Saturday, November 10, 2007

Purpose of Federal Government

The Constitution has a very well defined argument when it comes to how the federal government should be allowed to operate. The extent to which laws exist should be to ensure that the individual citizens retain their freedom to life, liberty, and property as is described in the Declaration of Independence.

It would seem that the protection of life would be a simple matter, but it has not proven to be so. The federal government has an obligation to protect the citizens right to live. This means that no individual or entity has the right to end a human life. There is precedent however that if an individual has been found guilty of ending the lives of others that it would be just for them to forfeit this right, even though there is disagreement on whether a court is capable of coming to that conclusion fairly. To my knowledge, there is no scientific evidence of a transition from being not human to becoming human after the event of conception. This leads me to stand firm in my position that the protection of life must extend to the unborn. Medical progress is being made every year that allows doctors to protect and keep babies alive earlier and earlier in the pregnancy. Government should also use extreme caution in the event that a person's desire to keep living is unknown, such as when they are injured in such a way that renders them incapable of communication. You still have the right to choose not to live as well, it's just that others can't make that choice for you.

Liberty is an arena that the United States has made the most waves about throughout history. The constitution effectively states that you as a citizen have the right to choose for yourself all the things that you will do with your life, whether they are good or bad, as long as you do not infringe upon other citizens' rights. This means that you have the right to live how you want, even if it damages you mentally, physically, morally, ethically, or even kills you. This is what makes America so different. We as citizens have to fight for not only our own rights, but for our neighbors' rights as well. If the rights of any group of people are taken away, even by the majority, it sets dangerous precedents that when the majority changes, you may be the next target of reduced liberty. Don't treat people as groups, all humans are created equally, and should be treated equally under the law.

Property was replaced with "the Pursuit of Happiness" in the Declaration. Property rights are very important as well. If we have obtained property through legal means, we also should have the legal rights to keep our property. No one, not even the government at any level has the right to acquire your property from you, without your consent. If taxes exist, they should give most of the control to the citizens on whether they participate in such taxes. The best way to accomplish this is through taxes upon goods and services. This gives citizens the right and opportunity to control when and where their taxes are collected, as well as gives many the opportunity to avoid taxes altogether if they chose to live in a self sufficient way. The government doesn't have the right to encourage certain behaviors by lower taxes, nor discourage other behaviors by excessive taxes. Obviously tobacco and alcohol fall into the excessive taxes category.

These ideas of freedom for all, even your enemies, and those that behave in ways that are reprehensible to you, are what this country was built upon.

Labels: , , , ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

To my knowledge, there is no scientific evidence of a transition from being not human to becoming human after the event of conception. This leads me to stand firm in my position that the protection of life must extend to the unborn.

One should be careful making arguments of this nature. It would be quite easy to counter that just because some tissue in the human body is capable of becoming a human at some point (as opposed to of a human), that that does not make it in and of itself a human.

Science certainly does not prove or disprove when something becomes human--the language we choose to use defines what a human is. I would argue that at conception the mere sack of cells that is there certainly doesn't meet the English definition of a human being.

3:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great Job on your statements about life. To the Anonymous who posted the previous comments. The Argument cannot go the other way because, It comes from humans therefore it is human.

And about the meetup that I am never at for Ron Paul...I am planning on starting more often :)

I plan on being at the sign Bomb event. I plan on going to Lowes and getting the "mistakes" paint and I have a ton of cardboard that I can make signs. There is a video out about how to make it on youtube...had some good ideas on it.

If you have time Check out my blog.

1:39 PM  
Anonymous The Libertarian Guy said...

Excellent post, Jeremy. I'll add you to my blog roll for that one.

9:01 PM  
Blogger Jeremy D. Young said...

Thanks, I haven't been keeping up on my blog lately, but I think I'll be working on it more in weeks to come. Sometimes I get too perfectionist to post. :)

10:33 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home