ha, i did that above, but in case you missed it:
There are only 3 logical choices:
1. The right to liberty is acknowledged on BOTH SIDES
2. The right to liberty is denied on BOTH SIDES
3. The only humans on earth are already inside the line, screw the animals on the other side
Pick your stance and defend it!!! I chose #1, and I am defending it using plain, basic logic. #2 is defended by the power hungry using propaganda and conservatives' particularly extreme fear of the unknown. Hegel and hobbs can be used to defend #2. #3 is obviously untrue, so it MUST be founded on emotional prejudice, not by anything that could be confused with reason. All other choices and justifications have been shown to be flawed, arbitrary, economically unsound, violent, and prejudicial in one way or another.
... OR, one of you mexican haters can offer an argument against the right of personal liberty that ISN'T an appeal to emotion and prejudice. This thread is several pages long. I know I've offered a few very solid arguments in favor of personal liberty, and I've revealed the flaws in a few of the opposing arguments. Bout time for the other side to offer a logical argument in defense of their prejudices. Whatchya got???
"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of