pull down to refresh

20 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined 15 Feb \ parent \ on: TGIF: Emergency! Emergency? conspiracy
Using a metaphorical H-Bomb would violate the rights of private civilians, presumably. I'm strictly saying that it is best for the law to always be wielded in the way that maximizes liberty. What's the preferable alternative to that?
write
preview
29 sats \ 2 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 15 Feb
What's the preferable alternative to that?
Not having the law in the first place?!?!?! We don’t need laws to dictate action in every little part of our lives. I think liberty is best maintained without laws that intrude into an individuals life. Negative rights are the only rights that are the way to guard freedom, there are no such things as positive rights. Positive rights make someone a slave to someone else.
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 15 Feb
We agree that repeal is the best option.
reply
31 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic OP 15 Feb
Yes, repeal is a good option, however, better yet, is to never make such laws in the first place. The legislators do not have the foggiest idea of what is in the constitution in the US. It would be nice to repeal the for the general welfare clause.
reply