Quote:
Originally posted by Ustwo
No, all laws take away freedom from someone, even if it is the freedom to exploit you. The Bill of Rights deals mostly with what the government can't do to you, but again, that is freedom lost for the government and the people who would support such actions.
|
that would be the accountant's perspective: all debits must be balanced with a credit. Buddah's too, for that matter, if you prefer yin and yang.
however, most political scientists and sophists might join with me in contending that my right not to be killed supercedes your right to kill me, since exercising your freedom to killl me takes away my freedom to live, yet my freedom to live does not take anything away from you - that's the first example given in the classic defense of the argument you present. as you can see in the example, there is an imbalance in allowing the killer the freedom to kill. that imbalance exists in any law that tries to take away natural or civil rights from anyone.
i first learned it in eighth grade government class, the same class that tought me the united states was greater than the soviet union because any citizen could walk into the white house (the people's house, mind you) and the kremlin was under armed guard and forbade entry to its own citizens.
that is not the case today, and now that i live in washington dc and walk by the white house every day, it makes me very, very sad.
Quote:
|
Ummm he volunteered for combat duty in WWI (Wilson turned him down), spoke in favor of the war and helped raise money for it in the US up to the end of the war even after the death of a son behind German lines. He died the year after the war ended. You know little about me or my views, so I think you should mind your own business and stick to current events.
|
all true, no one can fault his courage and sense of justice. i simply find his correspondence to be of a radically different tone after he lost his son. to each their own interpretation, i suppose. it is a great credit to his legacy that he could ecompass such a wide range of perspectives (and balance them) serving as an example for so many differing views in later years. perhaps he resembles abraham (father of religions, not lincoln) in that way.
your last line is harsh, man. sorry if i'm rankling you, but please know that i value your perspective and contributions to the debate. i'm getting to know you through your views as you state them here. live and let live sez i.