1) We need the magical flying Unicorn of Goodness to show up and make everybody be nice! 2) We need a government that only protects the rights of the individual! Which of those statements is more rational? And which is more dangerous? Lets compare, shall we? Regarding the Unicorn of Goodness, while I have never seen such a thing, nor do I have any reason to believe that it exists, technically I cant scientifically prove that it doesnt exist--as unlikely as that might be. On the bright side, people waiting for the Unicorn of Goodness to appear will probably not be the cause of widespread violent oppression and murder. Regarding the government that only protects rights, not only can I demonstrate that it has never existed; I can logically prove that it CANNOT exist. An organization which only DEFENDED peoples rights, and only used inherently moral force to stop aggression, would have no monopoly, would have no power to tax, no power to regulate or legislate, would have no special authority, would have no right to do anything that you and I dont have the right to do ourselves, and therefore wouldnt BE government by any sane definition of the term. (It could be a private protection company, offering its services to willing customers, but thats not at all the same thing.) Furthermore, the pursuit of such a protector government HAS resulted in widespread oppression and murder. The Declaration of Independence erroneously asserted that governments are instituted among men to PROTECT the rights of the individual. Then we got the Constitution. Then we got the biggest authoritarian empire the world has ever known, with the biggest and most intrusive extortion racket (the IRS) and the biggest war machine (the U.S. military) in the history of the world. So given the choices, Id rather put my faith in the magical flying Unicorn of Goodness.
Posted on: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 15:26:53 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015