 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
the social contract arrises from this:
Bob's family is large and starts forcing the other families arround to give them food
Charles's family and Adam's realise this and band together (Actually, probably Charle's family offers Adam's family potection in exchange for some of Charles's families food) so as not to be bullied by Bob's family
in each state the individuals of that state recieve certain agreed upon benefits, and in return give up power
at the very basic level, there is the fact that you couldn't keep your land, withuot the assistance of the state
so the basis of the social contract is protection
as Bob's circle (State) grew larger, so did Charles's, with Pete's family and Sven's family soon joining
however, one year Adam's family had a famine, Charles realised that if his family did not assist Adam's family, than Adam's family would not be able to help protect him against Bob
so he requested grain from Pete's family and Sven's family to give to Adam's family so that no one would die and Adam's family could support him
Jon Miller
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Solomwi
Their lives don't give them free rein to take whatever they like from me. That's just asinine. Let's get to the heart of the issue, though: he or she is a criminal, obviously without respect for the basic property rights that help form the foundation of any free society. Motivation for the crime is irrelevant to that point. If this mother were that concerned about her baby, she would have (drumroll please) gotten a job when notified that she would no longer be collecting welfare. |
Sometimes jobs are impossible to find. Also, many jobs (in the US at least) are not able to support someone (a minimum wage job takes away all your time, and gives you very little money in response).
Jon Miller
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Solomwi

|
 |
Don King of the Apolyton HLA Movement
Dec 2002 time: 23:24
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Kidicious
You almost got the heart of the matter. It's that yes she respects the right for you to keep what you have earned. Whether you have truly earned it is a question though, especially in a capitalist system where it depends more often to what family you were born. She understands all to well that her children have a right to live, and that absolutely trumps your right to property. That's how everyone understands it. You Libertarians are so full of **** with you right to property can not be violated for any reason. You know damn well that you would all steal if you hade to. You problem is in your damn heads. You can't put yourself in others situations. This ones for the libs.
|
Wow. The sad thing is that you believe what you just spewed. If I have played by the rules of the system, I have earned what I own. Whether you or some welfare recipient thinks I have is irrelevant. Her child's right to live is her responsibility, not mine, and therefore does not trump my right to my property. As soon as people are fed the notion that their right to life trumps anybody else's right to property, any free system collapses. Why work then, when I can just rob the rich? After all, I don't think they earned it, and I need to live, so I've got as much right to it as they do.
Oh, and I have no problem putting myself in others' situations. It's just that I tend to find solutions that don't involve criminal activity. Those are always out there, so please, spare me the hooker with the heart of gold routine.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002 time: 05:24
|
|
Oh, I believe no-one has a 'right' to life. If you earn property, no-one can steal it, but no-one should have to steal to feed themselves. That's that I'm not a libertarian, it's the state's job to feed those who cannot afford to feed themselves, so they don't have to steal.
However seeing that I don't believe in natural rights, only rights granted by society, I don't see a right to life as existing without the government saying so. If they want to make murder legal, they can. I have no reason to say that Darwinism shouldn't be allowed to exist, since survival of those that can survive best advances the species fastest. I wouldn't run a country like that, but I can understand reasons for wanting that. I don't believe in some sacred right to live, especially at the expense of others, that trumps all else. What would that woman do if other people weren't here to support her?
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Solomwi
I pretend nothing. I'm simply pointing out that there are always options that don't require theft. I can see it's pretty pointless, though, as you're inexorably tied to the notion that those currently on welfare will have to steal food to survive. It's simply not true. |
no there isn't it
especially not that can feed you (and your kid)
Jon Miller
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24. Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|