IPFS News Link • Declaration of Independence
What The Declaration Should Have Declared
• https://www.ericpetersautos.com, By ericThe Pursuit of Happiness. All good. But the link between life and property was not adequately drawn. It wasn't mentioned at all.
But how can one's right to life and liberty be secure when one's physical person is not?
If you own yourself – as I believe everyone self-evidently does – then it follows no one else does. And it follows from this that whatever property you create through your own efforts or which is freely acquired (whether as a simple gift or in exchange for some other thing) is entirely and exclusively yours by right as well. Which means no other person has any rightful claim to the smallest portion of it.
What follows from that principle, in practical terms, is equally self-evident:
No "taxes" – i.e., theft cloaked in euphemistic terms. Only fee for services, which services may be declined by those who do not wish to pay for them or withheld from those who do not pay for them by those who offer them.
Watch Streaming Broadcast Live:
LRN.fm
DLive
Telegram
1 Comments in Response to What The Declaration Should Have Declared
The simple answer to the question, "But how can one's right to life and liberty be secure when one's physical person is not?" is that slavery was accepted as a standard practice. A deeper answer would include the question, "Can a person voluntarily sign himself into slavery?" This was covered in the laws of Moses, from God, where a slave was to be set free every 7 years. There were other enslavement directives from God, some that worked around a 50-year time-frame. And, there was allowance that a slave/servant could voluntarily indenture himself to his master for life. Most of this slavery stuff was understood by the people of the day, back then. Writing it into the Declaration would have made for complications in the simple things that they were trying to do regarding forming the nation, especially with regard to freedom to become a slave.