Comment: I was giving the "kick in the

(See in situ)


I was giving the "kick in the

I was giving the "kick in the nuts" argument as a stand in to show you that just because a state has "rights" doesn't mean it is so. A state, is an entity that was made by a group of people(just like a corporation)....so by your logic the state, like a corporation doesn't have any rights...no matter which type of rights you thrown at them, whether it be the right to make "law" or right to privacy in their own home or business. Did you ever stop to think that rights are arbitrary ideas in the first place and the only rights that people have are the ones that they enforce themselves and maybe by the grace of a nice "judge" they might protect you from some violation that has occurred.

Just because one of our "founding fathers" said something doesn't make it morally right...this is the problem I see with some people here...they take out the "founding fathers said this" card and use that like they were gods. They were humans too, very capable of making mistakes and to suggest that just because you read their documents doesn't give you the logical high ground...in fact, you have lost credibility because you have failed to rebut my claims that if someone uses the force of government to make a mandate or new regulation that they are in effect supporting violence which would be immoral and against natural law and the right to life.

You say an individual has rights but not corporations...so what about state governments? Do they have rights? Judging by your "logic" state, governments have rights. These are not rights, they are privileges that are granted by the tyranny of the majority, through the state legislature or through state initiatives.

- Brennan