Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
That position has a major roadblock: namely, the fact that in the US, ALL humans have a right to life. This is evidenced by the fact that I would be charged with murder were I to murder an illegal alien. Indeed, the concept that all human beings share the right to life is one of the founding principles of this nation, for "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
|
that's a peculiarly ahistorical standpoint.
We know for a fact that the founders did not hold all men, much less persons, to have inaliable rights.
I also already covered your objection. The state has an interest in stopping you from committing murder, not in protecting the non-citizen from being murdered.
I also note that in our current events we had this very discussion as to whether our nation's protections extend to all humans or just citizens. On this board, and in the public discourse, the answer was clearly that they only apply to US citizens.
EDIT: perhaps you can clear this up for me:
how does a libertarian come to the conclusion that a government entity has an obligation or even standing to protect non-citizens?
such a position would presuppose the government entity has authority over non-citizens, whereas the libertarian position presupposes that government entities ought to have the most limited authority over its own citizenry; much less, if any at all, over people not within its pervue.
2nd Edit: sorry I missed this notion.
If you subscribe to the notion that our nation holds dear a concept that all human life is inaliable, then you must square that with the concept that the state has no right to put its citizens to death.
Notwithstanding the fact that you quoted the Declaration of Independence, a political rallying call and not what our laws are based upon, inalianable rights can not be taken away by anything, not even the person who holds them, as they hinge upon natural law.
This is straight from Locke. Maybe a closer representation of the view you are espousing here, that rights are secured (and can subsequently be taken) by a sovereign entity, would be in Hobbes.