Dated
Here's a question that I've asked in the past that needs to be revisited. Unless one wishes to obfuscate, it has a simple yes or no answer. If one group of people prefers strong government control and management of people's lives while another group prefers liberty and desires to be left alone, should they be required to enter into conflict with one another and risk bloodshed and loss of life in order to impose their preferences on the other group? Yes or no. My answer is no; they should be able to peaceably part company and go their separate ways.
More @ Townhall
No, but it will require 2 separate governments and I think we already tried that one time and it didn't work out real well. So probably the only realistic option is yes.
ReplyDelete:)
DeleteNo is my emotional answer, but logic reminds me: "Oil and Water don't mix".
ReplyDelete:)
DeleteAdherence and obedience to the Bill of Rights should preclude "strong government control and management of People's lives". The group that wants that should have to be satisfied with controlling and managing their minor children and animals they own.--Ron W
ReplyDeletehave to be satisfied with controlling and managing their minor children and animals they own.
DeleteReally.
Yes! As a true classical liberal SCOTUS Judge once opined:
ReplyDelete"The makers of our Constitution.... conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men." --Louis D. Brandeis, SCOTUS Justice
Dissenting, Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928).
--Ron W
the right to be let alone
DeleteNovel idea...:( :)