Gun control ... actual question

[KimGordon67]

If you believe that you "own" you and have the right to defend you, your property. The same goes for any property gained by your efforts (assuming you violate no one else's right to life, liberty and property). If, on the other hand, you believe in the idea of a "social contract" which defines rights, then they only rights that you have are whimsical, capricious and subject to change.

People who have grown up in cultures that are subject to a long laundry list of things considered to be a "right" then a citizen has the right to all sorts and manner of things, education, healthcare and the safety of living in a disarmed society and society can demand as large a share of their life (enforced selflessness by the guns of government) to be sacrificed to the greater good, because the greater good has provided for them. As it has been starkly put by Elizabeth Warren, "You didn't build that (i.e., if it weren't for the collective works of government, you would never have been successful)."

I totally don't understand how this addresses my question.

 

[Que]

OK, I've re-read your response again, and I still can't see in there how the framers of the Constitution (or the BoR) identified those rights, other than them being "self-evident". How did they decide that something was 'self-evident'?

Quit being obtuse. What do you think the word self-evident means?

The only reason that you cannot follow what is self evident to anyone who has not been heavily indoctrinated with the idea that they state knows best, is because of your indoctrination.

The absolute basic- do I have a right to defend myself or not.. Yes or no?

Does that in any way depend on what your "we" decide?

The problem you're having is you don't recognize individuall's natural right not to join a "we" at all. To refuse absolutely to comply with any and all strictures laid down by your "we."

It's a liberty thing. You will never understand.

 

[Que]

I do agree that humans have rights, and that they're inalienable. That isn't contradictory to saying that that's the case because 'we' (whoever that is) work out what those rights are, pretty much through a process of saying 'yeah, it seems reasonable to suggest that everyone should have this particular thing'.

Giving examples of 'natural' rights does not explain how it's decided that they're 'natural'. You're just listing the things that you (or someone) has decided should be in that category. They have no objective reality.

Completely wrong.

If the collective gets to put it to a vote..by definition it is not inalienable. You don't get any say whatsoever in what my natural rights are. Not you, not 30 of your friends, not the UN, not anyone.

If you disagree with me and you decide to trample on what I consider my natural rights we have two options then: I can either acquiesce to the collective in which case I am simply giving up my natural rights, or we can go to war.

 

[KimGordon67]

Quit being obtuse. What do you think the word self-evident means?

The only reason that you cannot follow what is self evident to anyone who has not been heavily indoctrinated with the idea that they state knows best, is because of your indoctrination.

The absolute basic- do I have a right to defend myself or not.. Yes or no?

Does that in any way depend on what your "we" decide?

The problem you're having is you don't recognize individuall's natural right not to join a "we" at all. To refuse absolutely to comply with any and all strictures laid down by your "we."

It's a liberty thing. You will never understand.

OK - so they're 'self-evident'.
'Self-evident' tends to be a pretty subjective concept. I would seriously hope that if a bunch of white guys wrote a document listing a bunch of 'self-evident' stuff, we would understand that those things are only 'self-evident' to those guys at that very specific time. Consequently, I would hope that that list of stuff would be subject to change as other things become 'self-evident' - yeah?

Example - once upon a time it was 'self-evident' that women shouldn't have the right to vote. We now accept that this isn't the case, and voila! Women can vote. God or lions didn't make that change - we did.

 

[McFlippant]

OK, I've re-read your response again, and I still can't see in there how the framers of the Constitution (or the BoR) identified those rights, other than them being "self-evident". How did they decide that something was 'self-evident'?

That every individual naturally breathing isn't self-evident?

That every individual naturally thinking isn't self-evident?

That every individual naturally speaking what they think isn't self-evident?

Who but an absolute doofus wouldn't grant such natural rights as self-evident?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

No, at this particular point of this particular sub-discussion, what I'm trying to establish is how a 'natural' right is established. What I'm suggesting (again) is that they're rights because we (whoever 'we' is at any given moment in any given place) agree that they are ... ergo 'we' (probably a different 'we' at a different time than the first 'we') can equally agree that actually they aren't.

The issue here is that, until someone can demonstrate to me where the list of these 'natural rights' comes from, I'm basically getting a version of the 'because God said so' response, except apparently with lions rather than God.

Basically, you cannot separate a "natural" right from the concept of morality. The right of self-defense, "liberty" (i.e. self-governance), pursuit of happiness, property ownership -- these are the basic foundations of a moral entitlement.

Pursuing this one step further, you basically trace the concept of morality based on whether you're a deist or atheist. If you believe in God, you typically believe that morality derives from God's authority -- whether it be expressed in the 10 Commandments, the Koran, or whatever.

If you are an atheist you basically believe that morality is one of those good ideas our descendants came up with tens of thousands of years ago. If that is where you are coming from, then that would explain your orientation of "they're rights because we (whoever 'we' is at any given moment in any given place) agree that they are."

But even if morality was itself a man-made invention, "natural rights" implied by that morality are not generally seen as interchangeable or disposable in the same way as common legislative acts. They usually exist on a philosophically higher plane. Whether we derive them from God's authority or not, "we" all seem to generally agree that natural rights are the basis and reason for law rather than mere privileges under the law.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I totally don't understand how this addresses my question.

I was talking to Query and not making any attempt what-so-ever to answer your question because you have demonstrated that there is no freaking way you're ever going to "understand" any answer given to you that does not match your definition of what a "right" is and how you arrive at your list of rights. I tried that and it was a pointless and futile exercise in circular argument.

Have a nice day.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I haven't said they're privileges bestowed by anyone - I've said that 'we' (whoever the 'we' is) decide what they are.

That's a difference without distinction.

'We' (government authority) deciding what rights are = privileges bestowed by the collective.

What I'm trying to get someone who's a defender of the concept of 'rights' as some objective fact to do is explain to me how we know what 'things' are natural rights.

And Que gave one of the best answers when he said...

You and any community of we that you might want to come up with do not have a right to tell me what my rights are and are not; my rights are those things that I'm willing to defend.

And then we had Que's explanation which was "Things are natural because we humans have more than a limbic system and can decide what does and doesn't make a natural right."

That's not a bad one either. You think, therefore they are.

Also, with both the lions and the God explanation, neither person has suggested how we identify the things that lions/God have created as 'natural rights'.

God is just a tool some use to help them understand or explain the concept.

IDK about the lions bit but it sounds like it was more of a metaphor or example as Lions like most animals (generally speaking) know exactly what their natural rights are. They don't need god to figure them out either.

 

[Lancecastor]

Like I said, obvious troll (circa 1998). Zzzzz.

 

[KimGordon67]

That every individual naturally breathing isn't self-evident?

That every individual naturally thinking isn't self-evident?

That every individual naturally speaking what they think isn't self-evident?

Who but an absolute doofus wouldn't grant such natural rights as self-evident?

Yes, but here I point again - you're granting them as 'natural' or 'self-evident'.

I agree that most of the things that are human rights are understood as being human rights because they're just reasonable things. But they're identified as such through the consensus of reasonable human beings, not 'nature' or 'God' or whatever.

 

[Richard_P_Feynman]

That every individual naturally breathing isn't self-evident?

That every individual naturally thinking isn't self-evident?

That every individual naturally speaking what they think isn't self-evident?

Who but an absolute doofus wouldn't grant such natural rights as self-evident?

Lemme guess, the naturalistic fallacy and ambiguity of being self-evident never occurred to you?

 

[KimGordon67]

Basically, you cannot separate a "natural" right from the concept of morality. The right of self-defense, "liberty" (i.e. self-governance), pursuit of happiness, property ownership -- these are the basic foundations of a moral entitlement.

Pursuing this one step further, you basically trace the concept of morality based on whether you're a deist or atheist. If you believe in God, you typically believe that morality derives from God's authority -- whether it be expressed in the 10 Commandments, the Koran, or whatever.

If you are an atheist you basically believe that morality is one of those good ideas our descendants came up with tens of thousands of years ago. If that is where you are coming from, then that would explain your orientation of "they're rights because we (whoever 'we' is at any given moment in any given place) agree that they are."

But even if morality was itself a man-made invention, "natural rights" implied by that morality are not generally seen as interchangeable or disposable in the same way as common legislative acts. They usually exist on a philosophically higher plane. Whether we derive them from God's authority or not, "we" all seem to generally agree that natural rights are the basis and reason for law rather than mere privileges under the law.

Yep, those last two paragraphs are, I think, about where I'm at. I like your point that they become the basis for law, not the law itself.
But, if we suck God out of the equation, 'we' can, at various points, agree that we got a particular 'right' wrong, or forgot to include something that should have been there. I wouldn't call them 'natural' rights though, because it implies that they grown on trees. I'd call them 'human' rights.

 

[KimGordon67]

I was talking to Query and not making any attempt what-so-ever to answer your question because you have demonstrated that there is no freaking way you're ever going to "understand" any answer given to you that does not match your definition of what a "right" is and how you arrive at your list of rights. I tried that and it was a pointless and futile exercise in circular argument.

Have a nice day.

One ...

 

[McFlippant]

Giving examples of 'natural' rights does not explain how it's decided that they're 'natural'..

America's founders (those who Declared America's Independence), framers (those who created the Constitution for the United States of America and then passed it on to the States for ratification), and the US's First Congress (which passed onto the States for ratification 12 Articles of which 10 would become the the Constitution's first Amendments - aka Bill of Rights), DECIDED that every free individual's "natural" propensity is to defend his life, liberty, and property...

...and that any/all government which free individuals THEN deem to create for themselves are constituted first to protect those "natural", "certain", "unalienable" "rights".

Having once again shown you simply and EXACTLY "how it's decided", what's "your problem" now?

 

[KimGordon67]

America's founders (those who Declared America's Independence), framers (those who created the Constitution for the United States of America and then passed it on to the States for ratification), and the US's First Congress (which passed onto the States for ratification 12 Articles of which 10 would become the the Constitution's first Amendments - aka Bill of Rights), DECIDED that every free individual's "natural" propensity is to defend his life, liberty, and property...

...and that any/all government which free individuals THEN deem to create for themselves are constituted first to protect those "natural", "certain", "unalienable" "rights".

Having once again shown you simply and EXACTLY "how it's decided", what's "your problem" now?

So something being a 'natural propensity' is the basis for deciding that it's a 'natural right'?
(I'm really not trying to be argumentative - I just honestly trying to get to the core of how people who believe that there are some rights that have an external objective reality external to human decision making work out what those rights are.)

 

[Que]

God, it's like banging my head on a brick wall ... ok, how do they recognise them? What are the necessary conditions something must have in order to be considered a 'natural right'? (I'm just asking the same question in myriad different ways, because it seems so difficult to understand.)

Because they haven't been conditioned by collectivist-supporting academia to think otherwise. Children understand how to recognize what is theirs, and how to defend it.

Slaves do not need to hold a committee meeting to make a decision about whether or not their natural rights are being violated.

Robbery victims are well aware that their natural property rights are being violated.

If you cannot, of your own volition, in 5 minutes write down a list of inalienable human rights that you enjoy on a desert island with complete strangers, you have been brainwashed.

If YOU cannot sense YOUR innate, inalienable rights, there is something wrong with you.

You likely have been taught that there is something inherently wrong with enlightened self-interest and there is absolutely nothing wrong with enlightened self-interest.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

One...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22QYriWAF-U

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Yep, those last two paragraphs are, I think, about where I'm at. I like your point that they become the basis for law, not the law itself.
But, if we suck God out of the equation, 'we' can, at various points, agree that we got a particular 'right' wrong, or forgot to include something that should have been there. I wouldn't call them 'natural' rights though, because it implies that they grown on trees. I'd call them 'human' rights.

Whatever. You may have the ability to split a hair even finer than I do. Condolences to your family.

 

[McFlippant]

Yes, but here I point again - you're granting them as 'natural' or 'self-evident'.

I simply am humble enough to cede to TRUTH/REALITY making itself "self-evident" to me, and greatly admire America's founders and framers for bringing that "self-evident" TRUTH/REALITY to the socialist political world at large.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Yes, but here I point again - you're granting them as 'natural' or 'self-evident'.

I agree that most of the things that are human rights are understood as being human rights because they're just reasonable things. But they're identified as such through the consensus of reasonable human beings, not 'nature' or 'God' or whatever.

And there is the bullshit, the collectivist commie in you is STRONG comrade.


"Natural" or "inalienable" rights are NOT identified through consensus.

Natural rights are the things the individual decides.

When you open your mouth and say something, you as a thinking individual are effectively claiming your natural right to freedom of speech, by doing it.

The collective and their response to or recognition of that is totally separate from it's existence.

Like if you were being raped, and you fight your attacker, you're deciding as an individual that you have a right to self defense. And you are effectively creating that right when you pull your weapon and let the air out of that sum' bitch for attacking you. That's a 'natural' right.

The collective recognition/response to it is a totally separate thing.

I wouldn't call them 'natural' rights though, because it implies that they grown on trees.

Or that these rights come about as a natural consequence of existing as a human.

 

[Richard_P_Feynman]

And there is the bullshit, the collectivist commie in you is STRONG comrade.


"Natural" or "inalienable" rights are NOT identified through consensus.

Natural rights are the things the individual decides.

When you open your mouth and say something, you as a thinking individual are effectively claiming your natural right to freedom of speech, by doing it.

The collective and their response to or recognition of that is totally separate from it's existence.

Like if you were being raped, and you fight your attacker, you're deciding as an individual that you have a right to self defense. And you are effectively creating that right when you pull your weapon and let the air out of that sum' bitch for attacking you. That's a 'natural' right.

The collective recognition/response to it is a totally separate thing.

Woah. It's like BB is some sort of Neo-Hobbesian. Trippy.

 

[Richard_P_Feynman]

I simply am humble enough to cede to TRUTH/REALITY making itself "self-evident" to me, and greatly admire America's founders and framers for bringing that "self-evident" TRUTH/REALITY to the monarchists at large.

FYP; YW.

 

[Que]

OK - so they're 'self-evident'.
'Self-evident' tends to be a pretty subjective concept. I would seriously hope that if a bunch of white guys wrote a document listing a bunch of 'self-evident' stuff, we would understand that those things are only 'self-evident' to those guys at that very specific time. Consequently, I would hope that that list of stuff would be subject to change as other things become 'self-evident' - yeah?

Example - once upon a time it was 'self-evident' that women shouldn't have the right to vote. We now accept that this isn't the case, and voila! Women can vote. God or lions didn't make that change - we did.

No, only men could own property. (Women WERE property) only property owners could vote which makes sense because why do people who do not own property get to vote on how other people who do own property use their property? As soon as you allow that you get what we now have which is the masses voting themselves the spoils of plundering others with the force of government.

Men recognized THEIR natural rights and seized them with force of arms and defended their natural rights. Do you imagine that women of those times did not also recognize THEIR natural rights, just as easilly?

Were they any less oppressed simply because they lacked the power to throw off their burden and exercise their natural rights the way you get to exercise yours today? No.

Did they have to hold a women's meeting to decide what natural rights of theirs were being denied? No.

Did they really not possess those natural rights until they were able to convince the menfolk to let them exercise them, or did they naturally exist?

Did slaves possess the same natural rights that white men had prior to their emancipation? Just because they couldn't exercise their natural rights didn't mean that their natural rights did not exist.

What natural rights in the society I live in are oppressed every single day in innumerable ways. Colonists, under King George had their natural rights oppressed everyday. for the most part they accepted that oppression as the price of living in society from which they in their view of their own enlightened self-interest we still able to live a happy and prosperous life. Until they got to the point where they were fed up with their infringement upon their natural rights and they rebelled.

Just because a given society doesn't honor or recognize natural rights doesn't mean that they don't exist.

 

[McFlippant]

So something being a 'natural propensity' is the basis for deciding that it's a 'natural right'?
(I'm really not trying to be argumentative - I just honestly trying to get to the core of how people who believe that there are some rights that have an external objective reality external to human decision making work out what those rights are.)

"external objective reality external to human decision making"

Alas,"objective reality" is ALL INCLUSIVE, no matter any individual's erroneous need to place "human decision making" anywhere outside of it.

Every human is naturally free - has the natural right - to decide whatever they like...

...but only fools fantasize any decision they ever make can actually affect truth/reality.

 

[Hypoxia]

I simply am humble enough to cede to TRUTH/REALITY making itself "self-evident" to me, and greatly admire America's founders and framers for bringing that "self-evident" TRUTH/REALITY to the socialist political world at large.

In other words, you would like to shoot people. Would you mind being shot? If not, post your address.