snapsy
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
Jefferson wrote:
Human “Rights” can only be maintained in a “Political” environment. The reason we have a Constitution. It sets the limits of Government by Law. The Rule of Law … not Rule of Man.
Injecting an emotionally based argument without Constitutional backing is dangerous.
I could argue that every individual has a “right” to a house and to be fed three times a day. That would cause someone to give up something. It would have to be taken away from someone else by force to comply. The government is not a charitable organization … it’s a government designed (originally) to protect the rights of its individual citizens.
There’s a 90 year old Veteran trying to feed homeless people in Fla. .
The local Government in Fla. has decided not to allow him to do that. The reason is it scares away customers from the local businesses. Does this Veteran have the Right to deprive a local business owner of costumers that the owner uses to feed his family and offer jobs to the community … ?
Would the Veteran be better off working within maybe an environment more conducive to charitable work …? Does not the business owner have the Right to run his business unimpeded … ?
Why do we have zoning ordinances … ? Is that not (in most cases and intent) the Government protecting the Rights of the business owner and individual … ?
I fully support the 90 year old Veteran in his objective …
Would you be fine with a McDonalds next door to your home …. Even if they gave the food to the homeless or others in need … ?
How ‘bout the neighbors ..? Why not invite the Vet, to distribute the food from your house ... ?
… Sort of playing Devils’ Advocate here to make a point. …
… And …
You don’t have a “right” to drive …
You don’t have a “right” to vote …
Read the US Constitution and the Federalist Papers to see what the founders had in mind … and the arguments that went along with the final decisions …
It’s a good read …
Jefferson …
...Show more →
Not sure which of my posts you believe I injected emotion - I've been dispassionate about the topic thus far. The issues you raise are those of rights of the individual vs the collective and society, which are worthy of discussion but separate from the issue at hand. Standing outside on public land taking photos of distant inanimate objects falls within the realm of inalienable rights and is distinct from your examples of whether people have a right to state-provided material possessions or sustenance. As for your zoning example and feeding the homeless, those are civil violations and don't cause people to be placed into prison, at least in all but the extreme enforcement cases and even then they are afforded due process by civil law first, notwithstanding the occasional power abuse cases.
|
… Toto, we’re not in Georgia … or Kansas as one story goes … anymore 
