#social do-gooders
5 messages in this thread
Garry,
A little more complex than that. First, taking or violating property
rights requires that there is some right to be violated.
So you first have to define what constitutes a right, and how one
intreprets such rights…or are they absolute?
And since our definition of right in the area of weapons differs, then
obviously our definition of what constitutes 'taking or violating' that right
also differs.
Don
Don –
You cut to the quick on this one, and I appreciate such insightfulness.
Might we then digress into what the Founding Fathers meant by the phrase
'unalienable rights'?
Garry Nelson
Garry,
I can only presume they meant rights that are inherent in being alive.
Rights that we all have, but that can't be used to remove those same rights
from another.
For example if my right to the pursuit of happiness meant that I had to
deprive someone else of their liberty…then their right to liberty is
'greater' than my right to happiness.
In other words, there is no absolute, all rights must be relative to
each other individual's rights.
Don
Don –
Given your definition, my right to 'life' is limited by your right to
'pursuit of happiness'. I hope you aren't a disgrunted postal worker (G).
But in all seriousness, where you see conflict, I see harmony. Absolute
rights to 'life' and 'pursuit of happiness' can only be consumated and
fulfilled with the complimentary unalienable right to 'liberty'.
Garry Nelson
Garry,
I certainly agree with the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. Again, as long as you don't step on someone else's selfsame rights
in do so doing.
Actually, my basic philosophy is, 'If it feels good…do it…as long
as you don't hurt someone else in the process.'
Don