Posted on 01/27/2003 12:21:52 PM PST by shortstop
Many, if not most, of them did want to eliminate slavery. Before we could free the slaves we needed to free the 'free' people from the king of england> many of the delegates who were there during the drafting of the DoI felt that some colonists would rather fight with the British rather than give up their slaves and thought it would be easier to eventually solve that issue under a new American government rather than under British rule Anyway i"m having trouble with my keyboard note the lack of puncuation marks >>> so cut and paste the url below and read the thread it"s about Jefferson"s Rough Draft of the DoI >>>> You"ll notice he did mention freeing the slaves in that draft >>>> again sorry about the terrible formatting in my post >>>>>>>>>>
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a387e1107062c.htm
Not I. I'll take the church's help over the state's anyday. Because if I no longer want the church's help, I can always walk away.
For many months, I considered starting using the term "libertarian" to describe myself, but then I started looking at more and more "liberatians" and their views. Many (and I use that word instead of most or an assumed "all") libertarians are anarchists in the purest sense of the word.
They believe in no government and call it "personal responsibility", they believe that society is corrupt and tag any government policy that benefits society as "socialism", they feel that if we were to get rid of society we could rid ourselves of any government. After all, government is in place to help society and if society is undesirable, then the tool of society must be undesirable as well, if not down right tyrannical.
Sorry, but many "libertarians" on this site are brutal, survival-of-the-fittest types who have no care for anyone but themselves. They never met a law they didn't hate.
Go ask any libertarian what should happen to those who initiate force or fraud, like murder, rape or theft. I for one would like them to receive a fair trial and a just but harsh punishment.
they believe that society is corrupt
We believe that power corrupts. However some power is necessary, being used as a tool in defense of rights. The analogy, which you may have heard is fire as a tool:
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master." - President George Washington
Should we use fire? Sure. But only when we need it, and only properly contained. Same with government.
and tag any government policy that benefits society as "socialism"
There is a difference between socialism and user fees. If you want to use roads, you pay a user fee (registration). If you pay for someone else's retirement, or doctor visit, that is simply redistribution of wealth.
Your own words are damning, and that is before we get to the lies and misrepresentations!
To answer your question, YES!, we fought a war to preserve MANY freedoms, liberties and rights. Or handn't your heard?
BTW, it is painfully obvious that you don't know what an anarchist is if you call me one.
But I know what a lying blowhard is, even if I don't call you one.
You people do realise you read like a bunch of spoiled five year olds, right?
No, I haven't.
I have no idea how often that happens but let's assume that it happens every day.
Just how the heck did we get along so well in this country with no mandatory seat belt law (much less any seat belts) for so long?
Were we just totally in the tank and were too stupid to reocongize it?
Come to think of it we didn't have helmets, car seats for kids or even those dohickeys that people put over electrical outlets.
We did have bottle caps that you could actually open, open flame stoves and cabinets you could open without having to fiddle with the anti-kid thingie.
Must be I died in 1958 and don't even know it.
Well seeing as we're throwing about ad hominims, I'll accept the spoiled 5 year old label, if you'll accept the hysterical, soccer mom, do-gooder, nanny, violent babysitter label.
If you don’t use a seatbelt, you are an idiot. The benefit and protection that come from seatbelts cannot be denied.
WRONG ANSWER !!!
Its idiotic drivel such as this that kills our freedoms and liberties. In two separate wrecks, myself and my brother would both be DEAD had we been belted in, thanks for helping to raise the state revenue and screw my freedom to choose to live.
Correct me if Im wrong, but my 2 cents went into paying for at least some of the potholes.
I do have a problem with being FORCED to carry insurance when its no more than legal extortion
That being said, my bet is that most of you who are calling me an idiot for not wearing one are probably the @ssholes that constantly tailgate and blow through red lights, in your mind thinking that your time is more valuable than my kids lives.
you want me to buckle up... then let the state cover my insurance and pay for injuries in a side collision from being held in the impact zone of your selfish arrogance. Even then I WONT wear the damn thing because Im less likely to hit something with my front end than you are likely to kill me by hitting my door!!!
Do you propose just letting the "children of those incapable" of working die?
"Chastity belts for unmarried women?" Now you are thinking!!! That would cure a lot of social ills, from children out of wedlock to STD's. But I'm afraid you are too late. Women can now vote. That cat is out of the bag.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.