If you wish to limit a person's rights in anyway beyond preventing them from violating another's rights to life, liberty, and property, then you are a tyrant.
Not all tyrants are necessarily equal (I'll take Abraham Lincoln over Hugo Chavez any day), but tyranny in all forms is still evil. A man on trial for one murder does not use his aversion to genocide as a defense.
Think about it, and if you're comfortable with tyranny, then say hello to Stalin, Hitler, and the others who thought that the coercive powers of government ought to be employed for the destruction of freedom.
You might be offended at being compared with communists and fascists. However, you can only take offense if my accusations apply to you, and that would make you one who seeks to force your fellow man to live according to your own foolish five year plan (or 1,000 year Reich).
It may be that my occasional political post offends you. Consider, however, that every one of my points involves leaving you alone. I have never once advocated stripping you of your natural rights. Our rights are our own and are not up for grabs, not by any government, be it dictatorship or democracy.
What if I just think you are an egotistical ass. Does that make me a tyrant? What if I disagree that Ranch is not the best salad dressing or that the Office is not the best show on T.V.? What if you say that you look good in orange and I think it makes you look like a pumpkin? Tyrant? Let me know. I'm very confused.
ReplyDeleteLiteracy is a fine thing. If you were semi-literate, you might have noticed that I qualified my accusation and limited it to political topics.
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of dressing you prefer and such are not political in nature. However, I'll humor you.
The debate isn't over ranch or Italian dressing, it's over the fact that you would use the government to prevent me from enjoying my Italian dressing because you think that Ranch is better.