Comments by "" (@freesk8) on "Fox News"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@onbored9627 Well, as I have said above, I don't think it is a problem to use liberty in the definition because we are not talking about our own liberty in that clause, just the liberty of others. But using "rights" instead, just conceals the fact, because you then want to ask, "well, what ARE those rights" and Liberty is one of them. So you haven't really solved your circularity problem, just hidden it. But anyway, as I have said, I don't really think this is a problem. Instead of being circular, I think of the definition of Liberty as being recursive. Our rights must be compatible with each other's rights. The only way to address this is to refer to the rights of others in our definition.
1
-
@MR-zf2di Interesting, and well-considered. I'd like to quibble with a few points. 1) "having a positive effect on society" opens the door for liberals to define what is good for society, and then to impose that on the individual. If they see gun ownership as a social health problem, then they can violate your individual rights. The term opens a loophole you could drive a T-38 through. 2) The social contract has problems. A valid contract has to be voluntarily agreed to, and must be possible to read and understand. It has to be signed by someone who can reasonably be assumed to understand it. There can be no coercion to sign it. The current situation in the US fails on all these points. Now, if the social contract were just this: "I agree not to violate your rights to life, liberty and property if you agree not to violate mine" then I would make that agreement with nearly everyone who offered it. But that is not what we have. We can not possibly read all the laws that might apply to us. Few even understand the Constitution. We are forced to agree to it, as a condition of remaining in the place of our own birth. We do not actually sign it. There is no practical way to opt-out of it. Furthermore, the US government is in material breach of most of the Bill of Rights, including especially the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 10th Amendments. So, I don't think your argument about the social contract can help guide us, here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1