Comment 25815

By A Smith (anonymous) | Posted July 03, 2008 at 17:29:56

Ryan, you use the term "fundamental human rights", because you know it can mean whatever you want it to mean. In that way, whatever you want government to do, you simply have to label it as a "fundamental human right", and there can be no opposition.

That is why you don't like the term "private property", since it implies that there are areas of the public sphere that are off limits to government control.

In your world, government's job is not to protect people's right to freedom, it is to force everyone to be equal. Therefore, if a poor person can't afford to pay for an M.R.I, than rich people shouldn't be allowed to either.

It is a philosophy based on envy, rather than compassion, and it reflects a person who can't, or is unwilling to carry their own weight. It is a philosophy for the weak of spirit.

The sad reality is, beneficiaries of government assistance always end up weaker, and more reliant on the government than if they hadn't drank the cool aid. The proof of this statement can be seen in areas of high welfare rates, places where multiple generations only source of nutrition has come from the nipple of the taxpayer.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds