Has the state got the right to intervene?

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mr Walheim

Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2006
Messages
2
Hi Guys,

To what extent and by what right may the state intervene in your private conduct which causes no direct harm to others?

What do you think is the purpose of the law?

What isnt the laws job?

And are there any other mechanisms in place to police these?
 
Mr Walheim said:
Hi Guys,

To what extent and by what right may the state intervene in your private conduct which causes no direct harm to others?

What do you think is the purpose of the law?

What isnt the laws job?

And are there any other mechanisms in place to police these?
Click to expand...

In a perfect world...

1. None

2. Consequence those that violate the rights of others

3. Protect you from yourself

4. Voting
 
You certainly posed some relevent questions for all, especially as we take that slippery ride to a dystopian future.

I might suggest Bastiat's "The Law"... www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm He asked these same questions a long time ago and his conclusions have merit today.

Other questions most people do not think about include:

What is the proper relationship between the individual and the government, and why?

Should the law be respected, always? Why or why not?

What is patriotism?

What is the difference between the government, country, nation, and people? Why do people often confuse them?

Kudos to you for asking such questions as you posed. You are definitely on the right track to understanding the hypocrisy of our age in this country.;)
 
The State is taking over the right to intervene in everyone's life.

Where do they get this right? They create it themselves.

What gives them this right? The threat or actual use of force, deadly force included.

I don't like it but there it is.
 
Mr. Walheim (and Others):
Please excuse my rudeness, but you have trod on one of my pet peeves and I'm climbing onto my soapbox for a good rant.
States (governments) do not have "rights"! Only individuals have rights. Governments and other such abstract collectives have "powers". They derive their "just" powers by our consent (that is, we agree to them). The powers they take without our consent could be "unjust" powers, but they should never be confused with rights.
Read from the period. The founders did not make this confusion in the Declaration, the Articles, the Constitution, or the Papers. It was sloppy rhetoric when the South spoke of "States Rights" and it's sloppy rhetoric now.
Please, let us get onto the High Road of correct American political usage before we are thought to be ignorant, unschooled rubes.
Rant off:
BothellBob
 
States (governments) do not have "rights"! Only individuals have rights. Governments and other such abstract collectives have "powers". They derive their "just" powers by our consent (that is, we agree to them). The powers they take without our consent could be "unjust" powers, but they should never be confused with rights.
Click to expand...

BothelBob beat me to it.

Sad to say, a great many people are unwilling to accept responsibility for themselves, and so expect the state to assume it.
 
Mr Walheim said:
Hi Guys,

To what extent and by what right may the state intervene in your private conduct which causes no direct harm to others?

What do you think is the purpose of the law?

What isnt the laws job?

And are there any other mechanisms in place to police these?
Click to expand...

A) None. Even if it is harm to yourself.

B) (Again, ina perfect world) To keep people from interfering with your rights.

C) to interfere with your rights (simple enough)

D) The 2nd amendment :D And checks and balances built into the govt.
 
Dammit!

Everytime i want to post something here, somebody beats me to it. (hence the very few number of posts)

What BothellBob said...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top