You Can't Satisfy Everybody; Especially If There

Is There Really Someone Who, Searching For A Group Of Wise And Sensitive Persons To Regulate Him For His Own Good, Would Choose That Group Of People That Constitute The Membership Of Both Houses Of Congress?

The Terminology Of Philosophical Art Is Coercive: Arguments Are Powerful And Best When They Are Knockdown, Arguments Force You To A Conclusion, If You Believe The Premisses You Have To Or Must Believe The Conclusion, Some Arguments Do Not Carry Much Punch, And So Forth. A Philosophical Argument Is An Attempt To Get Someone To Believe Something, Whether He Wants To Beleive It Or Not. A Successful Philosophical Argument, A Strong Argument, Forces Someone To A Belief.

Whoever Makes Something Having Bought Or Contracted For All Other Held Resources Used In The Process (transferring Some Of His Holdings For These Cooperating Factors), Is Entitled To It. The Situation Is Not One Of Something's Getting Made, And There Being An Open Question Of Who Is To Get It. Things Come Into The World Already Attached To People Having Entitlements Over Them.

From Each As They Choose, To Each As They Are Chosen.

Our Main Conclusions About The State Are That A Minimal State, Limited, To The Narrow Functions Of Protection Against Force, Theft, Fraud, Enforcement Of Contracts, And So On, Is Justified, But Any More Extensive State Will Violate Persons' Rights Not To Be Forced To Do Certain Things, And Is Unjustified; And That The Minimal State Is Inspiring As Well As Right.