Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I agree that asking whether or not you can defend your home is assinine, but I'm not entirely certain of the basis for my assertion. You wrote:

    I come from a worldview where rights are inherent, intrinsic, unalienable. They are not granted by the government; they are only acknowledged and protected (or ignored and infringed) by the government. You have rights by virtue of the fact that you own yourself.

    I agree that the government should be acknowledging and protecting our rights and not granting them, but that's a gut reaction. The only justification I can see is that these "rights" are merely a convention we adhere to protect and promote the welfare of society (and thus our own.) It seems a "don't mess with me and I won't mess with you" sort of argument. That does not seem "inherent" to me.

    Mind you, I'm not trying to be difficult. I honestly want to know the justification used here.

    • My justification is less explicit and more of a request for justification of what you said. It seemed that you said we have our rights as a byproduct of promoting the welfare of society. I'm saying we have our rights, period, and that society benefits as a side-benefit. Both are important, of course.

      My justification is the fact that I own myself. I belong to me, not to society. People have had grand schemes about bettering society through telling everybody what to do since time immemorial, but that d

      --
      J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers