[TheForge] Mark Krause held on bomb making charges POL:

[CGRAF]

Andy only one question.
How and by whom is #4 enforced?

Mike Graf

On 12/13/2010 11:10 AM, Andrew Vida wrote:
>
>
> peter fels&  phoebe palmer wrote:
>
>>> 	Government, as it were, exists for but ONE single legitimate purpose:
>>> the guaranty and protection of human rights.  That's it.  There is no
>>> other legitimate function one can name.
>> Guess it depends on how you define human rights.
>
> 	Natural human rights derive axiomatically from the acceptance of a
> single proposition, that all men hold equal just claims to life.  If one
> accepts this, all the rest follow axiomatically and apodictically.
>
> 	From this cardinal precept follows what I call the Canon of Individual
> Sovereignty:
>
> 	1. Each Individual holds sole and absolute title to his own life
>
> This is what is referred to as "self ownership", meaning no other may
> own or exercise ownership rights over you.
>
> 	2. The absolute right to think and act in accord with one's Will.
>
> The right to freedom of action and conscience.
>
> 	3. The right to acquire, keep, and dispose of property
>
> The right to private property.
>
> And the Cardinal Prohibition, constituting the single restriction by
> which we much all abide:
>
> 	4. No man may initiate force against or otherwise trespass upon the
> rights of others.
>
> Commonly` known as the "non-aggression principle".
>
> If you accept the Cardinal Precept, you must also accept that which
> follows from it.
>
> If one does not accept the Precept then one must answer a rather
> daunting litany of very thorny questions.  For instance, if all men do
> not share equal just claims to life, whose are superior and whose
> inferior?  How is this determined?  Who judges?  By what standard do
> they judge?  Who determines the standard?  By what standard is the
> standard established and who determines that?  These questions go on and
> on endlessly when one rejects the equal claims precept.  It is
> inelegant, messy, and IMO intuitively and so very obviously false as to
> merit no further consideration.
>
> If our claims are equal, our rights are.  That being the case, there is
> no man on the planet who may justifiably impose his will upon another
> without first having gained consent to do so.  If you reject this,
> please do let me know on what basis you so do.  We can take it offline
> if you prefer,  lest Russ' acid level rise to discomforting levels.
>