> But let's cut to the chase. Assume that all private grocery > store owners want to exclude people from their stores. Now > assume that 100% of them agree that effective Tuesday, only > those people who have a receipt for a $100 or more donation to > George W Bush (or Hillary Clinton, whatever) may enter their > property to shop for groceries. > > Their right? Why not? > \ > > Yes, of course it is their "right." > > But these silly "lifeboat ethics" debates were tiresome more than 30 years ago, > argued in person. Typing answers to them is even more tiresome.
That's not what it was. > > Read some of the sources. Few of you social democrats here have done so. Maybe you could re read Locke's first and second treatise. Can't hurt. > > Which is OK, as it's your life. But you don't belong on this list if you have not. I assume if I refuse to leave, I can expect you to shoot me? I take it you favor the bearing of arms by citizens. I do too, severely. But I submit for your consideration that 10,000 screaming Sarah Bradys can't damage the too-tentative support of those rights as effectively as one gun-nut loon who advocates shooting unarmed, non-violent soccer moms at the mall who refuse to be expelled on trespassing grounds due to the war protests printed on their t-shirts. > > > --Tim May > "That government is best which governs not at all." --Henry David Thoreau
