🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <GUEST.91Mar14174623@geech.ai.mit.edu>,
guest@geech.ai.mit.edu (Guest Account) writes:

|>In article <692@huxley.UUCP> arg@huxley.UUCP (Adam R. Grossman) writes:
|>
|>   Actually, the only legitimate reason for a law [or a government] is
|>   to benefit individuals.  I may be old-fashioned, but I still
|>   believe people are born with certain rights and to secure these
|>   rights is why governments [and laws] are instituted among women and
|>   men.  
|>
|>This is a new way of looking at government.  The founding fathers
|>certainly didn't look at it this way.  There would be no reason to
|>have a government if the goal was to benefit individuals.  I say this
|>because individuals are restricted by governments.  The real purpose
|>of government is to protect the society of its people.  We don't spend
|>trillions of dollars on defense to protect individuals.  So laws
|>should only be made which benefit society.  As for individual rights,
|>it benefits our society for government to protect these rights.
|>
|>Daniel Guilderson
|>ryan@cs.umb.edu

*BZZZZZZZZT*

WRONG!

Read the Declaration of Independence.

Unfortunately, I don't have it with me right now; however, having helped
read it
aloud for eight hours in the town square last July 4, I can remember it
fairly
well. In the preamble, probably screwing it up:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: 
That all men are created equal;
That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable righs;
	among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;
That governments are formed among men to secure these rights.

(as a matter of fact, badly screwed up. Wish I had it here...)

Anyway, the point is, the people who created this republic felt
that the purpose of government was to guarantee these rights;
it was to serve society, rather than society serving the government.
The whole problem they had with the British government was
its lack of respect for their inherent rights as Englishmen.

The whole point of the Constitution was to *restrict the government*.
It is a contract, whereby the people give their consent to be governed
in return for certain guarantees of behavior from the government.

Laws are generally well-regulated violations of those rights to
preserve the common welfare; i.e., it is illegal for me to steal from
you. While this may violate my right to the pursuit of happiness,
it is considered a greater violation of your rights for me to do such.
This is the basis for proper laws. When laws do more harm than
good to *individuals* is when they stop being legitimate, and should
be fought with *all* tools at our disposal, including armed resistance
if necessary. Again, we have the "founding fathers" to look to for
guidance here-- the Revolution was armed resistance to laws
which violated the common welfare.

Sorry for placing this diatribe in gnu.misc.discuss; I have cross-posted
to talk.politics.misc and alt.individualism, and directed followups
to alt.individualism. This just happened to hit one of my BIG buttons,
being a [lL]ibertarian (both lower case and upper case).
--
Christopher M. Conway
wombat@nfinit.enet.dec.com      | The Second Ammendment is ABOUT military
wombat@jupiter.nmt.edu          | weapons. We have the RIGHT and DUTY to
wombat@juliet.ll.mit.edu        | overthrow a tyrannical government.