of revolution, but the cure is better law.
Government’s job is to adjudicate crime and punishment. Anarchists don't believe in respect for the rights of others. If they did, they would not be anarchists. Since they don't, they are on the way to death by misadventure. Life short and angry. Good luck, you'll need it.
As soon as the rights of one individual are infringed, the concept of rights as a whole is undermined. Women must be allowed to maintain full an equal rights to their own bodies under the law, or else the concept of rights begins to lose its meaning. Under such conditions then no rights are safe.
The abortion debate is the canary in the coal mine for a much broader and more critical issue. Congress needs to formerly define the concept of rights under the law. A legislative definition of rights based on a moral assessment of objective reality, could effectively mitigate not only the abortion debate, but also many other issues pursuant to individual rights. This should have been done by the founders of this nation. The sooner it is done, the closer we will be to the promise of the America.
Thanks. This is a great idea. For sure it should go to Congress. A better definition of rights should be a Constitutional Amendment. What do you think?
I generally agree with this (except for the state, of course). However, I have my doubts about where individual person begins. Maybe rights appear with the first signs of consciousness (a child recognizes objects, chooses one and rejects another) rather than from birth? In any case, the mother should have the upper hand over the infant.
What do you mean, “except for the state, of course?”
I realized that people don't appreciate the truth. They like comfortable flattery, comfortable lies, they like the same old thing and repetition. I gave in my article on anarchy and in my 5 part article on religion the strongest arguments and the most sincere words, I said straight up what I thought, I gave no comfort or flattery. For both I did comprehensive research, I found the strongest arguments against anarchy and for anarchy, I even created my own arguments artificially and by my own frameworks, I studied and considered the Objectivist argument for minarchism in its fullest strength and presentation, I found information on the economics, laws and customs of 6 or even 7 different cultures and developed a rigorous epistemological framework, not even one but a series of such frameworks. The stronger the arguments the more sincere and more real your words are, the more people hate you. I used to think only Christians were like that, but I see that's not true.
Thank you so much for unsubscribing from me. I just don't have reason and an innate value of goodness, I can't learn and there's no need to even write me any objections. I now realize that I shouldn't rely on the content of ideas, I should rely on the way people process new and strange information. I enjoy many of your articles, but it pains me to read them now. It's my dependence to others maybe, or maybe I just want to meet a person of integrity and perception who is present in the real world all the time, not when he has comfort and habit. Thanks anyway for expressing some ideas, that's important too.
I do not believe that government is a legitimate institution or that it prevents crime. In my opinion, it rather expresses the maximum acceptable level of crime in society. I'm an anarchist.
With anarchy you get war lords. If your ambition is to be the biggest and baddest so people cower in your shadow, just say it.
The purpose of all government is to punish people who don't obey laws. Some laws are right, some are wrong.
The law of contracts requires an adjudication process. Killers have their own rules. At least the mafia know where their turf ends and government takes up the slack.
Anarchy is the cause of revolution, but the cure is better law.
Government’s job is to adjudicate crime and punishment. Anarchists don't believe in respect for the rights of others. If they did, they would not be anarchists. Since they don't, they are on the way to death by misadventure. Life short and angry. Good luck, you'll need it.