What confounds me is why it isn't as obvious to everyone as it is to me.
All
questions we humans have are ultimately to be answered by
Nature...man's nature and the nature of the world in which he lives.What
is good for us or bad for us to do, what is pro life or anti life, is
determined by Nature...nothing else.
When the Founders
talked about freedom..."rights" they called it...they manifested their
understanding of the singular significance of the point I am making
when they said that the source of our freedom, our right to live our
lives as we choose, was given to us by our Creator. In other words, not
given to us by other men, nor by society, nor by government...but by
our very nature as humans. That idea was further strengthened when the
Founders characterized our rights as "inalienable". Not retractable,
not subject to limitation or abridgement nor temporary
suspension...neither God nor Nature would take kindly to that...bur cast
in stone forever and ever and ever.
So what is it I
don't understand, what is it that confuses me? How virtually EVERYONE
thinks the passage of laws curtailing our freedom is justified if the
curtailment is warranted by the perceived general welfare of society.
With convoluted reasoning that betrays a lack of appreciation of the
source of freedom, they think nothing of limiting, restraining, in one
way or a thousand ways, how I can choose to live my life. More
appropriately said: they think not.
There is
NOTHING...no law, no program, no so-called benefit...that could possibly
enhance the general welfare of society if it entails the denial of my
freedom...that is, my nature.
Nothing, nil, nada, naught.
No comments:
Post a Comment