[MD] Morality, Abortion and the MoQ

[Michael Poloukhine]

> Platt posted:
> Does the Constitution Contain a Right to Privacy?by Harry Browne

MP: Browne is playing a slick logistical slight of hand trick here.

He's right on; The USC is there to define only what government does. 

His argument is though that then by definition all that outside the document is 
what government *cannot* do is the slight of hand, in that is a false dichotomy; 
just because its outside of the USC does not mean its a right, that laws written 
in compliance with the USC cannot restrict an action someone might consider a 
"right."

The only rights we have, and can rightly say we should be allowed to have are 
already in there; life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. And even those, the USC 
says government can infringe so long as it is with due process, again as defined 
within the USC.

As such, in its original form, the USC is like the holy grail of libertarian thinking 
on self government. 


All this rights talk though is the reverse. It is trying to define what we *can* do 
that government cannot touch. Its an endless, and pointless exercise. And the 
more we do it, the more damaging to true liberty it becomes; it directly conflicts 
with the way the USC is designed to work. Government by the USC should be 
there only to guarantee we can pursue life liberty and happiness in our society, 
in the best interest of our society without worrying about the government getting 
in the way. Instead, we turn the government into a big nanny that goes around 
telling everyone what they can do, what we must allow others to do, what 
society itself can or cannot do. 

We are becoming slaves to our government instead of our government being 
our servant.


So much for that idea.


MP
----
"Don't believe everything you think."