Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 3:26 pm
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Apr 05, 2021 3:02 pm
Recognizin' the individual's life, liberty, and property are his is not a matter of majority say.
Darn right.
That's what "unalienable rights" means. It means no other person or group can legitimately and morally separate you from the right you have to life, liberty and property. They can only do it illegitimately and by force.
So it has zippo to do with what people "vote" to do. Unalienable rights are not a
product of democracy; they are a
pre-existing bedrock reality upon which democracy itself depends for its integrity and stability.
You can't legitimately take a man's life from him (though, of course, he can forfeit his right to live if he tries to take life from somebody else). You can't legitimately curtail his liberty (except to protect the same right for somebody else). And you can't take a man's property without also stealing his life and his liberty.
And why?
Because when people need property or money, they invest their
time to get it: they do work. They put some
portion of their lives into it. And life is precious: it is finite, fungible, and continually diminishing. It's all a person has.
Their
time is their
lifespan. They are literally giving up their lifespan in order to get money or property they need in order to live.
If the government or somebody else steals their property or money, they are taking somebody else's
time, their
life. They are robbing them not just of their "stuff' but of the time it took to get all the "stuff." And they are robbing them of their right to invest their lifespan as they choose.
That's slavery. In slavery, one person does the work and somebody more powerful decides how to spend the money; somebody more powerful takes their time and work. In Socialism, exactly the same thing happens. You work, you give up your time for the money and property you need in order to survive, and instead of getting to do with it as you would decide, the government steals it and spends it as it wants.