I Have A Natural Right To Take Your Guns

[Jesus_lol]

you might like this, hassy.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Pistols

[Aloysius]

You are an animal on the planet.

 

Only according to your classificatory scheme.  According to my classificatory scheme, I am a human being on the planet, which is quite a different thing than an animal.

 

I could accuse you of being a lump of atoms on the planet, and proceed to act as if you are not categorically different than any other lump of atoms, like, say, a rock.  Obviously there are particular criteria by which you can establish that you are in a completely separate category than rocks.  It's just as obvious to me that humans are in a completely separate category than animals; our subsistence is based upon culture, and the linguistic and meaningful ways by which we declare things like "natural rights" are a part of that cultural context in which we live.  thus we can have entirely different natural rights for humans than we do for animals, human beings have an absolute right to their life and their liberty, their liberty being made manifest by their property.

 

natural rights rest upon some basic assertion of the principle of non-aggression... of course just as we cannot see a principle of non-aggression for a boulder (there's nothing morally wrong with a boulder rolling down a cliff and smashing anything it so happens to hit), there's also no principle of non-aggression applicable to animals... only to humans.  just because this is cultural and philosophical doesn't mean it's any less natural--it's natural to humans.

 

it is in the great and venerable tradition of our society that we have established a basis for rights that has its foundation in non-aggression, that one should not be able to initiate violence against anyone else's life or liberty.  whether that is a particular philosophical truth that ought to be universal to humanity which our cultural and philosophical tradition discovered, or merely a particular philosophy of organizing society that we came to that might not apply to other contexts, it is a damned good principle that we ought to defend, not as the condition of state societies, a state should be subservient to that principle and not the other way around.  but the material condition of this principle of liberty is property, any attack on the things which a man possesses in real and substantial terms (at its base we should say that fundamentally his possessions that fulfill moral duties and for which he has physical presence over are his "property" naturally; but as you have so pointed out, in the modern state-oriented society property is established by the fiat of states so we even respect those things that are simply agreed as held as property by the social order of state violence... any communal or cultural assertion of property possession that extends outside of immediate physical presence is, of course, natural to humans because culture and society is natural to humans, it is not arbitrary and dismissible just because it rests on such foundations).

 

your assertion of a right to take things from someone else is an assertion that you have the right to initiate aggression.  I see no fundamental basis for that.  everyone has rights as regards themselves.... in some veins we can say they have the right to the means by which they can fulfill their moral duties (providing for and defending one's family, for instance), but in the broader sense that has been established in our philosophical tradition that I would die to defend, the rights established are rights to be unmolested by the initiation of violence by others.  you are asserting an initiation of violence as a right, and therefore I must fundamentally reject your assertion.  perhaps in some other cultural context it might make some sense somewhere, if by ties of kinship or village or religion you were in a position to have the responsibility over someone else in that way... that'd have to be debated in that other context though.  in our context, you have no standing.

 

these natural rights are cultural rights, they are philosophically mediated rights, they are specific to our tradition, but that doesn't make them any less natural or inviolable, and that certainly doesn't make them merely arbitrary.  you do not have the right to initiate violence against people's life, liberty, or property (either the fundamental property over which one has physical possession, or the cultural mediated defined property that is tied in with state power enforcing it) in the way you have proposed, it is as simple, or as complex, as that.  :cyclops:

Edited January 24, 2013 by Aloysius

[StMichael]

Very trollish topic starter...

 

"I have the right to take your guns."

 

Huh, you do not have right to take property from anyone. That would be infringing on my 5th amendment rights (property rights).

 

Thus to protect my 5th amendment right we have the 2nd Amendment.

 

The 2nd amendment has the ability to protect the other 9 bill of rights. 

 

 

 

 

[r2Dtoo]

In my opinion the only natural right that truly exists is Might Makes Right, meaning that the person or group with the most force gets to rule.  All other "rights" are either what the group or person allows you to have or cute little philosophical discussions.

[Nihil Obstat]

In my opinion the only natural right that truly exists is Might Makes Right, meaning that the person or group with the most force gets to rule. All other "rights" are either what the group or person allows you to have or cute little philosophical discussions.

So you do not actually object to being mugged? If might makes right, then violent criminals have morally free reign.

[r2Dtoo]

So you do not actually object to being mugged? If might makes right, then violent criminals have morally free reign.

The only way a right can be "natural" is if it's authority can be observed in the natural world throughout history.  Morals are another matter entirely.

[Nihil Obstat]

The only way a right can be "natural" is if it's authority can be observed in the natural world throughout history. Morals are another matter entirely.

That is not really how natural right is usually defined.

[r2Dtoo]

That is not really how natural right is usually defined.

Your definition is in reality just another word for dogma which by no definition is natural.  Which one makes more sense really?

[Nihil Obstat]

Your definition is in reality just another word for dogma which by no definition is natural. Which one makes more sense really?

You are changing the subject. Natural rights is taken by philosophers and moralists to mean something rather specific, which you are simply ignoring. You do not get to re-define things with established meanings simply on a whim or because it fits your idiosyncratic beliefs.
If you wish to argue for whatever else then fine, have fun, but do not confuse everyone by using words that are, for our purposes, already differently defined.

[Anomaly]

You are changing the subject. Natural rights is taken by philosophers and moralists to mean something rather specific, which you are simply ignoring. You do not get to re-define things with established meanings simply on a whim or because it fits your idiosyncratic beliefs.
If you wish to argue for whatever else then fine, have fun, but do not confuse everyone by using words that are, for our purposes, already differently defined.

WAT? Then what is the debate table for?

[Nihil Obstat]

WAT? Then what is the debate table for?

Ponies and flaming. Not arbitrarily and unilaterally re-defining established philosophical terms.
Sometimes also we calmly and rationally discuss controversial issues. But thankfully it rarely lasts.

[cartermia]

Stupidity is a natural right, but one mustn't misuse it. 

"Stupidity is also a gift from God, but one mustn't misuse is."

-Pope John Paul II

[Papist]

"Stupidity is also a gift from God, but one mustn't misuse is."

-Pope John Paul II

 

 Where you think he got that?

[4588686]

 Where you think he got that?

Trotsky

[Nihil Obstat]

Trotsky is well known for making frequent use of that particular gift. :proud: