[ExI] elections again

[Samantha Atkins]

On Dec 30, 2007, at 8:28 AM, Harvey Newstrom wrote:

> On Sunday 30 December 2007 08:35, Stefano Vaj wrote:
>> On 12/30/07, Harvey Newstrom <mail at harveynewstrom.com> wrote:
>>> On Saturday 29 December 2007 14:28, Mirco Romanato wrote:
>>>> Do you prefer suppress freedom or suppress conflicts?
>>>
>>> I prefer that we suppress conflicts.
>>
>> I do not. If this put me for once in the "libertarian, randian,  
>> social
>> darwinist" camp, so be it. :-)
>
> I believe your choices were too limiting.  I do not believe that one  
> has to
> choose to ignore conflicts to claims rights, or that choosing to
> resolve/avoid conflicts will reduce rights.  Even though we chose  
> different
> choices from your dichotomy, I do not see these as opposite sides.
>
> For example, choosing gun rights in Washington, DC is fine, except  
> that you
> will have to hide your guns, could be arrested for having them, and  
> will have
> them taken away the first time they are ever seen or used.

Then the right is being violated in Washington DC.

> Resolving the gun
> laws first will greatly increase the ability to enjoy gun rights  
> later.

These laws are unconstitutional on their face and should be abolished.

>  So
> in that example, I would expect a gun enthusiast to resolve the  
> conflict
> (change the gun laws) or avoid the conflict (move out of DC) first  
> rather
> than choosing to ignore the law and traffic in illegal guns instead.

Choosing to live free regardless of the law is perfectly valid is  
somewhat dangerous.

> My entire point is that the choosing the rights will result in  
> conflict and
> suppression of those rights unless the conflicts are resolved first.

Not all conflicts have overriding validity.  Without some principles  
and concepts of what are rights endless compromise to reduce conflict  
results only in the least valid sides of the conflict receiving  
unjustified concessions.

>
> Resolving the conflicts is a path to enjoying the rights.

Not so.  A right is a right period.  Supposed conflicts already  
question whether it is a right.   That is the only real conflict.

> Choosing the
> rights first, and ignoring the conflict, is a less effective path to  
> enjoying
> expanded rights.
>

The right to bear arms is part of the highest law of the land.   The  
right is already established by law.   That some unconstitutionally  
restrict it means that their "conflict" as encoded in local laws in  
fact does not have a sound basis.


> Another example would be tax reform.  Refusing to pay one's taxes  
> and holing
> up in a house full of guns fighting off federal marshals is not an  
> effectrive
> choice of "freedom from taxes".

They are not "my taxes" except by arbitrary interpretation of relevant  
tax codes.   I agree though that the above is not a best choice.      
However I belief a bit of examination will show the alluded to case  
was a bit more complex than that.

>  Only by changing tax laws and resolving
> other people's expectations that everyone must pay taxes can such a  
> person
> hope to get away with it.  Claiming these rights without resolving the
> conflicts will not work.

So is this another way of saying might makes right and one must always  
negotiate with any hooligan able to exert sufficient coercive force?

- samantha

Vote Ron Paul for President in 2008 -- Save Our Constitution!
Go to RonPaul2008.com, and search "Ron Paul" on YouTube