BMI727 wrote:No it does not. The rationale for fighting a war or having a criminal justice system is to defend rights which are already existing: "Endowed by their Creator". It does not give anyone that which they did not have before. The only legitimate reason to violate one's rights is to defend rights.
Exactly. War is therefore organized mass murder, it pretty much never ever happens that the guy you kill took your property and /or is a clear and present danger to your life at that moment.
Forcing you to pay health insurances also does not give anyone anything, having health insurance only restores health.
As I said before, no consistency in your argument.
And of course, if you are in the US military you are an acccesory to murder, aiding and embedding murderers. In your own philosophical framework, you should be in prison. Did you ever tell your fellow service man that you think they are murderers?
Demanding other people's property to remain alive is giving you that which you did not have before. Strictly speaking, defending rights through police or military force could be privatized but that is impractical and we must have governments to perform those functions for us.
Let me get that straight: the outsourcing of killing of people, that have done you nothing and took nothing of your property to a 3rd party for money is fine?
Health insurance is a crime, but professional bands of murderers killing people for nothing but being citizen of a country or being in the wrong place or going to the wrong wedding. ... Just wow.
This is not so with healthcare, which can be provided fully, and more competently, by private industry.
You are really losing track old man, we are not even discussing who provides healthcare.
And whom do you compensate? The owner that had it before the government? Or the owner that the last owner took it from? The owner that had it in 1492?
I already answered that in the very paragraph you just quoted.
tommy1808 wrote:capital punishment is taking away ones life, which is the polar opposite of being unable to do so.
Which is why it, and any government power, should be wielded with great restraint. For Pete's sake, it's in the very next paragraph.
Are you really already so senile that the words "can't be taken or given" are to much for you to comprehend? It doesn't say "can be taken, but only very careful", it says can't, which is an absolute.
Best regards
Thomas