In a system where category of inequality is not allowed to exist all members of the inequal group automatically cease to exist as humans. This twisted logic is the most damning feature of liberalism. Of course, no liberal admits this because it would bring him close to realization he's a Nazi yelling to the crowd "catch the Nazis".
#25 sounds suspiciously liberal to me ;-) If individuals don't have any inherent political right why should they have any right to bear arms? In republic only citizens that served in the military could have such right, as in Starship troopers. Under monarchy it is king's decision. Although often dictated by circumstances.
English king, Edward I., if I remember correctly, forbade commoners to bear sword and buckler because fencing schools were spreading like a wild fire and people were harming each other to prove their efficiency with those weapons. On one hand the king needed their subjects to be capable with arms to serve in his army (French nobles felt very vividly the English commoner proficiency with bow at Crecy ;-), on the other enough is enough.
Similarly, the duells of nobles made headaches to king and the Church for centuries as they could not do much about it.
So it seems to be a prudential judgment of our superiors.
In all times and places the right to possess arms has been seen as the prerogative of legally free men. It doesn't necessarily imply political rights as such, but rather the independence of free heads of household, who unlike women, children, and slaves have personal power of their own and aren't completely dependent on others for protection. Sovereigns individual or collective, however, may legitimately restrict the carriage and use of arms on their domains (after all, it's their property and they own it) and everywhere have done so.
As Haller would readily admit, by way of natural law, we all may seek to uphold justice if our governing institutions fail to protect us or our neighbor. A good and wise ruler would seek to encourage martial discipline and skill among all his able and responsible citizens in order to discourage invasion from without and criminality from within.
#4 Power does have a tendency to corrupt, as Lord Acton stated, but it also has the capability of doing much good and is absolutely necessary to protect what is good. I think Acton's point was that the modern state is too powerful, or that its power rests on perilous foundations. For instance fire may be used to keep warm in the winter and to cook food, but it is not good when it is placed on a foundation of gasoline in your living room carpet. If two men have the same degree of predilection to cheat on his wife, but one is rich and powerful and has beautiful women throwing themselves at him, while the other is poor and weak, and is barely noticed by women, let alone beautiful women, which is more likely to cheat on his wife? I'm not saying power is inherently bad, just that we humans tend to respond to incentives, and power provides an avenue for many incentives, many of which are not good. Regardless, I would say that there is much more to be feared from a weak man with power than a strong man with authority.
#7 Funny how the ideological child of liberalism, libertarianism (Rothbard, Hoppe), has intellectually re-established this time-honored tradition of private law.
#16 Excellent insight.
#21 If we are only granted rights once we pay taxes, what can be the argument against abortion? Surely infants in the womb have not yet paid taxes, and their parents, who wish to murder them, are not granting them any rights by way of their own paid taxes. I think we do have rights given by God solely because we are human, but these rights are very limited. Rights granted by a state should more reasonably be called privileges.
#37 I can't disagree with any of Haller's quotes! Lol
All those points needed explaining because most liberals, like most materialists, have no idea how opposed to common sense their ideology really is.
In a system where category of inequality is not allowed to exist all members of the inequal group automatically cease to exist as humans. This twisted logic is the most damning feature of liberalism. Of course, no liberal admits this because it would bring him close to realization he's a Nazi yelling to the crowd "catch the Nazis".
#25 sounds suspiciously liberal to me ;-) If individuals don't have any inherent political right why should they have any right to bear arms? In republic only citizens that served in the military could have such right, as in Starship troopers. Under monarchy it is king's decision. Although often dictated by circumstances.
English king, Edward I., if I remember correctly, forbade commoners to bear sword and buckler because fencing schools were spreading like a wild fire and people were harming each other to prove their efficiency with those weapons. On one hand the king needed their subjects to be capable with arms to serve in his army (French nobles felt very vividly the English commoner proficiency with bow at Crecy ;-), on the other enough is enough.
Similarly, the duells of nobles made headaches to king and the Church for centuries as they could not do much about it.
So it seems to be a prudential judgment of our superiors.
In all times and places the right to possess arms has been seen as the prerogative of legally free men. It doesn't necessarily imply political rights as such, but rather the independence of free heads of household, who unlike women, children, and slaves have personal power of their own and aren't completely dependent on others for protection. Sovereigns individual or collective, however, may legitimately restrict the carriage and use of arms on their domains (after all, it's their property and they own it) and everywhere have done so.
As Haller would readily admit, by way of natural law, we all may seek to uphold justice if our governing institutions fail to protect us or our neighbor. A good and wise ruler would seek to encourage martial discipline and skill among all his able and responsible citizens in order to discourage invasion from without and criminality from within.
#4 Power does have a tendency to corrupt, as Lord Acton stated, but it also has the capability of doing much good and is absolutely necessary to protect what is good. I think Acton's point was that the modern state is too powerful, or that its power rests on perilous foundations. For instance fire may be used to keep warm in the winter and to cook food, but it is not good when it is placed on a foundation of gasoline in your living room carpet. If two men have the same degree of predilection to cheat on his wife, but one is rich and powerful and has beautiful women throwing themselves at him, while the other is poor and weak, and is barely noticed by women, let alone beautiful women, which is more likely to cheat on his wife? I'm not saying power is inherently bad, just that we humans tend to respond to incentives, and power provides an avenue for many incentives, many of which are not good. Regardless, I would say that there is much more to be feared from a weak man with power than a strong man with authority.
#7 Funny how the ideological child of liberalism, libertarianism (Rothbard, Hoppe), has intellectually re-established this time-honored tradition of private law.
#16 Excellent insight.
#21 If we are only granted rights once we pay taxes, what can be the argument against abortion? Surely infants in the womb have not yet paid taxes, and their parents, who wish to murder them, are not granting them any rights by way of their own paid taxes. I think we do have rights given by God solely because we are human, but these rights are very limited. Rights granted by a state should more reasonably be called privileges.
#37 I can't disagree with any of Haller's quotes! Lol