Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
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 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.
|
Something which I would disagree with when concerning basic principles such as the right to life. As for the founders, regardless of what they intended, we know what those words mean to us today.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
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.
|
First, presupposing that because a person has a particular general political leaning that they hold all of that group's beliefs is quite disingenuous. This can easily be seen in real life by the fact there are many Libertarians who support the war in Iraq.
In short though, I believe a human being's right to life transcends any governmental considerations and is only rivalled by that of another human being.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
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.
|
Again, you are applying beliefs to me which I have never stated. Never once in my life have I spoken out in support of the death penalty and never will I.