Quote:
|
But if it is as shown below, this is very disturbing. Is there something about this that I'm missing? Maybe it was overturned? I dunno. I'd appreciate some commentary from the group here:
|
Quote:
But every man, when he enters into society, gives up a part of his natural liberty, as the price of so valuable a boon, and obliges himself to conform to those laws, which the community has thought proper to establish.
Otherwise there would be no security to individuals in any of the enjoyments of life.
Gibson "entered into our society when he began to live in it. He has no right to unilaterally withdraw from society, rejecting his obligations to that body, while at the same time retaining the advantages of that society--advantages for which others have sacrificed part of their liberty.
Whenever hostility to the existing system shall become universal, it will be also irresistible. The people made the constitution, and the people can unmake it. . . . But this supreme and irresistible power to make or to unmake, resides only in the whole body of the people; not in any sub-division of them. The attempt of any of the parts to exercise it is usurpation, and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people have delegated their power of repelling it.
|
What is it that you find disturbing?
Is it the idea that you can not unilaterally withdraw from the obligations of society while still retaining the advantages which other members of the society are providing?
Or is it the petty issue concerning the driver's licesne?