Because those anti-discrimination laws don't apply to permit holders and the solution lies in less government intrusion, not more.
Because those anti-discrimination laws don't apply to permit holders and the solution lies in less government intrusion, not more.
Actually, there are government entities that are needed, and it was never the founding father's intent to have no government whatsoever.
It's the over reaching of the government that's a problem.
There's a bit of a difference between having a health inspector checking for e.coli in beef, and the NSA.
Ultimately, I would prefer that a portion of a food business's expense go for paying a private entity to conduct these tests.
It's the over reaching of the government that's a problem.
There's a bit of a difference between having a health inspector checking for e.coli in beef, and the NSA.
Ultimately, I would prefer that a portion of a food business's expense go for paying a private entity to conduct these tests.
I get the do business elsewhere sentiment but I sure hope you don't need to use a hospital. Have yet to see one not posted.
I understand the impulse of saying that if we have to be stuck with a sorry collectivist system anyway, why not have it work for us too... but ultimately I think that just adds further justification for a system in which people's rights are up for a vote (or exist at the whim of bureaucrats) and places our liberty in more jeopardy. My love for guns and the RKBA is just part of my overall love for liberty. I don't believe in using the power of the State to give myself extra privileges at the expense of the rights of others under any circumstances. Too many people lobbying for just this sort of thing is what got us to the point where you literally can't take a sh*t without the government being involved (EPA toilet flush regs you know
).Even if it is a slow or futile process, I prefer to try to chip away at the government's involvement in our lives rather than add to it or attempt to benefit from it.
Something that most people seem to overlook when saying "there ought to be a law" is who holds the patent on the idea of law? The answer of course is God. The 1st Commandment is acknowledgement of God as Prime Creator. He created law. Under the 2nd Commandment we are not to copy the Creation of God. All man-made laws are violations of God's patent on the idea of law. The 8th Commandment also comes to bear as man attempts to steal the idea of law for himself. The 10th Commandment states we are not to covet what is not ours. Legislators covet God's idea of Law. In short, we have a choice in obeying God's ten laws or man's laws. We can not serve two masters. God's law's draw us closer to him. Man's laws protect the interests of man and actually seperate us from God.
If only...
Notice I did not make the distinction between "interests" and "natural rights".
When speaking of interests, these are the self-interests of law makers that benefit them. Bastiat makes the point that the law is perverted or twisted not to protect our natural rights but to subvert them. The essence of my post above was to point out that if man simply abided by the ten laws of God, there would be zero need for man's laws. Thus by obeying man's laws man then rejects God and can not be his heir.
I don't think that even the lawmakers are truly acting in their own rational self interest when they restrict liberty and attempt to aggrandize themselves. Initiation of force is destructive to all of mankind, even those who attempt to benefit from it (whether they know it or not). When you hinder any man's ability to create, produce, and associate in as free of a manner as possible within the limits of the equal right of others to do the same, you are crippling the institutions that make all human life and happiness possible.
Similar threads
- Sub Category: Handguns
- Sale Price: 550$
- Caliber: .40
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Caddo County middle school coach accused of lewd acts with student
- Latest: T. MIKE SMITH
-
