Top Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The founding fathers believed that governments are instituted among men for the sole purpose of protecting human rights. Theref

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    The purpose of government is to expand the liberty, freedom, of the individual.

    Comment


    • #32
      Ken what is in your own words the definition of healthy environment?

      Comment


      • #33
        check this out!

        http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/a/anwar.htm

        Comment


        • #34
          Clay

          Have you ever been to Prudhoe Bay? I drove up in 1996. I was stunned by the nesting waterfowl everywhere. I could have killed a dozen white-fronted geese with rocks from the road. The oil companies have done an amazing job of getting the oil with much less damage than I would have expected. Alaska has built alot of new schools since the oil money started to roll in. The place is ugly, but those guys have done a hell of a job up there.

          Comment


          • #35
            Labrador-

            Government cannot expand the liberty, freedom of the individual.

            It can only modulate the extent to which it infringes on liberty. Any act the government takes infringes on someones liberty.

            Therefore, if the purpose of a government is to expand liberty, its logical end is to abolish itself. This is the only way it can prevent it self from taking any actions and thereby limiting liberty.

            I then take it that you are an anarchist?

            You certainly have a rather fundamental disagreement with the founding fathers.

            Comment


            • #36
              Government can reduce taxes and regulations that it has imposed. Government can simplify and ease travel and commerce between the several states and internationally. It can act as the constitution allows it to act.

              What is your definition of a "healthy environment".

              Comment


              • #37
                Clay,

                You still haven't answered the question!

                I already defined a healthy environment above:
                "I would define healthy ecosystem as one that functions the way it did before we mucked it up."

                Labrador12 then asked how I defined "we". I would define "we" as the species homo sapiens, and yes, that includes Native Americans.

                So again, I ask:

                Do we have a right to a healthy environment?, and if not are we willing to live with the consequences?

                You could reject the premise of my question, say that the declaration was wrong, and say that the purpose of government is not to protect our rights.

                Though, in this case, I would like to hear your definition of the purpose of government.

                Comment


                • #38
                  I would like to see cities banned. LOL. I wouldn't complain.

                  So since we don't technically have a right to a healthy environment, and since opinions vary on what that is, we should just stick with an unhealthy one to be safe?

                  Is this seriously turning into an anti-healthy environment sentiment post?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Keep in mind, the is a separate issue from:

                    -whether or not Al Gore is a scum bag

                    -whether or not big environmentalist firms are corrupt

                    -whether or not you think that protecting this right would be easy or clean cut.

                    etc...

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      labrador12-

                      Organizations (like a government) exist so that they can fulfill their purpose to the greatest extent possible.

                      If a government's purpose is to maximize personal liberty then it must do everything it can to minimize infringement on personal liberties.

                      If that is the purpose of government then reducing taxes and regulation are merely steps along the road to eliminating government. Since this is the only way that liberty can be maximized.

                      This is known as Anarchy, It is a legitimate political philosophy, though most historians would also call it a flawed one. The founding fathers would agree with the historians.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        We have given you a constitutional republic, if you can keep it Ben Franklin

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Here's a quote that actually pertains to the purpose of government and the definition of rights:

                          "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men"

                          -Thomas Jefferson et. al.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Organizations, like a government, expand to the greatest extent possible. A citizens duty is to keep government serving the citizen not itself.

                            I consider myself a libertarian, not a anarchist.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              labrador12

                              Got a call on my HAM Radio from one the guys at work, about 10 miles north oft the Artic circle and had to go back for an emergency at work, all hell broke lose!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Ken you said, have a right to free speech ""or"" to bear arms.

                                Key word is “OR”!

                                Were do you get ""OR""!!!

                                “The broad principle that there is an individual right to bear arms is shared by many Americans, including myself. I'm of the view that you can't take a broad approach to other rights, such as First Amendment rights, and then interpret the Second Amendment so narrowly that it could fit in a thimble.”
                                -Senator Charles Schumer, D-NY, 2002-May-8 (http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR00975.html)

                                Comment

                                Welcome!

                                Collapse

                                Welcome to Field and Streams's Answers section. Here you will find hunting, fishing, and survival tips from the editors of Field and Stream, as well as recommendations from readers like yourself.

                                If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ for information on posting and navigating the forums.

                                And don't forget to check out the latest reviews on guns and outdoor gear on fieldandstream.com.

                                Right Rail 1

                                Collapse

                                Top Active Users

                                Collapse

                                There are no top active users.

                                Right Rail 2

                                Collapse

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Right Rail 3

                                Collapse

                                Footer Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X