|
|
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
My ideology is what it is due to what is practical. I'm into what works.
I don't believe the government doesn't have the right to tax. I don't even know what a right is. Though I do know how the Constitution defines rights, as things that exist because of prohibition of government intervention.
What makes that absurd? That's what the people who wrote the 2nd Amendment intended in the first place. The concept of government assistance is new and was not something the United States Constitution included. That whole thing was about prohibition of government power. Welfarism came later and its origins are mostly outside of the US.
And yeah, gun owners shouldn't be allowed to receive welfare for the reason you described. And the same logic should be applied to everybody, which illustrates a reason why welfarism is a contradiction to constitutional principles. Though it isn't a contradiction to the socialist idea of rights. Which raises the question, which one of those actually successfully provides rights?
It's absurd because it's not the discussion we're having. We are talking about reality, and then suddenly you start talking about libertopia without informing your fellow participants in the conversation. Making the point about abortion in isolation is misleading and impossible to map onto reality as it stands.
WRT Originalism. It's nonsense. The signer's intended a framework that would be a robust starting place. The fact that they included paths to amendment are testament to the fact that they not only suspected it would be changed but in many cases likely hoped it would be.
Which one provides rights? Individual rights? I don't really care, that's your ideological axiom, not mine.
|
Reply With Quote