[arnold]

Are you sure you don't mean simply "one should not deny life and then claim a right to have it"?

Clearly people can and do deny the life of another but claim it for themselves. Unless you are reading very different history books then I am reading.


You have just reduced murder to a mere flaw in logic.

A serious flaw in logic. You were asking for the justification of the right to life. I gave you the logic behind it. Just because murder happens doesn't mean it is logical. Or do you have a scientific theory that validates it?

[jeffkrol]

A serious flaw in logic. You were asking for the justification of the right to life. I gave you the logic behind it. Just because murder happens doesn't mean it is logical. Or do you have a scientific theory that validates it?

Going to war and extinguishing thousands of "inalienable rights" due to the folly of their government is a logical use of murder............

Of course the greatest weapon of war is to convince one side the other side is not "human" and deserving of their inalienable right.....

[les3547]

Still boils down to "freedom of the many" vs "freedom of the one".... doesn't it.............

I believe principles the framers of our constitution came up with were derived from formerly trying to live in a society whose rules, or lack of them, made it difficult to self actualize. Such principles naturally emerged from humanity's inherent need to thrive (i.e., not merely survive). That's why our founders placed such principles into the profound category of "inalienable" . . . to say they weren't merely arbitrary or theoretical, they had been learned from centuries of suffering.

Studying the constitution and first ten amendments, it is clear that the founders were concerned with how everyone can thrive, and how to ensure individual rights are preserved as the government does so. So it has never been just about personal freedom, it has also been about personal responsibility to support government of, by and for the people. If we call those two symbiotic concerns societal and individualist, then lately the question most disturbing to individualists has been: how much should individuals be required to share their wealth for the good of society?

This question is seldom considered in light of all we know about wealth building in modern times. In laissez faire capitialism, those with business aptitude and drive can gain control of massive amounts of wealth, along with the means to control the quality of goods/services, workers, and even government. All this control is power, and abuse of power is always (and forever will be) a threat. Does it make any difference if power abuse comes from a monarchy/aristocracy or if it comes corporately?

A major function of a democratic government is to protect citizens from the abuse of power, and an important way we've done that is by spreading the power around, deconcentrating it. Yet to enforce that means central government must be more powerful than any of the entities within it. In the case of corporate entities, there is a finite amount of wealth available to humanity, so for a relatively small group to concentrate it for their personal power is anti-societal. The planet's wealth belongs to everyone, not just those who get exceptionally good at extracting it. Redistribuing excessive wealth, which is power, by reinvesting it in ways that facillitate individual self actualization is no different than redistributing power by creating voters, a senate, a house of representatives, separate executive and judiciary branches, etc. Prudent redistribution should serve both societal and individualist concerns.

[arnold]

Going to war and extinguishing thousands of "inalienable rights" due to the folly of their government is a logical use of murder............
.....

Once again you argue with sloppy definitions. Wars that have been started by murderous thugs is murder. There is no logic of protecting individual rights, only power lust. Defending yourself against this is not it's equivalent.
Self defence is not murder, but the only sane thing to do when attacked. Innocent people get killed in war, but they are not "murdered" by you if they died because you exercised the right to defend yourself. Those who initiated the war are to blame for that. War comes about because some believe in initiating force to satisfy their desires - you could not have war otherwise. Now which of us here is most adamant about not approving initiating the use of force?

[wildman]

A serious flaw in logic. You were asking for the justification of the right to life. I gave you the logic behind it. Just because murder happens doesn't mean it is logical. Or do you have a scientific theory that validates it?

?
I don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about.

[jeffkrol]

Once again you argue with sloppy definitions. Wars that have been started by murderous thugs is murder. There is no logic of protecting individual rights, only power lust. Defending yourself against this is not it's equivalent.
Self defence is not murder, but the only sane thing to do when attacked. Innocent people get killed in war, but they are not "murdered" by you if they died because you exercised the right to defend yourself. Those who initiated the war are to blame for that. War comes about because some believe in initiating force to satisfy their desires - you could not have war otherwise. Now which of us here is most adamant about not approving initiating the use of force?

Describe "self defense" in terms of Iraq...............

In terms of "inalienable rights" yes it is relieving someone of a right.. is that "murder".. ????

I'm not the one sloppy w/ definitions....

incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred

there are NO qualifiers on this........................ as in "except" or "but if"............

same here............

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.