What does it mean to be aggressive?
If we take advantage of our neighbour in a situation where there are insufficient resources to sustain both of you then any arguments concerning the right thing to do will break down. It is everyone for themselves. But if there are sufficient resources, might it not be reasonable to suggest that there is no need then to do violence? And if there is no need to do violence then is to do so then wrong?
We might take the attitude that if we can dominate someone, then we will but how is that to our advantage? That type of behaviour is uncivilised. If we cannot leave our house for fear that it will be stolen from then we must take extra precautions all the time, which is a waste of time. For what reason would we want to harm others, there is no de facto reason.
If I have the right to be free of violence then that right is extended to others, by me.
To work and have an income is no threat to the Government, it is not harmful.
In spite of the desire that some may have to do violence, such as the State, it is not right, the victim has done (us) no harm. Why make people pay unfair taxes? Perhaps, eventually people will feel ashamed.
Monday, 29 March 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment