NationStates Jolt Archive


The right to enslave

Shinra X
28-09-2003, 02:53
In relation to the Bill of no Rights.


The Democratic party of 1960 boldly and explicitly declares a Democratic Administration "will reaffirm the economic bill of rights which Franklin Roosevelt wrote into our national conscience sixteen years ago." Bear clearly in mind the meaning of the concept of <i>"rights</i> when you read the list which that platform offers:

1. The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.

2. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.

3. The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.

4. The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home and abroad.

5. The right of every family to a decent home.

6. The right to adequate medial care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.

7. The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accidents and unemployment.

8. The right to a good education.

A single question added to each of the above eight clauses would make this issue clear: At whose expense? If some men are entitled BY RIGHT to the products of the work of others, IT MEANS THAT THOSE OTHERS ARE DEPRIVED OF RIGHTS AND CONDEMNED TO SLAVE LABOR. Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.

No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. THERE CAN BE NO SUCH THING AS "THE RIGHT TO ENSLAVE." A right does not include material implementation of that right by other men; it includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one's own effort. Observe, in this context, the intellectual precision of the Founding Fathers: they spoke of the right to the pursuit of happiness-not of the right to happiness. It means that a man has the right to take the actions he deems necessary to achieve his happiness; it does not mean that others must make him happy.

The right of life means that a man has the right to support his life by his own work (on any economic level, as high as his ability will carry him); it does not mean that others must provide him with the necessities of life.

The right to property means that a man has the right to take the economic actions necessary to earn property, to use it and dispose of it; it does not mean that others must provide him with property.

The of free speech means that a man has the right to express his ideas without danger of suppression, interference or punitive action by the government. It does not mean that others must provide him with a lecture hall, a radio station or a printing press through which to express his ideas.
Oppressed Possums
28-09-2003, 02:56
I personally like this one:

"Possum Prop 5 Slavery

To end the lowest rings of poverty, I propose these people be turned into indentured servants. I think it could actually work. I think within the nation, a small kind of nation could be created by or with these pseudo-slaves. It could be a form of communism. If these people are unable to provide for themselves on their own, this can provide them a way to do so for them and their families. I'm not saying that these people should be treated as sub-human by any means at all. In fact, if they are all grouped together like that, they could given a great deal of rights as long as they meet with UN human rights standards, of course."
28-09-2003, 02:59
Shinra: That's what I've been saying since here. Unfortunately, there are so many socialists who refuse to accept the fact that everything is absolute, and you can't make something from nothing, that it's hella difficult to convince anyone otherwise.
Shinra X
28-09-2003, 03:12
The saddest part isn't just that they're extremists. It's that they're dumb extremists. I've debated with people who are reasonably intelligent and disagree with me, and I've usually been able to convince them that maybe I do have a good point. But there are so many extremists who are just plain stupid, it's hopeless.

Almost makes a person wonder why the 18-30 age range is voting republican when the 12-17 range wouldn't be.
28-09-2003, 05:50
Enslaving? Property is slavery, money is slavery. There is no other reason for having it. When you become adult enough perhaps you will understand.
28-09-2003, 05:53
Therefore reasonable enough people agree that you have a point and those that don't are dumb extermists? Naturally, it would be far too presumptious of me to assume any reversal of the situation right?
28-09-2003, 05:58
Enslaving? Property is slavery, money is slavery.

That's the biggest load of bullshit I've ever seen come out of someone's ass. It must have been painful, seeing as it had to go around your head on the way out.
28-09-2003, 06:58
OOC: that was pretty damn funny...
28-09-2003, 09:00
Enslaving? Property is slavery, money is slavery.

That's the biggest load of bullshit I've ever seen come out of someone's ass. It must have been painful, seeing as it had to go around your head on the way out.

I have reasons for saying that, and you don't have any reasons for saying what you did. Oh, getting scatological is all the rage nowadays I understand. Perhaps I shall jump on the bandwagon some time other than this one.
28-09-2003, 20:50
Actually, I do have reasons for saying what I did--the fact that what you said is false.
28-09-2003, 21:17
Actually, I do have reasons for saying what I did--the fact that what you said is false.

..Yawn?..
28-09-2003, 21:17
Actually, I do have reasons for saying what I did--the fact that what you said is false.

..Yawn?..
29-09-2003, 02:06
Actually, I do have reasons for saying what I did--the fact that what you said is false.

No, what you said is false. Will you allow me to make a witty, shitty analogy about it?
30-09-2003, 00:20
Slavery sucks, it is terrible, I would hate to be a slave of some damn nation:tantrum: that sucked, indentured servants however, are just fine with me


While your here search for the new treaty/convention and approve it
Iron kingdoms people, please vote for Etchar as your UN Delegate not Menoth, I know the Menoth dude personally and he's sorta bent on world domination. along with the guy that rules the Johnston Arms Corp. they get together alot and try to think up ideas for ruling the world
30-09-2003, 00:20
Slavery sucks, it is terrible, I would hate to be a slave of some damn nation:tantrum: that sucked, indentured servants however, are just fine with me


While your here search for the new treaty/convention and approve it
Iron kingdoms people, please vote for Etchar as your UN Delegate not Menoth, I know the Menoth dude personally and he's sorta bent on world domination. along with the guy that rules the Johnston Arms Corp. they get together alot and try to think up ideas for ruling the world
30-09-2003, 00:21
Slavery sucks, it is terrible, I would hate to be a slave of some damn nation that sucked, indentured servants however, are just fine with me


While your here search for the new treaty/convention and approve it
Iron kingdoms people, please vote for Etchar as your UN Delegate not Menoth, I know the Menoth dude personally and he's sorta bent on world domination. along with the guy that rules the Johnston Arms Corp. they get together alot and try to think up ideas for ruling the world

No slavery!!!!!!