Quote:
Originally posted by utabintarbo
If a person is out to remove your posessions from you, he does not recognize your rights. Any of them. Whether he has the 'nads to hurt/kill you is beside the point. If he removes your TV, that's OK? How about if he removes your car, clothes, bank account, burns down your house (while you're not in it, for the sake of argument), and leaves your family destitute and forced to live on the street, that should be OK, right? After all, they're only posessions! He isn't PHYSICALLY hurting your family, is he?
The fundamental right of man is to live. To accomplish this, he REQUIRES the right to posess items necessary to life (food, shelter, computers, etc.) If someone is of the mind to deprive you of something that is yours, why would he stop at your TV, if there were no tangible consequences (jail isn't a consequence for those who don't think they'll be caught).
I am not advocating capital punishment for simple larceny, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. Bill's intruder took a gamble and lost. Darwinism in action.
|
Isn't that why we have insurance? Or is it just for those occasions that we weren't home when burglarized? Should a security guard be substituted, no of course, that's not cost efficient.
Of course insurance isn't a substitute for letting people rob you of things.
Good point about jail not being a deterrant.
LOL! Darwinism in action indeed! Wouldn't it be interesting to see what would happen if the basic necessities of life were met, without any effort?