Duff O'Melia


I found two excerpts in Ilana Mercer’s article to be particularly interesting.

Henry Hazlitt said that “government has nothing to give to anybody that it doesn’t first take from somebody else.”

This writer holds that the sole role of a legitimate government is to protect only the inalienable rights to life, liberty and property, and the pursuit of happiness. Why life, liberty, and property, and not housing, food, education, health care, child benefits, emotional well-being, enriching employment, adequate vacations, ad infinitum, as promised variously by the remaining (viable) presidential contenders? Because the former impose no obligations on other free individuals; the latter enslave some in the service of others.

Is government by its very nature coercive? I personally think a government can be established in which the people are truly free. Is there currently a place on this earth where people can live without others imposing their will on them?