I hear a lot of talk like this on conservative talk radio.
Here’s the question. Are our constitutional rights a privilege granted to us from our government? Without gov’t granting these rights to us we would could not otherwise have them? Like say the right to defend your own life with a weapon, say it be a gun, or whatever means are necessary? And gov’t has the right to revoke those rights at will? Or are our constitutional rights just natural rights and that every human being has these rights because they are human beings? Now, most countries in the world have oppressive governments and/or statism and both are the opposite of freedom. Because most gov’ts don’t permit citizens to have/exercise their natural rights, the USA has the power to revoke or not permit their citizens to have those rights either?
Because an aggressor commits an act of force against another individual, or a group of individuals, and that force creates a loss of value to those victims, I don’t believe that the aggressor now has forfeited his natural rights. And what gives gov’t the right to revoke that individual’s natural rights? Those terrorists owe reparations to all of their victims. And if gov’t and its military are to be good for something, one thing they should do is to make sure those terrorists are productive enough during their incarceration to earn their own food & shelter (so my wealth that gov’t confiscates through taxation does not support their life) and for them to also earn enough to make reparation payments to their victims. If they are responsible for vicimizing hundreds or thousands of people, then I guess they got a large debt to repay.
I think that people are just outraged not because of any sense of obligation but because it is such a perplexing case. If were tutored by Murray Rothbard for much of your life and looked up to him, wouldn’t people be confused and somewhat disheartened if you started acting like Paul Krugman?
This whole question of trial or no-trial is just publicity for the Obama administration because they have lower than expected public rankings.
There is no good reason to help people get rights if they deny these rights to other people.
In Russia, there was a film in the eighties portraying a generic dictator (basically Stalin/Beria), which asked the question: Can he be buried when he dies? Answer: No, because even putting him into the ground would imply forgiving him despite his murders.
He kindof ran as a “Ron Paul II” and he was aware of it. He also campaigned for his father. Also, it’s one thing to hold views counter to liberty, it’s another trying to enforce them federally. Rand is a horrible man from what I’ve seen, he’s a disgrace to his name and to all those who he had the privilege to meet and speak to during his childhood. Just imagine that this guy grew up around Rothbard and the likes, amazing how he can be so unprincipled.
I had my concerns about this guy, and now my concerns have been realized. I did not give any money to his campaign. His interviews were too wishy-washy. I was really disappointed with Lew Rockwell’s interview of him. There was no substance in the interview. This guy is just a war-mongering sicko. I see there are those of you that think voting for him is better than voting for someone else. Well, I myself would never vote for “the lesser of two evils”, because I don’t vote for evil, and if you believe in evil, this guy is evil. He is happy to spend your money on his pet projects, which include killing innocent people and harming other peaceful people (if you look at his anti-immigration stance). This guy is a schmuck. I hope he loses and goes away.
I watched a speech of his in Kentucky months ago and I distinctly remember him advocating for the United Nations. He said I know they are criminals but what’s wrong with having a forum to discuss at.
Yet the problem with that is the UN doesn’t simply talk. They try to enact policies and individual countries sometimes go along with these policies. Rand seems uneducated about the issue.
Further, I dislike with the very concept of Constitutional rights. Implicit in the phrase “Constitutional rights” is the idea that our rights are derived from the existence of a government document.
Same with “legal rights”. That’s why I prefer the term “human rights”, rights which are derived from the sanctity of human life. A child who is being gassed by Saddam Hussein has no “Constitutional rights”, but he has human rights.
Too funny, aren’t you guys the ones who don’t believe in the constitution? Either you believe in the constitution and the U.S. Government or not? Make up your minds! (can’t stop laughing).
we don’t believe that it acts legitimately, however we do believe that it exists. The US government does indeed exist. There is a constitution.
The constitution does not make legitimate the crimes acted out by those who champion the constitution and say that what they do is not bad, since the ‘constitution’ makes it so.
plus its hard to be angry at something that does not exist. i hate the state. it exists. i hate it.
