"Legitimate Sacrificial Citizen"?

[marshaul]

I recommend Locke, Hobbes, and Montesquieu as excellent sources to understand what is a right and what is not a right.

While the subject has developed considerably in the interval, I agree, you should start your reading here.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I woulda said its just power-hungry people grabbing for more and protecting what they got.

If you think about it, what is government? Just a deluxe union.

True!

The problem with that logic is profits are not rights.

The right to bear arms: right.

The right to equal slice of the pie: not a right.

I recommend Locke, Hobbes, and Montesquieu as excellent sources to understand what is a right and what is not a right.

You are misunderstanding what I am saying, I am arguing about your explanation not the subject, I used the subjects as an example of how your explanation logically fails.

You are not "self employed" any more than an employee "owns" a company. As Marshaul brought out though, it is true only in the sense you get your vote.

Now government doesn't have rights, when you sign up to be part of the government while acting in your official duties you sacrifice some of those rights. You have no right to my work or private e-mails.....I have a right to yours related to your work as a public servant. It's similar to an employer being able to say you can't carry your gun here, or I don't allow you to speak about.....

 

[WalkingWolf]

Awww let the cops have their gun on the job. Just require them all to wear pink uniforms and drive pink vehicles. I have been told that the color pink mellows out a persons outlook on life. Of course I would never suggest this if I was still working.

 

[palerider116]

While the subject has developed considerably in the interval, I agree, you should start your reading here.

Your thoughts never advance beyond rhetoric and complaint. In this case, it is simply unfettered ignorance.

Have a good day.

 

[Citizen]

Your thoughts never advance beyond rhetoric and complaint. In this case, it is simply unfettered ignorance.

Have a good day.

Uh-oh. You stepped in it that time, Pale.

If I know anything about Marshaul its this:

1. He's read vast amounts of liberty-oriented stuff. He makes my head swim with his cites. I'm pretty good on the subject, but Marshaul and Sudden Valley Gunner completely outclass me with the breadth of their reading. This is exactly why Marshaul commented about the subject being expanded greatly since Locke and Hobbes. It has been, and he's probably read most of it.

2. He's smart. All one has to do is follow his posts for a week. That boy can discern some of the finest distinctions.

3. Don't eat out with him. All the pretty girls in the restaurant will gravitate to him. Embarrassing really--a real blow to one's ego.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Uh-oh. You stepped in it that time, Pale.

If I know anything about Marshaul its this:

1. He's read vast amounts of liberty-oriented stuff. He makes my head swim with his cites. I'm pretty good on the subject, but Marshaul and Sudden Valley Gunner completely outclass me with the breadth of their reading. This is exactly why Marshaul commented about the subject being expanded greatly since Locke and Hobbes. It has been, and he's probably read most of it.

2. He's smart. All one has to do is follow his posts for a week. That boy can discern some of the finest distinctions.

3. Don't eat out with him. All the pretty girls in the restaurant will gravitate to him. Embarrassing really--a real blow to one's ego.

I only need one pretty girl anymore, my days of threesomes, foursomes, and being smothered are pretty much over. So hopefully he enjoys the pretty girls while he can. BTW as ugly as I am, and I can have multiple pretty girls anybody can. OOOOPS off topic again...

 

[marshaul]

He makes my head swim with his cites.

It occurs to me that I've kind of been resting on my laurels in this regard, relying primarily on ex nihilo reasoning of late. I find this approach refreshing, but sometimes it's fun to pummel the opposition with historical reference as well.

I should probably start going back to the books more.

 

[marshaul]

Incidentally, my personal definition of rights is ultimately Jeffersonian in origin:

No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.

--Thomas Jefferson

I have reformulated this as my recursive definition of right:

The sphere of right extends to those actions which do not fundamentally limit the ability of others to act with equal freedom.

Determining whether something is a right is a simple matter of applying this test.

Also, not that rights are not obligations, for right implies the equal freedom to elect to do something or to not do that something. I have an obligation to not steal from people, and to obey the terms of contractual agreements I've made. I have a right to carry a gun, and that means I can elect to not carry a gun as well.

So, in this case, the test is simple. Imagine that County Clare wants to hire Joe Bob as a deputy sheriff. County Clare elects to ask its deputies to only be armed at its discretion, and Joe Bob voluntarily agrees to seek employment on these terms.

Whose equal right to A: employ, B: seek employment, or C: be armed is affected? Answer: nobody's. Clearly, therefore, the county has a right to employ on this condition, and Joe Bob has a right to agree to employment on this condition. QED.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Awww let the cops have their gun on the job. Just require them all to wear pink uniforms and drive pink vehicles. I have been told that the color pink mellows out a persons outlook on life. Of course I would never suggest this if I was still working.

 

[OC for ME]

One does have to wonder why police would want a union. A union just gives its members, collectively, more power. Yet, as the enforcement arm of government, police already have lots of power.

What on earth do they need more power for? (not a rhetorical question--a suggestion of motive)

Almost got the brass ring. There is ample evidence to support my contention that cops have unions as bulwark against government abuse of the rights of the worker. Getting to sport a pistola, a shiney badge, and drive a "company car" are perks of the job only.

The problem with that logic is profits are not rights. <snip>

While, technically, profits are not rights, because profits are not citizens, profits are property and thus a citizen (business owner) has a absolute and unquestioned right to there lawfully gained property without any restriction place upon them or their property by the government or there fellow citizen.

 

[marshaul]

Almost got the brass ring. There is ample evidence to support my contention that cops have unions as bulwark against government abuse of the rights of the worker. Getting to sport a pistola, a shiney badge, and drive a "company car" are perks of the job only.

The police also lobby through their unions for more laws – basically any law, any time. This is a huge conflict of interest and should not be tolerated.

 

[OC for ME]

The police also lobby through their unions for more laws – basically any law, any time. This is a huge conflict of interest and should not be tolerated.

I agree. Eradicate public sector unions and these lobbying efforts would be greatly reduced. What beat cop would publicly speak for liberty where his boss speaks for government oppression.

 

[eye95]

Almost got the brass ring. There is ample evidence to support my contention that cops have unions as bulwark against government abuse of the rights of the worker. Getting to sport a pistola, a shiney badge, and drive a "company car" are perks of the job only.

While, technically, profits are not rights, because profits are not citizens, profits are property and thus a citizen (business owner) has a absolute and unquestioned right to there lawfully gained property without any restriction place upon them or their property by the government or there fellow citizen.

Let me try to state this another way: There is no right to profit from one's efforts. However, when one profits from his lawful activity, those profits are now property, which we all have a right to keep unless lawfully taken after due process of law.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[OC for ME]

Let me try to state this another way: There is no right to profit from one's efforts. However, when one profits from his lawful activity, those profits are now property, which we all have a right to keep unless lawfully taken after due process of law.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

I am at a loss as to what you are referring to. I clearly stated:

While, technically, profits are not rights, because profits are not citizens, profits are property and thus a citizen (business owner) has a absolute and unquestioned right to their lawfully gained property without any restriction place upon them or their property by the government or their fellow citizen.

Corrected the two instances of 'there' to 'their' as indicated.

I did not address the issue of whether or not we have a right to profit from our efforts.

 

[eye95]

I was not arguing with you. I thought I was putting a finer point on what you were saying when you said that profits were not rights.

If that somehow offends, meh. I stand by what I posted, even if it has nothing to do with what you posted.

This (and another convo with you) is getting inexplicably tedious, so I will just move on. If you have something going on that has you on an unusual edge, I don't want to make things worse.

 

[OC for ME]

I was not arguing with you. I thought I was putting a finer point on what you were saying when you said that profits were not rights.

If that somehow offends, meh. I stand by what I posted, even if it has nothing to do with what you posted.

This (and another convo with you) is getting inexplicably tedious, so I will just move on. If you have something going on that has you on an unusual edge, I don't want to make things worse.

+1 to you Sir. The burden is on me to not be offended. I defer to your insight, it has been a tough month or so. PM sent.

 

[eye95]

+1 to you Sir. The burden is on me to not be offended. I defer to your insight, it has been a tough month or so. PM sent.

I do want to share with all one of the lines from my PM to you.

Yours is one of the perspectives that I respect on OCDO.

I mean no disrespect by the following. It is an assurance that all is cool: Moving on.