As ever said Stefan Molyneux, the principle of non-aggression is a basic axiom that we are taught from young children. "Do not hit other children", "do not pick up the affairs of others without permission," "do not lie" , etc, etc. However, although most people accept them as basic to healthy human society, very few people actually practice.
The State every day, violating our individual rights natural and intrinsic. The state by nature, take the affairs of others without permission. The State lies to us, the state hits us, the State does everything it is supposed that we should not do to live healthfully. Those who defend the state, are implicitly defending a breach of the non-aggression axiom.
I know pcs. dear liberal friends are not bad people. Progressivism so fashionable these days is not only mixing between the desire for social justice and lack of real political analysis. Based on their good intentions will make up rights to anything, believing that ensuring travez benefit of the law found a solution. Goodism and ignorance, together in a fatal: statism. Unfortunately, ignorance has never been sufficient justification to a crime.
There are two kinds of rights can be claimed: positive rights and negative rights . (It's a way to call them, do not define whether they are "good" or "bad" as someone once tried to discuss ...) Positive rights are those that involve the performance of any written law while negative rights are simply those who do not need to meet any law to be exercised, but simply that they are not interrupted.
When I claim my negative rights and negative freedom, I'm not forcing anyone to do anything, I'm just demanding that does not prevent me from performing this or that action. ie I have a "right to be homosexual" and nobody but nobody, can forbid me to be, nor can I be punished for. I am defending my natural rights without coercion against anyone. Unlike
positive rights, apart from relying on legal positivism and natural rights denied, involve the action of a third party to be fulfilled, and the only way to realize that it is voluntary action is through still force. Ie socialist like you dear friend, say you "right to free quality education" , and nobody wants to voluntarily then comes the state, we loot and gives your free education. That is called theft. That is called coercion. This is violating my natural rights.
And that, is the small detail of why all your positive rights (right to decent work, the right to a home, right to education, health, oral sex, to have a dog, water, participation, etc, etc) are illegitimate. For each and every one of your positive rights, attack the negative freedom of another individual.
So the post office? Does the non-aggression axiom is still the most logical for human relations or not? "We did not believe in this" not do unto others what you would not want done to yourself "? I do not think you dear friend center you like to rob you or you add it? So why incentive policies that attack us and steal them all?
Because that's what they're doing. Accept it. Have the courage to at least say "I'm statist that violate individual freedoms will achieve a better society." Let yourself of double standards and give the face. Social intellectual respectful accept it, every time you create a law to give state benefits to anyone, is armed robbery. Dear friend progressive admit it, whenever you demand and positive rights struggles of someone, you are violating individual freedom and social justice by destroying both say craving.
The State every day, violating our individual rights natural and intrinsic. The state by nature, take the affairs of others without permission. The State lies to us, the state hits us, the State does everything it is supposed that we should not do to live healthfully. Those who defend the state, are implicitly defending a breach of the non-aggression axiom.
I know pcs. dear liberal friends are not bad people. Progressivism so fashionable these days is not only mixing between the desire for social justice and lack of real political analysis. Based on their good intentions will make up rights to anything, believing that ensuring travez benefit of the law found a solution. Goodism and ignorance, together in a fatal: statism. Unfortunately, ignorance has never been sufficient justification to a crime.
There are two kinds of rights can be claimed: positive rights and negative rights . (It's a way to call them, do not define whether they are "good" or "bad" as someone once tried to discuss ...) Positive rights are those that involve the performance of any written law while negative rights are simply those who do not need to meet any law to be exercised, but simply that they are not interrupted.
When I claim my negative rights and negative freedom, I'm not forcing anyone to do anything, I'm just demanding that does not prevent me from performing this or that action. ie I have a "right to be homosexual" and nobody but nobody, can forbid me to be, nor can I be punished for. I am defending my natural rights without coercion against anyone. Unlike
positive rights, apart from relying on legal positivism and natural rights denied, involve the action of a third party to be fulfilled, and the only way to realize that it is voluntary action is through still force. Ie socialist like you dear friend, say you "right to free quality education" , and nobody wants to voluntarily then comes the state, we loot and gives your free education. That is called theft. That is called coercion. This is violating my natural rights.
And that, is the small detail of why all your positive rights (right to decent work, the right to a home, right to education, health, oral sex, to have a dog, water, participation, etc, etc) are illegitimate. For each and every one of your positive rights, attack the negative freedom of another individual.
So the post office? Does the non-aggression axiom is still the most logical for human relations or not? "We did not believe in this" not do unto others what you would not want done to yourself "? I do not think you dear friend center you like to rob you or you add it? So why incentive policies that attack us and steal them all?
Because that's what they're doing. Accept it. Have the courage to at least say "I'm statist that violate individual freedoms will achieve a better society." Let yourself of double standards and give the face. Social intellectual respectful accept it, every time you create a law to give state benefits to anyone, is armed robbery. Dear friend progressive admit it, whenever you demand and positive rights struggles of someone, you are violating individual freedom and social justice by destroying both say craving.
0 comments:
Post a Comment