To: muir_redwoods
I have many cogent arguments against many traditionalist ideas, I refer you to the Bill of Rights for a synopsis.
The Bill of Rights doesn't argue anything. It assumes a whole bunch of stuff out of whole cloth. I happen to agree with most of what it assumes. But they are principles, not arguments.
To: Zhang Fei
"The Bill of Rights doesn't argue anything. It assumes a whole bunch of stuff out of whole cloth. I happen to agree with most of what it assumes. But they are principles, not arguments." So full of error.
The BOR assumes nothing out of "whole cloth", it enumerates divinely given rights. I agree with all of it, not most of it and therein is the difference between libertarians and traditionalists. We accept all of the freedoms guaranteed by the BOR. The principles of the BOR are the most cogent arguments ever written down in the history on mankind. One would have to know the history to know that virtually the whole world disagreed with them when they were written down for the first time.
I am worthy of freedom, sorry about you.
27 posted on
06/04/2006 6:06:48 PM PDT by
muir_redwoods
(Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
To: Zhang Fei
The Bill of Rights doesn't argue anything. It assumes a whole bunch of stuff out of whole cloth. I happen to agree with most of what it assumes. But they are principles, not arguments.What parts of the Bill of Rights do you disagree with?
103 posted on
06/05/2006 8:56:50 AM PDT by
jmc813
(The best mathematical equation I have ever seen: 1 cross + 3 nails= 4 given.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson