Moral relativism

T. A. Gardner said:
In many states, they have raised the local "minimum wage" to a point where it is above the value of labor. When that happens, jobs disappear as they are no longer profitable to employers. If that weren't the case, then raising the minimum wage to say $50 an hour would be acceptable, but it isn't.

That said, what does that have to do with slavery?
Click to expand...
T. A. Gardner said:
In many states, they have raised the local "minimum wage" to a point where it is above the value of labor. When that happens, jobs disappear as they are no longer profitable to employers. If that weren't the case, then raising the minimum wage to say $50 an hour would be acceptable, but it isn't.

That said, what does that have to do with slavery?
Click to expand...
Off topic
 
Hume said:
And I countered that by saying if that was primary, why it take three years to ratify the first 10 Amendments, bill of rights?
Click to expand...
At the point that the Bill of Rights was added, the intent was to limit government, not Grant rights that, again, are inalienable.
 
Hume said:
Constitution is about how a federal government is formed.
Click to expand...
And the D of I tells us WHY a federal govt needs to be formed

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Government is intended to secure NOT grant the rights we are endowed to us by the Creator
 
Hume said:
I do not think that is historically accurate, no. Intent was to form a federal government.
Click to expand...
It is historically accurate. The founding fathers believed that we had unalienable rights. The Constitution was written to limit the government's ability to infringe on those rights, not Grant rights. The government cannot grant rights that are not theirs to grant. That would be akin to me granting you the right to post on this forum.
 
ZenMode said:
It is historically accurate. The founding fathers believed that we had unalienable rights. The Constitution was written to limit the government's ability to infringe on those rights, not Grant rights. The government cannot geant rights that are not theirs to grant. That would be akin to me granting you the right to post on this forum.
Click to expand...
So you deny there was first written a Constitution and then three years later, amendments on individual rights.
 
Hume said:
I do not think that is historically accurate, no. Intent was to form a federal government.
Click to expand...
With the purpose of government being to SECURE rights not grant them. You want to avoid the D of I and with good reason because it lays out the rationale for why a govt is instituted.
 
Hume said:
So you deny there was first written a Constitution and then three years later, amendments on individual rights.
Click to expand...
I'm saying it is all "the Constitution" and the part of the Constitution related to rights does not grant anything.
 
ZenMode said:
I'm saying it is all "the Constitution" and the part of the Constitution related to rights does not grant anything.
Click to expand...
Of course its all the constitution. Hume like lots of people here play word games. see what I mean? Post 577. Just ignores that the government doesnt not grant rights but is instituted to "secure" our unalienable rights. The left has made a career of doing just that though. Notice how they described abortion as a right even though it doesnt exist anywhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top