About natural law and freedom, I saw an interesting thing this morning. We had the second snow storm in two weeks last night. 10 inches last week, about 3 last night. These are unprecedented events here. Even the old timers cannot remember anything like this. (I may post something about this for the climate change deniers.)
I was walking this morning and came upon a blocked street. The intersection led to a very severe downhill which would have been icy and dangerous to drive on. The City put up barricades with signs on them that reminded me of Nazi Germany - Verboten.
My right to drive down that street has been removed by the government. The reason, I suppose is because if I did I could hurt myself and others, people live along that street and at the bottom of the hill.
I accept this just as the gun owner should accept the gun control laws which prevent him from hurting yourself and others.
sort of like disputing the right of a property owner or the city to put up a no parking sign...please do not block the entrance. where do your rights end and the rights of another begin? that's why the concept of libertarianism sucks...it's a totally immature tantrum driven approach to living in a society. most shopping centers have handicap parking areas near the entrances, yet how often do you see some asshole with the flashiest car parked in one because he feels he is exempt and entitled? i agree that many laws are ridiculous and produced only as knee jerk reactions to sooth the immediate sensationalist needs of a public that wants to feel a government is doing something, but on the other hand, we need laws that prohibit us from doing destructive things that the basest instincts of human nature only compel the corrupt, weak and insecure to engate in...and if you need a sign to tell you not to drive down a steep icy hill because you might kill yourself and others, it's only because some idiot had done it already!
ReplyDeleteNo snow here last night, but still the deep freeze...it melts a little during the day and then freezes hard at night. We have lots of icy hills!
So what document provides you with the right to drive down icy hills? Is that some European Rights thing or does that come from the Mafia Driver's Handbook or something local?
ReplyDeleteI just wondered since you are comparing that right to others that are indeed enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. So since you are using yet another car comparison, I wondered, since you claim that the government denied you of that right, exactly which document gave you the right to drive down that street?
FWM asked, "exactly which document gave you the right to drive down that street?"
DeleteI thought you and your friends kept saying rights aren't granted by a document. Get your story straight, man.
My point is the government is correct to deny people the right to access dangerous roads in an ice storm just as they are correct to restrict your gun rights.
Mikeb, there's a significant difference here. The street is a public service, provided and maintained by public funds. By contrast, what I do on or with my own property is my business, so long as I'm not hurting any innocent person.
ReplyDeleteThe gun rights movement is hurting innocent people. That's the point, Greg.
DeleteNo, criminals are hurting innocent people. The vast majority of gun owners hurt no one.
DeleteWhat you call the "vast majority" is not good enough.
DeleteWhy? Because we should take away from the many for what the tiny few do?
Deleteno man, who's gonna stop you from driving down a steep icy hill? go ahead...I'm sure glad you don't have my cell phone # when you get stuck down at the bottom! I got chains and I've already paid my dues!
ReplyDeleteBelieve me, Microdot, you're low on the list of people I'd call for anything.
DeleteHello Mike
ReplyDeleteNatural right theory is quite interesting, but much misunderstood. It is a product of the Enlightenment and is part of a greater theory of Natural Law, which includes the Social Compact theory of governement.
It displaced the prevailing theory of the day, to wit: the devine right of kings...
1st point to understand is that not all Natural Rights are necessarily protected. Basically, a natural right is anything you could do in the absence of government. In forming the social compact, we agree to give up certain natural rights in exchange for the greater advantages afforded by the community formed by the social compact. However, there are certain natural rights which we are incapable of giving up, not because we might not wish to give them up, but because we would be unable to keep the bargain. An incapcity to contract. For example, we could agree that we would not breathe on alternate weekends, but try as we might to comply with our promise, we are unable to comply. This is what is meant by an unalienable natural right, something which we can not bargain away in forming the social contract. The enlightenment philosophers divided these unalienable rights into three categories... life liberty and property.
Most of the rights contained in the Bill of Rights are not "unalienable" rights, but merely auxillary rights which serve to protect, preserve and enhance an underlying unalienable rights.
Oh, you mean like that unalienable right to keep a pistol in your pocket when you go to the mall.
DeleteJust so. The fundamental right is to protect our own lives. It would be silly to say that a right to a pistol is fundamental, because pistols are a recent invention, while the right is timeless. The derived right to a handgun is grounded in the right of self defense, handguns being the state of the art at this time. When phasers are invented, firearms will become collector's items only--what we see with Sulu in "Shore Leave."
DeleteGreg, do you not recognize that there IS NO RIGHT to a firearm?
DeleteYour right to be safe is the right to be protected by law enforcement, or at most by things like non-lethal block groups and neighborhood watches that walk around to make a neighborhood safe.
There is no 'right to self defense', as you characterize it, and you have failed, utterly, to show that any such right exists, either under the U.S. Constitution, or any other recognizable source that identifies or defines rights.
It's a made up notion of gun loons to justify your damned fetish relationship. So long as other people are harmed, so long as shooting someone is harsher than the punishment they would receive in court, you have no rights to do more harm than the law allows.
And frankly the odds of your life being threatened is far less than the danger of you shooting yourself in the foot, or in your case, in your mouth. Which is often where your foot is.
Do I recognize a claim that you make that many disagree with? No.
DeleteBut let's consider your assertion that I have no right to self defense. Do I have a right to live? If yes, do I have a right to stop an attack on my life? If yes, do I have the right to an effective means to stop that attack?
You trust the police or a block party to defend your right to live, but you have shown us many examples of police abuse and failure. Are you serious?
With regard to shooting any part of myself, though, how about you make no objection to my carrying until that day occurs? Deal?
The right to self defense does not mean deadly force, only reasonable force.
DeleteSo long as there is as great or greater risk that you will harm someone else instead of only shooting your own foot off, NO, NO DEAL.
There is no RIGHT to carry. Or haven't you read Heller?
Dog Gone, do you believe that rights come from the courts? I'm aware of what Heller says. Heller is the Supreme Court's opinion about our Constitution, but neither creates rights. We are born with rights, and it is society's duty to support many of those rights.
DeleteReasonable force often does mean deadly force, since that is what is required in some cases to save one's life. Do you deny that?
But regarding your claim about how dangerous I or my fellow licensees are, prove it. You cite the tiny number of cases of errors or accidents. What you refuse to acknowledge is that there are more than six million of us. Why don't you tell us what percentage would be acceptable for you?