The Declaration of Natural Rights

[CuteOldGuy]

Excellent video for the ignorant to ignore. From the video:

Human societies are guided and held together by ideas and a shared sense of morality.

When the People lose sight of those foundational principles, corruption and dictatorial power inevitably take root, and once criminal elements have taken control of society it becomes harder and harder to unseat them.

As this process of deterioration progresses there comes a point of no return where real change can no longer be achieved from within the existing system. We've reached that point some time ago. It's time to come to terms with that and adjust our actions accordingly.

We face a situation right now where the electoral process has become little more than theater,and the political awareness of the population has been reduced to petty bickering over emotionally charged wedge issues,all the while those running the show remove our freedoms one by one and draw us ever deeper into undeclared wars of aggression.

The only way that we can change course is by organizing a unified front outside the existing system. Not as a political party, not as a left wing or a right wing ideological faction, but as a people.

Unified not in protest of this broken and corrupt system but with rather under a set of principles...principles that will lay the foundation to rebuild on.

Any right that is a true human right is inherent. Such rights are not granted by government, they are not privileges bestowed by society, or created by documents, therefore such rights cannot be regulated, limited or revoked by any such power. Any supposed authority which seeks to strip a Natural Right from the People is illegitimate, and should be dealt with accordingly.

The most common way that rights are subverted is through the assertion of rights which are not rights at all. There was a time when it was accepted by all that Kings had the right to kill at a whim and to take the freedom and the property of any of his subjects at will. The divine right of kings is a false right. This is obvious to us now. However, each era is blind to its own darkness.

Before we can even begin to understand the nature of rights we first answer one question honestly... and follow the implications to their logical conclusion.

When... is violence... justified?

It's a simple question, and there is only one sane answer. The only morally acceptable context for violence is defense.

That answer is often referred to as the non-aggression principle. It's a fancy name for an obvious and simple truth, but simple truths carry the most devastating implications when applied to the real world.

You really need to watch this video. It's only 9 minutes, but it could make a difference in how you see things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=IkIKDKtRQuY

[bully]

"The only morally acceptable context for violence is defense."

Isn't defense sometimes too late? Or does it mean that if every person/nation/government only used violence for defense there would be no violence?

[CuteOldGuy]

Did you watch the video?

[bully]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Did you watch the video?

Just finished it. Makes me feel powerless.

[Randy4Candy]

I watched your bullshit video. It looks to me like it was put together by a first semester media student at The Art Institute of _______________ (fill in the city nearest you). The only thing missing was a bunch of folks running around, waiving their arms, writhing on the floor with their "hair" consumed with the "flames" that figure so prominently throughout this pos video. Where do you find this sh*t? (and why would you waste the time looking for it?)

Do you really think this sort of crap makes any sense? It's so full of holes that it resembles swiss cheese without the substance of the cheese.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Excellent video for the ignorant to ignore.

Just like a StupidOldLyingFart. He posts the link to a video that he obviously plans to ignore!

[i'va biggen]

It is his usual"ignorant" or "idiot" lead in.incase anyone would disagree with him.

[nevergaveitathought]

dear COG

some people in here dont wish to be guided by logical principles

so they denigrate the principles without being able to confront those principles with substantial argument and call names those who dare speak them

they wish to have what they want to have and, therefore, proceed accordingly and no amount of harkening to thought or logic or the dim past will change them one bit.

they use government to coerce and control and force, casting aside any thought of individualism and freedom because they have wants

they know that together they can take.

[joe bloe]

It seems obvious to say that violence is only morally acceptable in self defense. The problem is in determining what is defense and what is aggression.

If Europe and America had acted preemptively against Hitler, as Churchill recommended, millions of lives could have been saved. We don't know what would have happened if Saddam Hussein had not been removed. If we don't use military force to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, it could result in a disaster in the Middle East. We've never had an Islamic government with a nuclear bomb; Pakistan doesn't count since they're not a theocracy.

It's easy for the rest of the World to sit on the sidelines and call America a bully. It's not so easy to be the world's only super power and be forced to make difficult decisions.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

It seems obvious to say that violence is only morally acceptable in self defense. The problem is in determining what is defense and what is aggression. Correct

If Europe and America had acted preemptively against Hitler, as Churchill recommended, millions of lives could have been saved. Hitler thought he was acting preemptively to save his country from the Jews. We don't know what would have happened if Saddam Hussein had not been removed. Correct If we don't use military force to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, it could result in a disaster in the Middle East. Maybe We've never had an Islamic government with a nuclear bomb; Pakistan doesn't count since they're not a theocracy. These are resource wars done in the name of religion.

It's easy for the rest of the World to sit on the sidelines and call America a bully. It's not so easy to be the world's only super power and be forced to make difficult decisions.

So you think we are a benevolent bully?

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by WTF

So you think we are a benevolent bully?

I don't think America is a bully. I do think we make mistakes sometimes; any nation would in our position. I think our intentions are almost always benevolent.