Re: Not to be smug or anything, but...


"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Misc-DB4F28.06373727112007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <5r2j1rF1252h2U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Alex W." <ingilt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

However, I do believe that our society provides the framework for the
accumulation of wealth. Without the roads and infrastructure, the laws,
the
predictability and reliability of government, and especially without the
enforcement of property and other civil rights through the support of
both
state and our fellow citizens, it would not be possible for any of us to
create the wealth in the first place.

And the violation of those property right via redistribution? A bit of
consistency here from Alex would be nice. Instead, we get numerous
contradictions.

Look at any country where the
political and social eonvironment is not so benign: there, all that
happens
is the theft of wealth from everybody else to benefit a very small group
whose only qualification is membership of the ruling elite. Does this
not
deserve some recompense?

No.

Certainly not forceful recompense. If someone wants to voluntarily
leave something in the government's tip jar in appreciation for "all
they've done for us" (ahem!), I certainly don't begrudge that.

It's called the "proper functions of government". It's based on the very
nature of "what government is".

Redistribution by extortion is a travesty. Often, it stems from "group
think".

However,
forceful extraction of nearly half the fruit of my labor is not "some
recompense", it's "theft of wealth [...by] the ruling elite."

Especially when 3/4ths of that goes for redistribution.


If the government only took what they were rightfully due (as you seem
to be arguing), far fewer people would be griping about it.

Many say that government is "a necessary evil"; it's not. A proper
government is indicative of a good and noble civilization. It only becomes
evil when it oversteps it's natural role and functions. That is: to protect
(not abrogate) rights. Further, rights are not privileges, nor do they amass
based on your race, gender, marital status, etc. (group think).

Without a proper definition of rights, the proper role of government can
never be defined.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Not to be smug or anything, but...
    ... And the violation of those property right via redistribution? ... It's called the "proper functions of government". ... protect rights. ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: Not to be smug or anything, but...
    ... Many say that government is "a necessary evil"; ... evil when it oversteps it's natural role and functions. ... Further, rights are not privileges, nor do they amass ... Without a proper definition of rights, the proper role of government can ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)
    ... What you have now is what the government allows you to have. ... I see, so I should just give up my rights now without a fight, and then ... Another empty tactic of gun control, ... project a willingness to support more restrictive gun control. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: ot:ot:ot flag burning amendment
    ... >>>Militia is necessary for the security of a free state, ... presupposes the independent existence of rights, ... have no existence before government grants them. ... beliefs, philosophy, etc. as does mine, of course. ...
    (alt.support.mult-sclerosis)
  • Rick Stanley RATIONALE FOR LETHAL FORCE AGAINST GOVERNMENT AGENTS WHO USURP POWER
    ... RATIONALE FOR LETHAL FORCE AGAINST GOVERNMENT AGENTS WHO USURP POWER ... > generally, for individual rights. ... > "The Constitution of the United States was ordained, it is true, by ...
    (talk.politics.guns)