Re: Pirated XP, means-test everyone and every product with "income

From: Donald McDaniel (donmcdaniel2005_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 01/27/05 

Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 07:46:14 -0800

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:55:37 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>In article <bangv01jo4aj09lvs5m98gg3gtpeaa7dea@4ax.com>, donmcdaniel2005
>@yahoo.com says...
>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:08:21 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>> >
>> >With this being said - you can keep using it, it's your right to CHOOSE
>> >to violate the EULA if you want, but you can't claim it's ethical or
>> >even your RIGHT to install as many copies as you want.
>> >
>> >--
>>
>> I firmly disagree that a man has the right to choose to break the law.
>> Our rights are grounded in the Constitution of the United States, and
>> in Natural Law. I am positive that the Constitution gives us no right
>> to choose to break the law. If the Constitution gave us the RIGHT to
>> choose to break the Law, that Law granting us the RIGHT to choose to
>> break the Law would also be the RIGHT to actually break the Law, which
>> would make the Constitution null and void.
>
>Well, I see it as every being has a RIGHT (never said under the law or
>your god) to do anything they want - I never said that they would not
>pay the consequences for it based on the societies laws/rules.
>
>Every man has certain RIGHTS, not legal ones, not ethical ones, not
>societal ones, human ones, right now matter where he is - he has a right
>to think and make decisions. This was the extent of what I was
>suggesting.
>
>In case you missed it, I don't support theft of any type. I support the
>RIGHTS of people to make stupid decisions and then to have to pay for
>those decisions.
>
>Look at it this way - if the action of theft was some how made
>impossible, that would have to limit the RIGHT of choice/decision by a
>human - I would never want to impose some means to limit choice/decision
>making, but I would want to impose a penalty for making a bad choice.
>
>--
My friend, you are still confusing "RIGHT" with "ABILITY".
As I said in my former post, "RIGHTS" are "FREEDOMS" granted by God or
Governments, not Natural Law.

No one has the RIGHT to break the Law.
The so-called "RIGHT" to CHOOSE to break the Law implies that that
so-called "RIGHT" also gives a man the "RIGHT" to actually BREAK the
Law.

The Preamble to the Constitution gives men UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, GRANTED
BY their Creator and the Constitution, which are:

1) The RIGHT to Life. This RIGHT to LIFE does not imply that a man
has the RIGHT to choose to break the Law. God guaranteed LIFE to our
first parents with one proviso: They must continue to CHOOSE to OBEY
His Laws. If they chose (as they did) to DISOBEY His Laws, that RIGHT
of LIFE would be taken away from them (They would DIE). This has been
proven by the fact that all men choose to disobey God, and therefore,
all men suffer the consequences of their choice: We ALL lose our
lives at some point.

Our Government's Laws guarantee LIFE to a man with a PROVISO: He must
NOT choose to disobey the LAW, and murder or maim, or in any way cause
harm to another citizen. If he makes a decision to murder or maim
another human being, he must pay the penalty of having that "right to
LIFE" taken away from him.

2) The RIGHT to be at LIBERTY (under Law). This LAW does NOT give men
the right to choose to enter a restricted Government facility without
the Government's permission, or his neighbor's house without that
neighbor's permission.

Our Government's Laws grant this RIGHT of LIBERTY with a PROVISO: a
man must NOT choose to break those Laws. If he makes this choice, he
will suffer the consequence of having his RIGHT of Liberty abridged or
totally removed.

3) The RIGHT to pursue one's happiness (again, under LAW). If a man
CHOOSES to OBEY the Law, he will inherit HAPPINESS as a consequence.
If he instead chooses to DISOBEY the Law, he will suffer UNHAPPINESS
as a consequence.

If a man experiences what he thinks is HAPPINESS as a result of
choosing to disobey the LAW, that so-called "HAPPINESS" is NOT the
HAPPINESS which is guaranteed to us by the Constitution. I fail to
see how a man can experience true HAPPINESS as a result of choosing to
disobey the Law. I can only conclude that such a man is sick and
warped in mind and personality.

Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread
and keep the conversation in order.
=======================================================

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Kylie dons Hijab - Adult Christian Fashion label launched
    ... >>> one's religions figures NOWHERE on any French ... >> The French Constitution of 1958 and its Amendments ... Public Law of the French ... Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen Adopted by the National ...
    (soc.culture.french)
  • Re: Re: The Sands of Time Do Not Lie...
    ... can pass a law like that with Royal Assent. ... Because it was based on existing amendments and rights. ... There is no right given by the constitution for a state or states to ... Union that united England and Scotland, as the United Kingdom, is the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Sands of Time Do Not Lie...
    ... can pass a law like that with Royal Assent. ... Because it was based on existing amendments and rights. ... There is no right given by the constitution for a state or states to ... Union that united England and Scotland, as the United Kingdom, is the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Pirated XP, means-test everyone and every product with "income
    ... Rights, Donald, are granted by no man, and if you continue to insist on ... it's actually much more accurate to note that the Constitution is ... > HAPPINESS which is guaranteed to us by the Constitution. ... > disobey the Law. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Anti-Gun Hysteria!
    ... control is Unconstitutional since the Constitution REQUIRES proof ... Constitutional rights have *never* req'd proof, ... One of the rules of constitutional law is that any law (whether a statute, ... No one has even shown that having armed citizens on a plane is not ...
    (talk.politics.guns)