To: AEMILIUS PAULUS
When everyone has "Rights" then nobody has "Rights." "Rights" exist only inter pares.
Rights exist only "between peers"?
While in actual practice the ruling aristocracy has more rights than me, is that the way it is supposed to be from Constitutional and moral standpoints?
posted on 08/31/2003 4:37:34 PM PDT
by NMC EXP
(Choose one: [a] party [b] principle.)
To: NMC EXP
1. An aristocracy must be recognized, have legitimacy if you please. It does not necessarily have to be registered in a 'Handbuch Des Goetha" to be legitimate. Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe come to mind. They individually and collectively certainly approached and probably were an aristocracy. Landed, trained from youth to command and did command etc.
2. Participation in government must be limited. Voting rights were extended only to those having property above a certain value.
3. Exclusion, 'those who do not belong.' Criminals, vice addicts etc.
There are other elements which would be tiresome to list and read. Members of the above have rights and only towards each other and others of like qualification.
What I have described is close to what really was. Those attitudes are very alien today.
posted on 08/31/2003 5:24:51 PM PDT
by AEMILIUS PAULUS
(Further, the statement assumed)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson