If we want to act with force against another person then we must have proof of the crime that they have committed. We cannot simply initiate force on an innocent person without, ourselves committing a crime. If we are not criminal then we can expect, under any rational system of ethics or morality, to be protected from any violence...
No person should initiate violence against others unless it has been shown or claimed, at least, that a crime has either been committed or is suspected of having been committed. If we are not (in that broad sense) guilty then it is right that we should be able to go about our lives unhindered.
A (perceived) need in others does not manifest as an obligation in myself!
There are no needs, there are only improvements. We improve our lives by trading our property with others and using our bodies to alter our environment. We are not owed any particular standard of living. It is good that our desires might be satisfied but each time should be a welcome event and not expected as a right. We aren't owed satisfaction, our desires are not the obligation(s) of others to fulfil. Simply, we, or I, if we are innocent, don't have to do what you want under any rational system of ethics, to be justified, force can only be used against someone who is a problem, provided we have sufficient resources for all.
To want something is not enough, we must demonstrate the reason behind the force. I don't care what you want, unless I can refuse. Why not allow me, people to refuse the desires, outcome of Democracy? If Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner, then what legitimacy is there? Should there exist safeguards to protect the individual from malicious voters? Is to vote for theft an act of theft, also? Theft is popular with voters...
Why do people keep voting for taxation?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment