[quote]NickViar wrote:
Natural rights exist…naturally. [/quote]
Really? Prove it. Show me one. They exist–where? By whose decree?
[quote]kamui wrote:
On the other hand.
What today’s libertarians advocates has nothing to do with historical anarchism.
Anarchism want(ed) to abolish the State by remplacing it by a self-governed society, from the bottom up.
They weren’t stupid enough to dream about an ungoverned society.
The original name of this anti-state ultra-individualism was “nihilism”.
[/quote]
How many libertarians don’t want exactly that? There may be some libertarians who are nihilists, but I don’t know of any.
I actually don’t know of any libertarians who want an ungoverned society. Libertarians typically oppose the formation of a state. A state and government are not the same thing.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
A state and government are not the same thing.[/quote]
If you go by strict semantics, I guess.
But what is a government if it doesn’t have the power to enforce its decrees?
What is a state if it doesn’t attempt to govern?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Natural rights exist…naturally. [/quote]
Really? Prove it. Show me one. They exist–where? By whose decree?[/quote]
When a child is born, he has life. If another human kills him, he has taken that right. If the child is left alone, he will likely die, but his right will not have been taken. He can not use his right to life to invade the rights of another.
The child will have the right to move around the earth, once he is mobile, unless prevented from doing so by another. His right to move around can not violate the right of another.
When the first man picked up a stick, it was his. He owned that stick. He either gave it up, passed it on to his descendants, or it was stolen. Those are still the only options for all property. The right to own property does not violate the rights of another.
Each of those is a natural right. No right takes precedence over another.
By whose decree they exist is a good question. I believe they exist by God’s decree. You may believe they exist by nature’s. Nobody can honestly deny that those rights exist-he may deny that he should have to respect other’s, but he will not deny that they exist.
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
You obviously have a far different understanding of natural rights than I do. If one has a right to his life, liberty, and property, then another can’t have a right to those things. One’s liberty end where another’s begins, or the second does not have liberty.
[/quote]
Probably.
But I don’t like the libertarian (I believe that is their definition anyways) definition of rights. It ignores reality imo.
In my mind, having all rights means that I am free to do whatever the hell I want.
If I want to NOT kill my neighbors and take their shit, then I have the right to do so.
And if I WANT to kill my neighbors and take their shit, then I have the right to do so as well.
In other words, I have the right to IGNORE the rights of others. Just because it’s a “right” doesn’t mean that it’s inviolable. This is the part where I disagree greatly with what the founders state in the Declaration. I don’t believe that there are such things as inviolable rights. That doesn’t make any sense.[/quote]
You do not have the RIGHT to ignore the rights of others; you have the ABILITY to do so.
[quote]magick wrote:
What does “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” mean?[/quote]
In the context of the entire amendment or on its face alone?
Two different things.
However A well regulated Militia
Simply means non-government sponsored (ie: NOT police, National Guard or any LEO) civilian trained in the use of insert firearms do to the entirety of the amendment for the purpose of fighting for/protecting:
being necessary to the security of a free State
a free state.
You personally have no basis for your interpretation because you hold one section of the amendment more important than the other, and it isn’t.
There is no “chicken and egg” complexity here. The first section, the militia, and the second section, the individual right, are interchangeable.
You guess wrong and I would suggest more study of history. Jefferson and Adams would have both had full auto AR’s and most people with intellectual integrity will admit that upon reading early American History.
Only complex to those trying to find a way around its blunt, frank, obvious intent.
The only time it is complex is to those trying to take away civil rights. Those trying to protect the right aren’t confused, nor do they have any problem understanding what “regulated” means in this context.
You, by focusing on one half over the other certainly are missing the point as well, assuming your assessment of others is correct.
It’s funny the whole “self incrimination” “no state church” and “no quarter” thing isn’t “complex” and up for interpretation…
[quote]NickViar wrote:
When a child is born, he has life. If another human kills him, he has taken that right.[/quote]
How did we get from “child is alive” to “child has a right to not be killed?”
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Natural rights exist…naturally. [/quote]
Really? Prove it. Show me one. They exist–where? By whose decree?[/quote]
Is slavery morally wrong?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
When a child is born, he has life. If another human kills him, he has taken that right.[/quote]
How did we get from “child is alive” to “child has a right to not be killed?”[/quote]
In order to kill someone, another has to act to violate that person’s right to life. That’s a natural and apparent fact.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
When a child is born, he has life. If another human kills him, he has taken that right.[/quote]
How did we get from “child is alive” to “child has a right to not be killed?”[/quote]
In order to kill someone, another has to act to violate that person’s right to life. That’s a natural and apparent fact.[/quote]
But you’re assuming that the person has a right to life. Where did their right to life come from?
Thanks!
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
In the context of the entire amendment or on its face alone?[/quote]
The entire amendment.
I separated the two simply to see how you would respond.
You didn’t disappoint =)
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You personally have no basis for your interpretation because you hold one section of the amendment more important than the other, and it isn’t.[/quote]
I never stated that either is more important than the other.
I literally interpret the 2nd amendment to say-
“The right of the people to keep arms shall not be infringed because a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state”.
And this is why I find
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
There is no “chicken and egg” complexity here. The first section, the militia, and the second section, the individual right, are interchangeable.[/quote]
questionable.
How can they be interchangeable when “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” is a dependent clause to " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You guess wrong and I would suggest more study of history. Jefferson and Adams would have both had full auto AR’s and most people with intellectual integrity will admit that upon reading early American History.[/quote]
I’m not sure how what you quoted here means anything about gun laws and such. I know that virtually everyone had no problem with people keeping guns in their homes. I certainly didn’t mean that they thought guns should be kept locked away safely or anything, or that they thought people shouldn’t be allowed to keep guns.
Rather, I meant that they probably thought people keeping their own arms would make it a lot easier for them to defend their homes, since armories can be taken by force like the British attempted at Concord. In any case, it was meant to be more a silly statement.
But do remember that the founders thought the concept of private ownership of cannons to be questionable though =)
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Only complex to those trying to find a way around its blunt, frank, obvious intent.
The only time it is complex is to those trying to take away civil rights. Those trying to protect the right aren’t confused, nor do they have any problem understanding what “regulated” means in this context.[/quote]
I disagree. I find it complex because I think just about everyone ignores the “militia” part.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
It’s funny the whole “self incrimination” “no state church” and “no quarter” thing isn’t “complex” and up for interpretation…
[/quote]
Oh they’re complex too; the entire Bill of Rights and the Constitution in general are complex. No one just seems to care about the complexity unless it ruffles their feathers.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
When a child is born, he has life. If another human kills him, he has taken that right.[/quote]
How did we get from “child is alive” to “child has a right to not be killed?”[/quote]
In order to kill someone, another has to act to violate that person’s right to life. That’s a natural and apparent fact.[/quote]
But you’re assuming that the person has a right to life. Where did their right to life come from?[/quote]
Indeed. You (Nick) are begging the question, assuming that rights exist in trying to show that rights exist. Your original sentence could only have been correctly phrased thus:
“When a child is born, he has life. If another human kills him, he has taken that life.”
Which is tautological and fairly useless. If you want to exchange “right” for “life,” you have to show that the right exists in the first place.
Furthermore, it is strange that you would think that you have a right to something that you will, by the very definition of your being, lose.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Natural rights exist…naturally. [/quote]
Really? Prove it. Show me one. They exist–where? By whose decree?[/quote]
Is slavery morally wrong?
[/quote]
That depends on what you mean by “morally,” and on whom you’re asking.
But if you were to force me to show you my natural right not to be enslaved, I would raise empty hands. If you were to force me to prove that such a right existed, on pain of enslavement, I would end up with my hands bound.
[quote]magick wrote:
How can they be interchangeable when “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” is a dependent clause to " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."?[/quote]
Because the people are the militia and the militia is the people. It is simply two ways of saying the same thing. It could be re-written, and you seem to agree: “The people knowing how to use weapons is necessary to the security of a free state, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
[quote]
In any case, it was meant to be more a silly statement.[/quote]
fair enough.
I have no issue with not being super liberal with non-small arms.
Not a big fan of banning, but areas get gray.
I’m not sold. I’m still under the impression things are pretty clear.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Natural rights exist…naturally. [/quote]
Really? Prove it. Show me one. They exist–where? By whose decree?[/quote]
Is slavery morally wrong?
[/quote]
That depends on what you mean by “morally,”[/quote]
Should society tolerate and allow that one man makes another man his slave?
You.
[quote]
But if you were to force me to show you my natural right not to be enslaved, I would raise empty hands. [/quote]
You’ve proved it right there.
No.
But this isn’t the same as my saying, “A natural right not to be enslaved exists.” I can’t prove it exists.
The difference is the difference between “ought” and “is,” and it is a fundamental one.
[quote]
That was very, very clever.
It isn’t legitimate–that I’m not a slave does not logically entail that I have a natural right not to be enslaved–but it was very clever.
Furthermore, if “a natural right to not X” is tantamount to “should society tolerate and allow X,” then law and its enforcement have been presupposed, because “should society tolerate and allow” is synonymous with “should it be legal to.” So really we’re talking about legal rights. The question is whether or not I have a provable natural right not to be enslaved. And I certainly don’t see one.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
That you’re not a slave means you live in a State that protects your right. If you were a slave, it wouldn’t mean your right to not be wouldn’t exist, it would simply mean your State didn’t protect you.
We live, work and play around our rights. Ignore them or not, they don’t go away.
Mel Gibson had a good speech on this in that movie where the men waged war in skirts.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Furthermore, if “a natural right to not X” is tantamount to “should society tolerate and allow X,” then law and its enforcement have been presupposed, because “should society tolerate and allow” is synonymous with “should it be legal to.” So really we’re talking about legal rights. [/quote]
That was just a lead in question, but you skipped innings 1 through 8 and got me to the ninth, so I ran with it.
You certainly do. You see it quite well. You’ve be enlightened to it, so much like breathing, you take it for granted, except when it is in jeopardy.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
That you’re not a slave means you live in a State that protects your right. If you were a slave, it wouldn’t mean your right to not be wouldn’t exist, it would simply mean your State didn’t protect you. [/quote]
But you still haven’t proved to me that I have a right not to be.
Or think about it a little differently: That I’m not a slave and can’t be enslaved by my neighbor–this means that the state grants me such a legal right, not, necessarily, that it protects a natural right.
Or not? In which case, my state grants my girlfriend the legal right to have an abortion. Am I to assume that you believe such to be a natural right?