Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 20:43:09 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Paul Robinson <paul@iconoplex.co.uk> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Senator Santorum Message-ID: <3EBB23CD.9120F2F2@mindspring.com> References: <ADAEB726-7FD9-11D7-8EA4-000393A335A2@mac.com> <20030506121650.K51947@12-234-22-23.pyvrag.nggov.pbz> <3EB8A4AF.B6B02E5B@mindspring.com> <20030507110515.GH11502@iconoplex.co.uk> <3EB9ECC9.CAD7B631@mindspring.com> <20030508102448.GB35559@iconoplex.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Paul Robinson wrote: > On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 10:36:09PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: > > No. Because it would be alienating a right which is inalienable. > > There are people who pretend at it, though... > > It's only inalienable if you believe that to be the case. No, by definition, inalienable is not a matter of belief, it's a matter of natural law. > If you can be > tricked into thinking you now belong to somebody, then it's game over for > you. That's how slavery works. Not really. Slavery works because the people who are being enslaved aren't willing to die to prevent it, and the people who are willing to die to prevent it aren't sufficiently informed to know the situation exists. Just like political refugees, who would rather flee to another country, and try to get someone else to go and die for the rights they are unwilling to die for themselves. > > "As an adult, you should be allowed to do with your > > own person and property whatever you choose, as long > > as you don't harm the person or property of another". > > Have no quibble with that, except some people don't mind being harmed and > therefore you would have to extend the definition for consensual sex to > cover various fetishes, particularly bondage, domination and S&M activities. The author of the book does extend it that way. He also extends it to drug use, so long as you are sober when you leave your house, or sufficiently sober to pass as sober. > > U.S. Senators are well known for believing Americans should > > not be permitted to do anything without a license from U.S. > > Senators or their duly appointed flunkies. Hence the siezure > > of the U.S. Internstate Highway system by the federal government > > in 1956, and the ensuing "Driver's License Compact", and the > > need for a drivers license to drive. > > I was specifically thinking about the right to do anything they want like > pollute the rest of the planet and specifically avoid any enviromental > legislation You've obviously never been to California. 8-). > that might involve putting up the cost of gas, That's not senators, that's oil companies. They are in the same boat as the music industry is relative to what new technology has done to their business model. Their model is based in the premise of continued market expansion. Most of us want Hydrogen fuel cells, instead of petroleum. > invade soverign states without provocation, I'll give you Nicaragua. But I won't give you Iraq. > dictate acceptable faith/religion in foreign states, I haven't seen anything that could be taken to be that; if you could, please provide concrete examples. If you're talking about not permitting religions requiring human sacrifice, well, I'd have to point to international law on human rights. > steal anything they want, Haven't seen that, either. > etc., etc. - in other words act as badly as Britain did in > the 19th century causing somewhere close to a 100 years of > misery, death, war and general hatred on a world-wide scale. Actually, the whole India/Pakistan issue is a result of the British pulling out. Before they went in, there was constant war, and after they pulled out, the population self-segregated along religious lines. If they had stayed there a while longer, the problems could have been avoided. At the very least, we would not have two neighboring nuclear powers engaged in constant brush-fire warfare. > But like I said, I didn't want to turn this into an anti-US flamefest. Go ahead; I'm sure there are a lot of people willing to defend the U.S. on these lists, who can tell the difference between "The U.S." and the people involved in any example you care to cite. People always talk about "The U.S.", with a capital "T", as if it were one thing, with one viewpoint and one policy, and no internal dissent, and no internal controls, and no hope of being better in the future than it was in the past. Mostly because they don't know U.S. history. > Instead, let's all just agree that the entire US political system > is corrupt and full of people who unwittingly want all US citizens > to be condemned to misery. Let me know when you start your pilot lessons, so I can sic them on you... 8-) 8-). -- Terry
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3EBB23CD.9120F2F2>