Comments on: Why You Can’t Have Both Autonomy and Security

By: Henry Dampier

Henry Dampier — Wed, 14 May 2014 01:48:08 +0000

What makes you think that enforcement of rights is cost-free? Even USG tacks on countless fees and taxes for special services that have the potential to burden its courts.

By: Henry Dampier

Henry Dampier — Wed, 14 May 2014 01:46:25 +0000

Sorry about that. Thanks for noticing the error.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Fri, 09 May 2014 05:02:12 +0000

It is so irritating I just have to comment. All men are equal *under the law*. Why do people always forget the most important part?

By: Political economy as illustrated by Mayo Chiki | vulture of critique

Political economy as illustrated by Mayo Chiki | vulture of critique — Wed, 07 May 2014 19:28:03 +0000

[…] http://www.socialmatter.net/2014/05/06/why-you-cant-have-both-autonomy-and-security/ […]

By: JPOutlook

JPOutlook — Wed, 07 May 2014 04:43:05 +0000

“Rights” in the last paragraph is in quotes, but then suggests that they should be paid for… That doesn’t strike true for me.

Also, the line “All men are created equal” is from the Declaration of Independence and while Pres. Lincoln tried to dogmatise it during the Gettysburg Address, most sane people realised then and still do realise that those words were only for the 18th century, and designed as Propaganda to put an exclamation point on the American Revolution. Mr. R.W. Whitaker writes about it here. (http://nationalsalvation.net/thefourteenwordsareal.html ) It’s important to notice that the Dec. of Ind. was NOT a legal document and never has been…

J.P.O.

By: Mark Yuray

Mark Yuray — Tue, 06 May 2014 14:22:07 +0000

Great succinct article, as expected. Proofread however; you’re missing two periods in the two middle paragraphs. Looks unprofessional.

[HB: Thanks. Fixed.]

By: Nick B. Steves

Nick B. Steves — Tue, 06 May 2014 14:02:27 +0000

“Banish the thought that ‘rights’ are magic that can be guaranteed through verbal promises alone.”

Excellent! A good experiment to get children and non-idiot progressives to do is in any situation where the concept of rights is invoked, insist that the statement be reformulated using the only term “responsibilities” instead. Wherever a right exists, there must exist a corresponding responsibility (usually on the part of others). If the statement cannot be thus reformulated, then the statement is bullshit, which should be transparent to the child or non-idiot progressive.