buckeyegrad;1178779; said:
There's reason to believe he's pragmatic on the issue.... but leaning pro-life.
Upvote
0
-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter Buckeyeskickbuttocks
- Start date
There's reason to believe he's pragmatic on the issue.... but leaning pro-life.
OCBuckWife
I am the evil monkey in your closet
sandgk;1178804; said:
To post on the intarwebs.
Upvote
0
Sdgobucks
Pig on a wing
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;1178576; said:
I go with option 1, but I think the government should be held to premise 2 if you follow me. People should be able to do what ever they please without intervention from the government as long as they dont interfere directly with someone elses life, liberty or pursuite of happiness. However I think that the goverment shouldnt be allowed to engange in any regulating, taxation, or spending unless specifically stated by the constituion. I consider myself a radical moderate if that makes any since. I have a lot of veiws that cross party lines, but im pretty one sided on most of them. For instance:
I belive in the freedom to bear arms.
The freedom to have an abortion.
The freedom to marry whoever you want.
The freedom to smoke pot or use mind altering drugs.
The freedom to not pay 40% income taxes.
Things I dont think the goverment has the freedom to do:
Welfare (includes governemnt healthcare, social security, welfare, unemployment, economic stimulus).
Giving money to other countries
Government building (using taxpayer money to construct goverments in other countries).
Charity
Borrowing money (It must run a balanced budget)
Im not arguing the need of the programs above, or what would happen if they were removed. Im saying in my opinion they are not leagal under the constituion. No doubt many people would suffer if they were removed, but that doesnt change that the goverment never had the leagal right to create them.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Jake
Once a Buckeye, always a Buckeye
‘17 The Deuce Champ
Fantasy Baseball Champ
'18 The Deuce Champ
What gets me is that we have a Bill of Rights and they really aren't hard to comprehend. And yet, too often the people who keep telling us they have a "right" to (insert whatever it is they want today here) trample over the Bill of Rights whenever it suits them.
You don't have a "right" to anything that requires the efforts of someone else in order for you to exercise this right. Why? Your rights end where another's begin. To claim a "right" to someone else's efforts would require government force in order to realize this right, the moment no one wanted to do it for you by their own free will.
You don't have a "right" to anything that requires the efforts of someone else in order for you to exercise this right. Why? Your rights end where another's begin. To claim a "right" to someone else's efforts would require government force in order to realize this right, the moment no one wanted to do it for you by their own free will.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;1178774; said:
This post really had me thinking about what I said last week about what "rights" if any do we have that do not originate from society.
BKB, the idea of property being one of the three "natural rights" originates from a more agrarian-based society. Locke argued that as we are possessors of our own labor, that when we mix this labor with land (such as planting and harvesting a crop) the property becomes an extension of what we self-possess.
It was this idea of self-possession, that is things we have authority over merely as a result of our existence, that really got me thinking about what rights I personally believe should be protected against the society unless they pose a threat to that society, however said threats are defined. Life certainly would fall into this category and I even buy Locke's arguement of property to a certain extent--especially when it comes to property we own which directly provides for our self-sustainibility (e.g. a fisherman's boat), not so much when we merely get pleasure out of it (e.g. someone's boat for recreation on the weekend). However, liberty becomes a lot more tricky in my mind. What I mean by this is that if we are social beings that have always existed in some form of controlled soceity, then do we really have a natural right to liberty. If we use the standard of that which we possess merely be existing, I could see the liberty to think or believe as we want as a natural right worth preserving. The liberty to act as we want becomes much more problematic from my perspective because I'm not sure how we self-possess our actions when we exist in a society.
Upvote
0
Without giving it much particular thought, Grad, I think I fall on the default of our own acts patently being self-possessed. In that those acts may or may not be helpful for society, I think, is where regulation would come in to play (from that society, of course). So, for me, the fall-back is - with regard to Liberty - I have all rights. I am free to do whatever I desire. However, because I am likewise also interested in my own survival, and because being a member of a society enhances those chances, I must be willing to concede certain acts which - while it is within my "right" to perform - prove deterimental to the society.
So, for me it becomes a matter of what "rights" I'm willing to part with to be a member of any particular society. I have willing forgone my "right" to kill people, for example. (Calling killing a "right" may sound distateful, and it is, but think of it in terms of a lion killing prey... if that makes it easier to comprehend what I'm trying to get at). Other "rights" which I possess become closer calls, and a complex and perhaps inconsistent philosophy results. The key balancing factors, I think, are my "right" to engage in any activity I see fit v. the potential risks to others with whom I have agreed to live in society with for the purpose of mutual gain (Although, at the core of even this decision, is my own self preservation as key factor.)
In this regard, my saying there are rights of Life, Property and Liberty, is really nothing more than "piling on" That is to say, for me, a Right of Liberty would already include the right to Property and Life. Regardless, the important consideration for me is affording the most individual freedom(s) while also maintaining the societal aim of preservation and/or advancement. I suppose it is here, at preservation and advancement which I find the bulk of my disagreements with others. That is to say, for example, I think pot should be legal because in my evaluation the benefits outweigh the consequences. Understanding, of course, that my "default" is "we should be free to smoke it" placing the burden on "the other side" to convince me that we should not be free to do so.
Make sense?
So, for me it becomes a matter of what "rights" I'm willing to part with to be a member of any particular society. I have willing forgone my "right" to kill people, for example. (Calling killing a "right" may sound distateful, and it is, but think of it in terms of a lion killing prey... if that makes it easier to comprehend what I'm trying to get at). Other "rights" which I possess become closer calls, and a complex and perhaps inconsistent philosophy results. The key balancing factors, I think, are my "right" to engage in any activity I see fit v. the potential risks to others with whom I have agreed to live in society with for the purpose of mutual gain (Although, at the core of even this decision, is my own self preservation as key factor.)
In this regard, my saying there are rights of Life, Property and Liberty, is really nothing more than "piling on" That is to say, for me, a Right of Liberty would already include the right to Property and Life. Regardless, the important consideration for me is affording the most individual freedom(s) while also maintaining the societal aim of preservation and/or advancement. I suppose it is here, at preservation and advancement which I find the bulk of my disagreements with others. That is to say, for example, I think pot should be legal because in my evaluation the benefits outweigh the consequences. Understanding, of course, that my "default" is "we should be free to smoke it" placing the burden on "the other side" to convince me that we should not be free to do so.
Make sense?
Upvote
0
Jake;1179243; said:
I'm a little confused with this post, so I thought I'd ask about it. Society in general requires some measure of personal sacrifice in order to coexist within and often benefit from a greater community. Every time we engage in a contract with another we claim a right over someone else's efforts, in a manner of speaking. So to address it as such a negative concept throws me off a bit, and I'm left wondering what you mean.
Are there specific examples you can give of one of these common (re: "too often") claims in regards to a right that extends outside of the boundaries, as you see it? That's not a baited or loaded question, just want to understand what you mean, within the context of the thread.
Upvote
0