- This topic has 1 reply, 14 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
By the way edlreed, if you study the historical documents, you will find that the pursuit of “happiness” meant “property” in their world view. Since most of us have been damaged by public education, I offer the addendum to keep us on track in our discussions.
Also, lets leave “GOD” out of it for now…He is used to being ignored and He can take it. I would argue the pre-existence of “natural rights” which preclude the power of the “State”. I am not an anarchist, so I will agree that we need a form of government structure, but I vehemently reject the idea that our “rights” derive from the “State”. Our Liberty predates the state and is superior to it in all respects.
Ahhh, I see. So they deliberately used a “generic” word when they specifically meant property. Aha. I am one who takes no pride in my knowledge as it has shown me how little I know.
I do enjoy others explaining the meaning of the word happiness, though. Perhaps all of their writings are as illusive as the example you’ve pointed out, and the whole shebang is….hmmmm, what would it be then?
Never mind. It’s enough to know those Christian forefathers felt the pursuit of property was God’s design to make us happy. Certainly enough have died fighting over the “Blessed” property of Israel, so you must be right on all accounts.
Oh gosh. Just a thought. In order to correctly study the historical documents you must have the ability to think like they do or you just might get caught up in the promise they suggest and not what they actually meant. From this simple persons standpoint, of course.Edlreed, perhaps it would be useful for you to go back and actually read the words they used and study the language of the time. I don’t mean to sound harsh, but ignorance of the nuances of a language is no excuse for assigning murky motives to those in question. Not every word in use today is understood exactly how it will be understood 200 years from now. There is nothing elusive about their language at all. They were clear and concise in their denunciation of tyranny in all its forms; whether the “crown” or a government dominated by one particular Christian denomination.
And I must say your argumentation is sorely lacking in substance. No one, other than you, is saying:
Edlreed said: “ those Christian forefathers felt the pursuit of property was God’s design to make us happy.”This is just another straw man argument that shows your bias and prejudice. The pursuit of happiness is a God given right, however the pursuit of God and His righteousness is the proper objective. God, being more “Libertarian” than “Totalitarian” has gifted us with free will and has set up a world in which we are able to choose.
Edlreed said: . “Aha. I am one who takes no pride in my knowledge as it has shown me how little I know.”
There are some universal principles that we need to master, or at least to take pride in…in order to study the historical documents. Logic, reason and objectivity are chief among them. I invite you to bring more to the table than lukewarm sarcasm and flaccid reasoning.Keviyon,
Please don’t take offense but when you talk about an imaginary supreme being and its righteousness as being as a legitimate objective to pursue, you are going to lose credibility as one who argues with logic. Words and their meanings DO change over time and so do popular concepts as to what are universal principles. The U.S. once held a universal principle which, at the time, considered black slaves as less than human and therefor undeserving of constitutional protections.
Its ok sprite, I don’t expect to have credibility with an atheist, but I would argue that atheism is a form of religion with its own belief systems. However, I was not attempting to have a discussion about religion; I was defending the historical record of the founding of the USA. It is easy to distort that record among people whose study of it has been only superficial, and to make false claims, such as you consistently make. Where is the logic in that type of argument? I am simply offering the counterbalance to the distortions you put forth as fact.
The most recent is:
“The U.S. once held a universal principle which, at the time, considered black slaves as less than human and therefor undeserving of constitutional protections.”Anyone who has done even a minimum of study of that era knows your statement is patently false. It is a fact that the slavery question nearly prevented the formation of the Union, because there was such objection to it by many leaders of the day. And of course slavery was wrong but the USA did the more to end the practice than any other country. But the point you were trying to make, that universal principles change, is also false. The struggle between tyranny and liberty is the struggle of universal principles in conflict. The universal principle of inalienable rights we possess does not change, just the actors change.
Back to the OECD. Should Costa Rica have the sovereign right to self determination? Most collectivists would have to argue no, if they are to be consistent. It would seem to be logically inconsistent to say that a country can have the right to self determination, but the individual does not. What’s ironic is that Costa Rica has the reputation of cooperating very closely with the IRS and is definitely not known as any type of tax haven.
Costa Rica has now been officially taken off the OECD blacklist of tax havens which may help attract more foreign investment.
You can see the Spanish article at:
Costa Rica sale de lista de Paraísos Fiscales
[ http://www.misfinanzasenlinea.com/noticias/20110705/costa-rica-sale-de-lista-de-paraisos-fiscales ]
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
