Theos-Talk Archives (June 1997 Message tl00376)

On Mon, 16 Jun 1997 00:20:34 -0400 (EDT) Bart Lidofsky
<bartl@sprynet.com> writes:

>liesel f. deutsch wrote:

>>Patrick wrote:

>> >The primary point is that removing inalienable rights does not make
>> >for a better society and indeed all on-going significant social
>> >difficulties can be traced to just such. (see
>> >http://users.aol.com/aprioripa/ecosolu.html

>> And I suppose shooting other people is an inalienable right.

>	No. However, making sure that someone who tries to kill you is
>going to risk their own life in the process, IS.

Self-defense is not just a question of individual rights, since it
benefits everyone.  Those who would initiate violence for selfish
purposes benefit from their potential victims defending themselves, since
a necessary step in their evolution is to be taught not to do that, force
being the only effective way.

And the human race as a whole benefits from the fittest surviving.  If
the fittest, on the other hand, out of pacifism, allow the weaker to
overcome them, the race as a whole suffers.  Competition is necessary for
evolution.