Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: Dag on "Conservatives vs the Free market

Expand Messages
  • Dave
    _____ From: Bob Wynman [mailto:bobalou@wynman.com] Correct, Dag, No government is not an American Conservative concept. . Nor is it a win-win free-market
    Message 1 of 5 , Jul 11, 2014
      _____


      From: Bob Wynman [mailto:bobalou@...]






      Correct, Dag, ""No government" is not an American
      Conservative concept.". Nor is it a win-win free-market
      concept either. As the declaration stated, government is
      necessary for the functioning of society.





      Now you are making shit up. Nowhere does the Declaration
      make any such statement.






      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Dave
      _____ From: Don Fredrick [mailto:colony14@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 12:32 PM To: Dave Cc: Bob Wynman; Dag; Daniel J Conner; politicalforum; pcc;
      Message 2 of 5 , Jul 11, 2014
        _____


        From: Don Fredrick [mailto:colony14@...]
        Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 12:32 PM
        To: Dave
        Cc: Bob Wynman; Dag; Daniel J Conner; politicalforum; pcc;
        Rightisright@yahoogroups.com; whateverreturns;
        whatnowdebate@yahoogroups.com;
        worldwide_politics@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: Dag on "Conservatives vs the Free market





        "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
        created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
        certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
        Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness; -- That to secure
        these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
        their just powers from the consent of the governed,


        Wonderful words, to bad for your argument they do not say
        government is either evil or necessary. It simply provides a
        reason why governments are instituted. In no way does it
        imply governments are the only way, or necessary at all.


        -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive
        of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to
        abolish it,


        Yes yes!!


        and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on
        such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as
        to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and
        Happiness."


        I think this might include no government at all if the
        people feel anarchy is most likely to effect their safety
        and happiness. Those who hate war and cops might spearhead
        the idea.


        The purpose of government


        Whose purpose. It was never the King's purpose, the guy the
        Declaration was addressing. It is not any power seekers
        purpose. I wonder how many of the people could tell us what
        they think the purpose is.


        is merely to secure individual rights to life, liberty, and
        the pursuit of happiness.


        You are confused. The declaration is not law, is not about
        how government should be formed, and gives few clues in the
        regard. It is a defiant declaration of independence from a
        government.


        If the government gets "too big for its britches" and fails
        to secure those rights, the people are justified in
        overthrowing the government.


        Exactly what Bob and I are hoping for. I suspect Earl and
        Floyd and others would not mind either. I assume it is a
        non-violent overthrow we seek.


        To state that a government should secure individual rights
        does not necessarily mean that a government is necessary.


        Glad you understand that.


        But I would be more than happy to concede the point and
        agree that the government is necessary to secure our right
        to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as long as
        it gives up all its other invalid functions!


        That would not be conceding the point at all. If government
        is necessary, it is necessary. If you can proclaim it
        unnecessary for containing invalid functions, then it is not
        necessary.


        And of course, all is academic.

















        n Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Dave <davidwin@...>
        wrote:


        From: Bob Wynman [mailto:bobalou@...]


        Correct, Dag, ""No government" is not an American
        Conservative concept.". Nor is it a win-win free-market
        concept either. As the declaration stated, government is
        necessary for the functioning of society.





        Now you are making shit up. Nowhere does the Declaration
        make any such statement.






        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Don Fredrick
        You are missing my point! I am saying that government is not necessary. My concession was meant to be sarcastic, and intended for those who believe the
        Message 3 of 5 , Jul 11, 2014
          You are missing my point! I am saying that government is not necessary. My
          "concession" was meant to be sarcastic, and intended for those who believe
          the government has never-ending functions.




          On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Dave <davidwin@...> wrote:


          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------

          >
          > *From:* Don Fredrick [mailto:colony14@...]
          > *Sent:* Friday, July 11, 2014 12:32 PM
          > *To:* Dave
          > *Cc:* Bob Wynman; Dag; Daniel J Conner; politicalforum; pcc;
          > Rightisright@yahoogroups.com; whateverreturns;
          > whatnowdebate@yahoogroups.com; worldwide_politics@yahoogroups.com
          > *Subject:* Re: Dag on "Conservatives vs the Free market
          >
          >
          >
          > "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
          > that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
          > that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness; -- That to
          > secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
          > just powers from the consent of the governed,
          >
          > Wonderful words, to bad for your argument they do not say government is
          > either evil or necessary. It simply provides a reason why governments are
          > instituted. In no way does it imply governments are the only way, or
          > necessary at all.
          >
          > -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
          > it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,
          >
          > Yes yes!!
          >
          > and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles
          > and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely
          > to effect their Safety and Happiness."
          >
          > I think this might include no government at all if the people feel anarchy
          > is most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Those who hate war and
          > cops might spearhead the idea.
          >
          > The purpose of government
          >
          > Whose purpose. It was never the King's purpose, the guy the Declaration
          > was addressing. It is not any power seekers purpose. I wonder how many of
          > the people could tell us what they think the purpose is.

          >
          > is merely to secure individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
          > happiness.
          >
          > You are confused. The declaration is not law, is not about how government
          > should be formed, and gives few clues in the regard. It is a defiant
          > declaration of independence from a government.
          >
          > If the government gets "too big for its britches" and fails to secure
          > those rights, the people are justified in overthrowing the government.
          >
          > Exactly what Bob and I are hoping for. I suspect Earl and Floyd and others
          > would not mind either. I assume it is a non-violent overthrow we seek.
          >
          > To state that a government should secure individual rights does not
          > necessarily mean that a government is necessary.
          >
          > Glad you understand that.
          >
          > But I would be more than happy to concede the point and agree that the
          > government is necessary to secure our right to life, liberty, and the
          > pursuit of happiness, as long as it gives up all its other invalid
          > functions!
          >
          > That would not be conceding the point at all. If government is necessary,
          > it is necessary. If you can proclaim it unnecessary for containing invalid
          > functions, then it is not necessary.
          >
          > And of course, all is academic.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > n Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Dave <davidwin@...> wrote:
          >
          > From: Bob Wynman [mailto:bobalou@...]
          >
          > Correct, Dag, “"No government" is not an American Conservative
          > concept.”. Nor is it a win-win free-market concept either. As the
          > declaration stated, government is necessary for the functioning of society.
          >
          >
          >
          > Now you are making shit up. Nowhere does the Declaration make any such
          > statement.
          >




          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.