Replies

Ahhh yessss, the old 'core position' question. Seeing I have never seen any indication of your own core position, I think I'll call your bluff, just as I did earlier on this same tread to another hotshot. -- You show me yours, THEN you'll get mine.

Immature and foolish of you the above comment may be, and even though my own suspicions tell me to question your own motives in asking, I don't suppose I have anything to hide about my position. Personally, I believe in the existence of an external world. I believe that right and wrong are not relative but absolute. I believe that there is a creator whose existence gives purpose to life and because of which life and the right of life exist. I believe that human existence is both material and spiritual. I believe that liberty is distinct from license and should not be confused. I believe that most, if not all, forms of government function only temporarily at best though some, such as our own, are better than others. Beyond that I believe that even the better forms of governments tend to corrupt and cannot be permanently sustained in a manner that indefinately respects liberty while preserving rights. And I adopt these positions as my own upon reasoned thought that has led me to them as conclusions. Also, while I will defend and advocate these positions, I do not seek to judge you on their authority during the course of this debate, but rather to more thoroughly investigate and develop the implications of the argument you have put forward. Anything else you wish to know? If so, feel free to ask. Until then I anticipate your answers to the questions I posed before you previously.

This silly delusion you have, that eveyone must obey your every command, is over.

The only delusion evident at this moment is stated immediately above in your comment. I no more wish you to "obey" me than I wish you to give money to left wing Democrats. I simply seek to establish and discuss in greater depth the positions you have taken and intend to take. Some I may agree with. Some I will not agree with, and for all I know you may convince me to agree with you on something I previously did not. The outcome of this discussion is far from certainty in direction, making your comment little more than foolishness and evasion.

I simply ask that if you plan to take bold stances on something (as you often do), that you be prepared not only to defend them but also to discuss them. If you are unwilling to do these things, you should not be taking positions in the first place.

In other words, continue the discussion by posting your answers or don't enter it in the first place.

Here's my core position on government, from a speech by Ezra Benson in '68:

The Source of Government Power

-- It is obvious that a government is nothing more or less than a relatively small group of citizens who have been hired, in a sense, by the rest of us to perform certain functions and discharge certain responsibilities which have been authorized. It stands to reason that the government itself has no innate power or privilege to do anything.
Its only source of authority and power is from the people who have created it. This is made clear in the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, which reads:
"WE THE PEOPLE...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The important thing to keep in mind is that the people who have created their government can give to that government only such powers as they, themselves, have in the first place. Obviously, they cannot give that which they do not possess. So, the question boils down to this. What powers properly belong to each and every person in the absence of and prior to the establishment of any organized governmental form? A hypothetical question? Yes, indeed! But, it is a question which is vital to an understanding of the principles which underlie the proper function of government.

Of course, as James Madison, sometimes called the Father of the Constitution, said, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." (The Federalist, No. 51.)

Natural Rights

In a primitive state, there is no doubt that each man would be justified in using force, if necessary, to defend himself against physical harm, against theft of the fruits of his labor, and against enslavement of another. This principle was clearly explained by Bastiat:
Each of us has a natural right--from God--to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?" (The Law, p. 6.)

Indeed, the early pioneers found that a great deal of their time and energy was being spent doing all three--defending themselves, their property and their liberty--in what properly was called the "Lawless West." In order for man to prosper, he cannot afford to spend his time constantly guarding his family, his fields, and his property against attack and theft, so he joins together with his neighbors and hires a sheriff. At this precise moment, government is born. The individual citizens delegate to the sheriff their unquestionable right to protect themselves. The sheriff now does for them only what they had a right to do for themselves--nothing more. Quoting again form Bastiat:

If every person has the right to defend--even by force--his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right--its reason for existing, it lawfulness--is based on individual right. (The Law, p. 6.)

So far so good. But now we come to the moment of truth. Suppose pioneer "A" wants another horse for his wagon. He doesn't have the money to buy one, but since pioneer "B" has an extra horse, he decides that he is entitled to share in his neighbor's good fortune. Is he entitled to take his neighbor's horse? Obviously not! If his neighbor wishes to give it or lend it, that is another question. But so long as pioneer "B" wishes to keep his property, pioneer "A" has no just claim to it.
If "A" has no proper power to take "B's" property, can he delegate any such power to the sheriff? No. Even if everyone in the community desires that "B" give his extra horse to "A", they have no right individually or collectively to force him to do it. They cannot delegate a power they themselves do not have. This important principle was clearly understood and explained by John Locke nearly 300 years ago:

"For nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life or property of another. (Two Treatises of Civil Government, II, 135,; P.P.N.S., p. 93.)

The Proper Function Of Government

This means, then, that the proper function of government is limited only to those spheres of activity within which the individual citizen has the right to act. By deriving its just powers from the governed, government becomes primarily a mechanism for defense against bodily harm, theft and involuntary servitude. It cannot claim the power to redistribute the wealth or force reluctant citizens to perform acts of charity against their will.
Government is created by man. No man possesses such power to delegate. The creature cannot exceed the creator.

In general terms, therefore, the proper role of government includes such defensive activities, as maintaining national military and local police forces for protection against loss of life, loss of property, and loss of liberty at the hands of either foreign despots or domestic criminals.

-- Now, hotshot, seeing that 'core positions' have been addressed, tell me again why, if I plan to take bold stances on something (as I often do), that I MUST be prepared not only to defend them but also to discuss them exactly as you demand.
You seem to think that if I'm unwilling to do these things, that I should not be taking positions in the first place.
Are you aware that you are very very sick with some sort of delusion about your own authority?