The only proper purpose of a government

[Doubletap]

Labels are no good. It's too broad a brush.
One either believes in an individuals right to his own life and property, or not.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Labels are no good. It's too broad a brush.
One either believes in an individuals right to his own life and property, or not.

And one needs to accept the fact that rights, although inalienable, are not absolute, that government is authorized to place reasonable restrictions on one’s rights – including property rights; it’s incumbent upon citizens to understand that it’s their responsibility to safeguard their civil liberties and to seek relief from government excess in the venue of the Federal courts.

The Constitution and its case law establishes a balance between the government and those governed, where the people realize the benefit of both the resources of government and the right to individual liberty.

 

[Doubletap]

Labels are no good. It's too broad a brush.
One either believes in an individuals right to his own life and property, or not.

And one needs to accept the fact that rights, although inalienable, are not absolute, that government is authorized to place reasonable restrictions on one’s rights – including property rights; it’s incumbent upon citizens to understand that it’s their responsibility to safeguard their civil liberties and to seek relief from government excess in the venue of the Federal courts.

The Constitution and its case law establishes a balance between the government and those governed, where the people realize the benefit of both the resources of government and the right to individual liberty.

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Labels are no good. It's too broad a brush.
One either believes in an individuals right to his own life and property, or not.

And one needs to accept the fact that rights, although inalienable, are not absolute, that government is authorized to place reasonable restrictions on one’s rights – including property rights; it’s incumbent upon citizens to understand that it’s their responsibility to safeguard their civil liberties and to seek relief from government excess in the venue of the Federal courts.

The Constitution and its case law establishes a balance between the government and those governed, where the people realize the benefit of both the resources of government and the right to individual liberty.

The government does not have the authority to infringe on my inalienable rights simply because you do not know what inalienable means.

 

[rightwinger]

Labels are no good. It's too broad a brush.
One either believes in an individuals right to his own life and property, or not.

And one needs to accept the fact that rights, although inalienable, are not absolute, that government is authorized to place reasonable restrictions on one’s rights – including property rights; it’s incumbent upon citizens to understand that it’s their responsibility to safeguard their civil liberties and to seek relief from government excess in the venue of the Federal courts.

The Constitution and its case law establishes a balance between the government and those governed, where the people realize the benefit of both the resources of government and the right to individual liberty.

The government does not have the authority to infringe on my inalienable rights simply because you do not know what inalienable means.

Give us an example

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And one needs to accept the fact that rights, although inalienable, are not absolute, that government is authorized to place reasonable restrictions on one’s rights – including property rights; it’s incumbent upon citizens to understand that it’s their responsibility to safeguard their civil liberties and to seek relief from government excess in the venue of the Federal courts.

The Constitution and its case law establishes a balance between the government and those governed, where the people realize the benefit of both the resources of government and the right to individual liberty.

The government does not have the authority to infringe on my inalienable rights simply because you do not know what inalienable means.

Give us an example

Of what?