This was going to be one post, but as I wrote more and more I decided to post in two parts. This first part will have to do with the legal and philosophical issue of guns rights. The next part will have to do with the more practical aspects of firearms and violence.
It seems to me the first issue one must examine in dealing with firearms is rights. The standard line of reasoning for gun advocates is to appeal to the U.S. Constitution, and specifically the second amendment. However, to do so shows an incredible lack of understanding on what the constitution is and the philosophy of the founding fathers.
Our country was founded on the philosophy of Liberalism. We are not a country spawned from nationality, but rather one born from a philosophy. That philosophy was that all men are created equally and with the same natural rights. Rights that can neither be given, nor taken by a governing State. They are indeed unalienable; they cannot be taken away, they can only be infringed upon. They are dependant on no other person to obtain, as the only requisite for having them is human DNA.
Understand that any time something is needed to obtain a so-called “right”, such as a permit, license, or the express written consent of Major League Baseball it is no longer a right at all, it is a privilege.
After the country gained independence from Britain the Founders were so frightful of government they formed an extremely limited, loosely bound confederation of States rather than an overarching strong Federal government. The problem came when the States began to print too much money to pay off debts to France after the Revolution and in order to curb inflation some proposed instating a new Federal government that would have the power to coin money over the States. Thus, the U.S. Constitution was written and sent out to all the States for approval.
Immediately objections were raised, the Anti-Federalist claiming that the new government would have too much power. To answer these objections the Federalist Papers were written as a series of essays that are basically a comprehensive commentary on the entire constitution. One of the biggest objections to the constitution was that, while it did limit the powers of the government, it did not offer any written protection for the rights of the People.
Ultimately, the answer to this criticism was the Bill of Rights.
Alexander Hamilton, whom I am not much of a fan of, was astonishingly correct in his assessment of the faulty nature of such a listing of rights in the Federalist No. 84.:
“I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.”
So to put that bolded piece in modern terms it might say, “Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of individuals to own whatever firearm they choose shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions on owning inanimate objects may be imposed.” And yet we’re currently living in an age where the constitution has been completely circumvented and those very restrictions HAVE been imposed.
Hamilton was afraid that the government could use the limited amount of rights listed in the Bill of Rights to make the claim that rights are, in fact, limited. That they were dependent on the government itself to be granted. To make sure this would never happen, the framers included the ninth and tenth amendments in the Bill of Rights to give any rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution to the People or the States, NOT the Federal government. Ironically, these amendments have been discredited by modern day statist for being too ambiguous and giving too many rights to the people, the very thing they were designed to do.
Without question, the myth that has been most debilitating to liberty in American history, is the myth that our Bill of Rights gives us our rights. This myth is why we have people dissecting the language of the second amendment trying to figure out it's true intent, whether it is meant to provide rights to individuals or to a collective mass. However, this is totally irrelevant, because the power to restrict gun ownership is not given to the Federal government in the Constitution.
Please limit comments on this post to the issue of gun rights. The next post will delve into the practical issues of guns and society; there we can talk all we want about violence and such.
Part two now posted here.
40 comments:
scott said: That philosophy was that all men are created equally and with the same natural rights. Rights that can neither be given, nor taken by a governing State. They are indeed unalienable; they cannot be taken away, they can only be infringed upon.
I've always had a problem with this whole 'Natural' Rights thing. As you say, it's a philosophical approach - a human construct. "We hold these Rights to be Self Evident..." Self-evident? Isn't that just another way of saying that we can't prove it? It's an assertion backed up by no evidence. I for one do not believe that we have Rights (or Duties) merely because we are human beings. It's a nice point of view but I don't think its a Reasonable one.
It also puts the emphasis on what it means to be human (or a 'Man'). Does it mean that everone has the same Rights? Women? Non-property owners? Blacks? Gays? Foreigners?
It amuses me that at the time the Bill of Rights and all that good Enlightenment stuff was going on - "all Men created equal" and such - that both the US and Europe still owned slaves. Obviously *those* men, women and children didn't pass the grade and so were not 'self-evidently' equal.
So... what is my point (if any)? It's this. Rights do not exist independent of the society that grants them. We do not have inalienable Rights. We are granted Rights by society. Rights can change. They can be given & they can be taken away. They were created by people not discovered in some Platonic otherworld of perfection.
As always, you're well-informed, articulate, and seemingly well-reasoned. Anyone reading your post would assume you were a reasonable person. But underneath all that veneer is a crazy little anarchist nut (meant in a nice way). The country you describe is interesting but it in no way exists (or ever existed).
What's to keep me from taking your little bolded statement and making it:
“Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of individuals to own whatever nuclear weapon they choose shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions on owning inanimate objects may be imposed.”
There are a million things that are both dangerous to ourselves and to others that the power to restrict has not been "given to the Federal government in the Constitution." But society is not a static system. The world in which we live is one unimaginable to the framers of our Constitution.
Wow, I'm always impressed when anyone quotes The Federalist Papers. They offer a clear idea of what was going on in the minds of the founders and they are a useful tool when debating ideas with those who can't understand the language so clearly spelled out in the constitution.
As we now know with the controversy over Iran's possible nuclear weapons program, it takes thousands of centrifuges operating for years to make a single nuke, so the idea that a private person could make or own one is a more then a little absurd.
I think we can take the definition of "arms" to mean the weapons of the time of the revolution (and their modern corollaries) as what stands protected under the second amendment. Further, I applaud your recognition of the idea of inalienable rights that are not granted by man or government, but by the nature of our existence as free entities.
Great post Scott!!!
@CyberKitten,
you make some good points about the weakness of the concept of self-evident rights. I believe we should define these rights by an objective standard. That standard is human life. What are the rights one needs to live, prosper, and grow? The answer is the right to take positive actions to further ones goals that end where those actions infringe on the rights of others. These should include the right to life, which includes the right to the fruits of your labor and the right to defend your life and property against violence ~ with violence if necessary.
You are correct that the founding fathers exhibited many contradictions. But I implore you to look at the historical context. They were leaving behind the travesties of European monarchy, dictatorship, oppression, theocracy, and the feudal cast system. It was impossible for them to institute such radical reforms over night. But what they did do was plant the seeds of human liberty that eventually lead to woman's suffrage, the end of slavery, civil rights, and gay rights. As a gay man, I'm still waiting on that last part there. But in my life, I've already seen enormous progress. In some states, I can even get "partnered" now, which is something that was unimaginable just a few years ago.
CK: From my point of view the rejection of natural rights is quite tenuous. If rights are granted from a so-called ‘society’ aren’t you really saying they’re granted from the State? Even if it’s not they must be decided by some body of people, and if rights aren’t in fact natural what is it that gives those people the right to grant or take away rights?
You’re right about the minority groups though. Since 18th century we’ve become more enlightened, good for us. From that though, we should MORE free, not less.
DBack,
Yes, of course societies change. However, this should not give the government the unlimited right to circumvent the laws that bind their power. If we, the People, want to change the amount of power the Federal government has, the founders gave us the power to amend the constitution and we should.
When people wanted to give the Federal government the power to prohibit alcohol, they did the right thing and changed the constitution to afford them the power. What happened when the government decided it wanted to start a War on Drugs? Constitutional amendment? No, after all society has changed and the constitution is a living document, right? Now look at the mess we’re in. We haven’t declared war in over 60 years, it’s now seen as passé to even do so. So the power to make war is decidedly less restricted.
When the State gets to pick and choose what power is limited to it by the constitution, the constitution itself is worthless, which I’m afraid is the current state of affairs in the country.
Then, after 200 years of abuse and open interpretation we’re shocked by the arrogance of the current administration and its abuses.
Godwhacker,
Thanks for the kind words. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers should be taught with the constitution in schools.
scott said: If rights are granted from a so-called ‘society’ aren’t you really saying they’re granted from the State?
Yes. I'm using The State & Society to mean largely the same thing.
scott said: Even if it’s not they must be decided by some body of people, and if rights aren’t in fact natural what is it that gives those people the right to grant or take away rights?
Easy - Power. The State has the power to grant Rights, restrict them & remove then. In the same way that groups can excert power to gain Rights. Those groups with no power often have no Rights until they are *given* them.
"When the State gets to pick and choose what power is limited to it by the constitution, the constitution itself is worthless, which I’m afraid is the current state of affairs in the country." -- I don't disagree with that. And if I had to error on a side, it would be on the side of giving too many rights than too few. That is why I get libertarians more than Republicans. Libertarians are consistent on freedoms but Republicans are all too willing to talk about the "right to bear arms" while taking away other rights and not seeing the hypocrisy.
godwhacker said, ... so the idea that a private person could make or own one (nuclear weapon) is a more then a little absurd. - Bad example. I only meant to suggest that you could put almost anything in that sentence and say that the Constitution doesn't explicitly govern it's possession. And maybe that's Scott's point. But there has to be some means of determining what is safe for people to possess without having to create a constitutional amendment for it.
Re Godwhacker's statement:
I think we can take the definition of "arms" to mean the weapons of the time of the revolution (and their modern corollaries) as what stands protected under the second amendment.
Except Scott's argument is, this right does not arise from the second amendment; it exists independently of the Bill of Rights.
Therefore dbdad's argument is perfectly sound. Why restrict the right to bear arms to weapons that existed in that era? If there are no restrictions on private property, as Scott plainly stated, why can't any American own a nuclear weapon? That argument deserves a better response than it has received.
Unlike Cyberkitten, I embrace the concept of rights that arise from the mere fact of being human, and which are not granted at the discretion of the state (or society more broadly, which is problematic for the reasons Scott stated).
However, no right is absolute.
The Supreme Court of Canada often speaks of the need to balance rights. It is obvious, for example, that the right to liberty does not preclude the imprisonment of someone convicted of a serious crime. Rights frequently come into conflict with other rights. People make a terrible mistake if they suppose that any right is absolute, and need never be accomodated to other rights or valid social objectives.
The most fundamental conflict is between society and the individual. The right to bear arms may be in the best interests of a given individual, but if it comes into conflict with the interests of the broader society, the state (including courts) may indeed have cause to restrict that right.
stephen said: Unlike Cyberkitten, I embrace the concept of rights that arise from the mere fact of being human, and which are not granted at the discretion of the state (or society more broadly, which is problematic for the reasons Scott stated).
Can you expand on that? How do we have those Rights? Where do they come from? How are they recognised? How do we *know* that we have them?
Stephen said: The right to bear arms may be in the best interests of a given individual, but if it comes into conflict with the interests of the broader society, the state (including courts) may indeed have cause to restrict that right.
Agreed [looks shocked].
Just say not to guns.
CK,
Easy - Power. The State has the power to grant Rights, restrict them & remove then. In the same way that groups can excert power to gain Rights. Those groups with no power often have no Rights until they are *given* them.
But what gives them the right to exert their power over others?
I think the difference we're talking here is philosophical, not practical. I understand that certain groups are not given the freedom that others have, but I don't consider this a case of having less rights, I consider this a case of them having more of their rights infringed upon.
Can you expand on that? How do we have those Rights? Where do they come from? How are they recognised? How do we *know* that we have them?
They come from the fact that no other human can legitimately or reasonably claim to have the right to infringe upon your own rights, and you can not claim to have the right to infringe on anyone else’s. They’re recognized by property, starting with the fact that you own your own body, and therefore have full right to utilize it as you see fit.
stephen,
If there are no restrictions on private property, as Scott plainly stated, why can't any American own a nuclear weapon? That argument deserves a better response than it has received.
It really is a trivial issue though since there are no conventionally sold nuclear weapons. Really this argument is an emotional extreme. I doubt anyone could really afford one other than some type of "dirty bomb". In such cases, they already are illegal and we’re still fretting night and day, stationing armed paramilitary troops in our streets looking for terrorists with them. So obviously we are conceding that making them illegal in no way prevents them from being owned.
scott said: But what gives them the right to exert their power over others?
Read my lips - P.O.W.E.R...... [grin]
scott said: They’re recognized by property, starting with the fact that you own your own body, and therefore have full right to utilize it as you see fit.
But for most of human existence this has not applied to groups such as women... to say nothing of slavery until *very* recently. So 'inalienable' rights are a *very* recent human construct. Also in many societies, including your own with a Constitution & a Bill of Rights people still don't have free usage of their own bodies - whence then Rights based on merely being human?
scott said: It really is a trivial issue though since there are no conventionally sold nuclear weapons.
So..... anti-tnk weapons bought on the open market are OK?
But your point isn't really disproving natural rights. It might be proving that natural rights are difficult to secure, but that in no way makes them illegitimate.
Basically it seems like you are saying there has always been a certain portion of society that limits the rights of other through force, therefore those whose rights were neglected had no rights at all.
What I am saying is that those people DO have rights, but the people "in power" (aka the people with the most guns) infringed on those rights. That doesn't prove we don't have natural rights, it just proves that people in power are corrupted. That's nothing new.
So..... anti-tnk weapons bought on the open market are OK?
Heck, you can buy a tank. I saw one on Amazon not too long a go. I don't think they sell too well though.
CK:
Personally, I believe human rights are bestowed by the Creator of us all. Indeed, doesn't the American Constitution state that all men are created equal? Not that it settles the issue for a you (a Brit) and me (a Canadian).
Since everyone doesn't agree that there is a Creator, let me try to secularize the argument. The notion of a Creator gives us a point of reference outside any specific human individual or society. From that "disinterested third party" vantage point, we can deduce that all human beings are equal — there's no objective reason to privilege one human over another. Thus no individual has the right to deprive any other of life or liberty. That's how I would arrive at those two fundamental rights — opening the door to the possibility that other such rights might also exist.
I don't like Scott's starting point — property. If we're talking about enough food to sustain life; or property of a sort that will enable someone to provide a living for him/herself and a family, I might agree with that. But anything more? Arguably superfluous property should be held in common by all. Not that I'm a communist. But I don't see how we deduce property as a self-evident or inalienable human right.
More importantly, I think your notion of power as the ground of rights is extremely dangerous. Slave owners obviously had power over their slaves; was it thus their right to rape or starve their slaves, or beat them to death? Likewise, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin all had power. Does it mean that they were justified in their murderous policies?
"Human rights" are ultimately a social and intellectual construct by which we hold the slaveowners and Pol Pots of the world to a higher standard than "might makes right".
scott said: But your point isn't really disproving natural rights. It might be proving that natural rights are difficult to secure, but that in no way makes them illegitimate.
What I'm trying to get across is that as far as I am concerned there is no independent (non-human construct) basis of any Rights that we have. You are *asserting* that we have 'natural' rights because of the fact that we are human beings. I am saying that this idea is a recent human construct that most people have not believed throughout most of human history.
scott said: Basically it seems like you are saying there has always been a certain portion of society that limits the rights of other through force, therefore those whose rights were neglected had no rights at all.
No. You are asuming to begin with that we have rights which those in power are abusing or denying. What I'm saying is that people have no rights over and above what their society/State allows them to have. They might be denied rights they previously held. They might have more rights than previously - but in neither case are their 'natural' rights being affected - because they had none to begin with.
stephen said: Personally, I believe human rights are bestowed by the Creator of us all. Indeed, doesn't the American Constitution state that all men are created equal? Not that it settles the issue for a you (a Brit) and me (a Canadian).
Of course I knew you would say that - but you must know that such statements cut no ice with me. As I do not believe we *were* created in the first place. As to the US Constitution - such phrases merely put to its historical and cultural heritage. It proves nothing.
stephen said: From that "disinterested third party" vantage point, we can deduce that all human beings are equal — there's no objective reason to privilege one human over another.
But its blatently obvious that all people are *not* equal. There are also many objective reasons to privilege one human over another - most are "self-evident". All men are most definitely *not* created equal.
Also as far as I am concerned your "disinterested third party" is a fantasy figure. How is this a secular argument? God is not an authority figure to secularists and certainly not for me. You cannot use God as a basis for human rights of any kind.
stephen said: More importantly, I think your notion of power as the ground of rights is extremely dangerous.
That's not what I was saying. I said that the power of the State enables it to give or restrict peoples rights. It has no God given mandate to do so. I am not saying that might is right - but that power allows States (or groups within a State) to do what they will regarding peoples rights. This is just reality.
stephen said: Slave owners obviously had power over their slaves; was it thus their right to rape or starve their slaves, or beat them to death? Likewise, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin all had power. Does it mean that they were justified in their murderous policies?
Certainly not from our point of view - and likely from the point of view of some people at that time. I'm not saying that power justifies actions - I'm just saying that power cannot be divorced from rights. The powerless do not have their inalienable rights abused because they do not have any. They are given rights (or fight for them) from those with the ability to do so - in other words those in a position of power.
stephen said: "Human rights" are ultimately a social and intellectual construct by which we hold the slaveowners and Pol Pots of the world to a higher standard than "might makes right".
That's exactly my point. Rights are social constructs. The present language of Human Rights is used to criticise societies that do not uphold these values - but they are *our* culturally constructed values not those somehow 'discovered' pristine and perfect. They are *our* values not universal ones.
CK:
• Its blatently obvious that all people are *not* equal.
Are you familiar with the distinction between de jure and de facto? — because you're blurring the two here.
De facto — It's true that all men are not created equal if we consider only real-world status. Some are born into influential families, they have more money, they are well nourished, they have the best medical care, etc.
De jure — Which does not answer the question at issue: whether or not people are equal in principle, based on the fact that we're all human beings. De facto status is not determinative of de jure status, except in a system where might makes right.
• As far as I am concerned your "disinterested third party" is a fantasy figure. How is this a secular argument?
I know you don't believe in God, CK. I said as much and, yes, I developed a secular version of the argument. As usual, you're not trying, or you're incapable of following the argument.
It isn't necessary that my disinterested third party be God. The figure can be just an intellectual construct — a fantasy figure will serve the purpose nicely.
If you can't think abstractly, imagine a visitor from another planet — in all likelihood, there's intelligent life out there somewhere in the vast cosmos. Imagine that this interplanetary traveller shows up. We appeal to him, as a disinterested third party, to tell us which human beings can justifiably deprive others of life and liberty.
This is a thought experiment. You don't have to believe in God; you just have to use your noggin.
Or change the scenario: now you're the disinterested third party mediating between two guinea pig colonies. Does one guinea pig colony have a rightful claim to subjugate another such colony for its ends? Or is one guinea pig equivalent to another?
This is, indeed, a secular argument. It is grounded in abstract reason. If you can't follow the argument, but insist that only a Christian can think like this —
Well, really, what else would I expect?
stephen said: Which does not answer the question at issue: whether or not people are equal in principle, based on the fact that we're all human beings.
I believe that people should be *treated* as if they are equal certainly - but that's just my cultural bias.
stephen said: I know you don't believe in God, CK. I said as much and, yes, I developed a secular version of the argument. As usual, you're not trying, or you're incapable of following the argument.
..and I dismissed your argument as non-Secular.... indeed I said that your use of a fantasy "disinterested third party" clearly pointed to it being God or God-like which I naturally dismissed. I actually follow your 'argument' quite easily. It's just not a very good one.
stephen said: It isn't necessary that my disinterested third party be God. The figure can be just an intellectual construct — a fantasy figure will serve the purpose nicely.
I fail to see how appealing to the views of a fantasy figure really moves the debate on....
stephen said: This is a thought experiment. You don't have to believe in God; you just have to use your noggin.
[laughs] I am. Your 'thought' experiment is meaningless and fails to resolve any of the issues we've been debating. Even if God or the alien race you postulated could be your fantasy "disinterested third party" there is no way to definitively show what their decision would be.
From the towering heights of Gods eye view you 'could' say that He created us all equally and therefore we are all equal - and therefore have equal rights. On the other hand God could see us all in our infinite variety and consider each of us perfectly unique and therefore *not* equal.
Likewise the slime creatures from the planet Zog could be *so* alien that they fail to distinuish people from Oak trees - after all we do share DNA with every other living creature on the planet. Does this mean that *all* life should have the same rights as we give ourselves? Or the Zoggites could examine us and rightly determine that every person - even identical twins are fundamentally different at some level. Therefore they reasonably conclude that we should all be treated differently.
Good 'thought' experiments should help us determine the truth of things. This experiment does not.
There is no "disinterested third party"... indeed there is no 'third party' at all disinterested or otherwise. That's one point I'm trying to make. *We* human beings invented Rights they were not given to us on stone tablets.
stephen said: It is grounded in abstract reason. If you can't follow the argument, but insist that only a Christian can think like this — Well, really, what else would I expect?
It is clear to me that we reason in different ways - which probably explains why we have such problems understanding each other (though I suspect you believe that you understand me as much as I believe I understand you). I can easily follow your arguments - I just think that they are wrong. You can't just pull God or an alien out of a hat to 'prove' your position. That moves the debate on not one bit.
Also I doubt if I ever said that "only a Christian can think like this" though I'm sure that only a Theist would bring God into an argument as any kind of proof of his position.
I realise that you have rather low expectations of me. We've crossed swords many times and you have yet to convince me of your arguments. It's interesting that you assume that's because I'm either too stupid or too proud to agree with you. Maybe I don't agree with you for the simple reason that I think you're wrong and have yet to come up with a convincing argument for me to change my mind.
OK, I feel the need to stick my oar in here now:-)
On the "natural" rights issue, I pretty much agree with CK. Rights are given (or taken) by someone/something. As the only things capable of understanding the consept of rights are people, we give/take them as we see fit depending on our culture/society/requirements of the time.
On the "created (lets use "born") equal idea: Of course we are not, and ever have been! Even if you take money/privelige/power/geographic location/society out of the equation, you have obvious inequalities between people. Soem are stronger, some are cleverer, some are more charismatic, some are more beautiful. Some poor sods are stupid, ugly and obnoxious, and no amount of rights will make them have the same opportunities in life as the beautiful, clever and charismatic person standing next to them! We are patently NOT born equal - not even in God's eyes - assuming he can differentiate us from Oak trees:-)
Maybe it'd be more constructive if you'd define what you think a right is, CK. I define it as something you can do without the permission of any other human.
I think part of the hitch here is that you seem to be referring to rights as if they are a tangible thing. That's not a claim I was attempting to make. Nor did I invoke an omnipresent Deity into any part of my argument (nor did Stephen for that matter). My sole claim to natural rights was that humans can make no claim to limit the rights of others, hence the natural state of things is that we are sovereign beings. To which you responded they have the "right" if they have more guns.
Well, all the more reason for more people to have more guns, I guess.
scott asked: Maybe it'd be more constructive if you'd define what you think a right is, CK.
A Right is something that you are allowed to do by Law. They are granted by Laws, restricted by Laws and denied by Laws.
For example, at the moment in England we have the right to smoke in an enclosed public space. In two weeks time that right is being removed - by Law.
Another example is that until recently homosexual couples had no right to marry. Now they have a right to enter into Civil Partnerships - by Law.
The rights we have (or don't have) are created by the Laws of the State a person lives in. If something that a person considers to be a right is denied in a particular State then that right does not exist in that State. That of course may change if the Law is changed.
scott said: Nor did I invoke an omnipresent Deity into any part of my argument (nor did Stephen for that matter).
Actually stephen said @ 3:55pm -
"Personally, I believe human rights are bestowed by the Creator of us all".
I know *you* never mentioned God. I would have questioned that if you did.
scott said: My sole claim to natural rights was that humans can make no claim to limit the rights of others, hence the natural state of things is that we are sovereign beings.
So you keep asserting. However, I contest that there is no 'natural state of things' or at least such a state has not existed since the origin of civilisation. Are you thinking of the 'noble savage' and all that?
scott said: To which you responded they have the "right" if they have more guns. Well, all the more reason for more people to have more guns, I guess.
Not at all. Those with more guns have the ability to create and modify rights because they have power. In the same way that a previously powerless group can take power - using armed force for example - in order to give themselves the rights they think they have been denied. But in each of these cases the Rights they a fighting to gain or fighting to deny are not inherent in being human beings. They are culturally defined constructs which do not exist outside of the human domain.
scott said: I think part of the hitch here is that you seem to be referring to rights as if they are a tangible thing. That's not a claim I was attempting to make.
Rights are certainly not tangible things. There are ideas, beliefs and in some cases fantasies. They only become 'real' in a political sense where they are enshrined in a States Laws. Until then they are at best aspirations.
The most common dictionary definition of human rights is something along the lines of: "the basic rights that all humans are entitled to" or, in most US dictioanries "the basic human rights that governments should not interfere with"
Which doesn't really gt us very far:-)
I would say the common perception of human rights is a right to do something which no-one else should be allowed to interfere" Certainly in Europe, these are generally refernced to the Human Rights Acts nowadays, and include thigs like the right to life, liberty, freedom of speach, thought & association, the right to a fmaily, security and basic education and health care.
All of these "rights" are a very modern concept. if you had asked an 11th century person what his inaleinable rights were, he would most likely never have even considered things like freedom of religion, education, health care, freedom of movement.....
Of course, 1000 years is a long time, so perhaps we should just look at 100 years ago: The right to a family? feeedom of movement? education? to vote? for every human - surely not. Certainly not for some humans at least. In fact, even in the most enlightened and libetarian society imaginable some of those rights would need to be curtailed for some of humanity.
equally, in another few hundred years, I'm sure (at least some nationaities) will be aghast that it never occured to 21st century people that they should be clamouring for the right to xxxx.
I'm not sure if this is really getting across my point. basically, rights are whatever we think they are in light of our society and culture. In the right culture, it could be considered a fundemental human right to e sacrificed to the diety of your choice on your 17th birthday, and anyone who tries to deny you that right is infringing on your "natural" right and therefore trying to refute your humanity.
• CK:
Whatever. I'll revert to my usual policy of not addressing you directly.
• Juggling Mother:
No one is talking about equal opportunities. Intelligence and beauty are just as wide of the mark of socio-economic status.
Scott makes a good point: we may have different things in mind when we speak of rights. Mind you, I think I've been quite clear. I've mentioned only two rights, to life and to liberty.
Scott's original example is the right to bear arms, but I don't regard that as a right (let alone a self-evident or inalienable right).
I wonder how the question of onus comes into play here? You're asking Scott and I to prove that human beings have rights. How about reversing the onus: who or what gives some politician the right to throw my sorry ass into jail, perhaps for political reasons, and deprive me of my liberty?
This is the point of my (evidently futile) argument about a disinterested third party. Such an arbiter would be looking for a reason other than a lucky birth to give the politician that sort of authority over me. I don't think there is any such justification.
p.s. I've just read JM's latest comment. I will say that I think one of the problems is, we have multiplied human rights to an absurd extent. Very few things should be characterized as rights. The right to vote, for example — that's obviously specific to democracy, and not even essential under that system of government. Not a human right, in my boks
stephen said: I'll revert to my usual policy of not addressing you directly.
I'm surprised you lasted so long. You normally give up way before this point. I've actually had fun arguing with you. It looks like I can't say the same for you though.
stephen said: Scott makes a good point: we may have different things in mind when we speak of rights.
Of course! We're from different cultures. We don't have the Right to bear Arms - and I think it would be silly to argue that we need that Right. They are clearly culturally specific.
stephen asked: who or what gives some politician the right to throw my sorry ass into jail, perhaps for political reasons, and deprive me of my liberty?
Probably because they have the legal power to do so.
stephen said: This is the point of my (evidently futile) argument about a disinterested third party. Such an arbiter would be looking for a reason other than a lucky birth to give the politician that sort of authority over me. I don't think there is any such justification.
But there *is* no third party to appeal to. That is one of the points I've been trying to make. If you imagine a third party arbiter it is another human construct as faliable and as culturally specific as the rights it is supposedly arbitrating for.
stephen said: I will say that I think one of the problems is, we have multiplied human rights to an absurd extent. Very few things should be characterized as rights.
But how can we distinuish between 'real' rights and silly add on's? I'm guessing that in a non-democratic country a 'right to vote' would be very important - enough to risk persecution and death for. Each culture and each age would have different answers to that question - because rights (aprt from being very modern) are human cultural constructs, nothing more. They are not inalienable nor do people have them merely for being people.
I guess that other people can comment on this if they wish.....
Scott - Wonderful post.
Dbackdad - Now substitute it with knives instead. yeah, citizens shouldn't have knives either because they could poke their eyes out. Societies change.
" who or what gives some politician the right to throw my sorry ass into jail, perhaps for political reasons, and deprive me of my liberty"
well, we do, obviously. We're all talking from democratic countries, so we have given our government the right to make laws that affect our "human" rights. If we asolutely disagreed with what they were doing, we would revolt*. It's happened before, it will happen again. What we consider to be a sacrosant right though, that is what differs.
*possily a big nasty revolt like the french revoltion, possibly a civil war, like the US war of independence, possibly just a few demonstrtions and imprisonments like the "orange revolt" in Ukraine a while ago (or the revolt against the UK poll Tax). The point is, the people can, if they really feel it is th imprtant, change the lawmakers and re-write the constitution to reflect their new opinion of inalienable rights.
"one of the problems is, we have multiplied human rights to an absurd extent" I agree, absolutely. What we currently call rights should more properly be termed "freedoms". And as my mother told me when I was very young, there are "freedons to" and "freedoms from". Scott is, on the whole a "freedom to" person. "I, and I would guess you, are, on the whole "freedom froms":-)
The right to life:
For whom? We never have had an inalienable right to life, and still do not now in most of the world, however you may like to define life. Slaves were property, and could be killed on a whim, so could serfs, wives and children for large parts of history. Criminals patently do not have the right to liberty (or life in parts of the world, including the "free" world), nor do children, nor psychiatric patients......
The problem with the concept of "natural" rights, is you are saying, by definition, EVERY HUMAN BEING should have these things, regardless of government, rule of law or social/cultural mores. Which is pretty ridiculous when looked at from your mythical third party perspectve.
Once you accept that "rights" are given/taken in response to cultural and social perspetives, it becomes a debate about what is right or wrong in specific circumstances, so those circumstances have to be defined before the rights can be. Therefore, Scott needs to define exactky which circumstances the "right" to bear arms does, and does not, apply.
Oh yes, and on a purely pratical note:
"this is totally irrelevant, because the power to restrict gun ownership is not given to the Federal government in the Constitution"
Umm, the constitution can be changed! I rather doubt there was any reference to many things that the government has since made laws on. The constitution is a starting point, and never was, nor was it intended to be a set of laws written in stone.
ck,
Actually stephen said @ 3:55pm -
"Personally, I believe human rights are bestowed by the Creator of us all".
Well that's a statement of faith, not an argument.
A Right is something that you are allowed to do by Law. They are granted by Laws, restricted by Laws and denied by Laws.
If your definition of right is dependant on the State, than there is no distinguishing factor between a 'right' and a 'privilege'.
stephen,
p.s. I've just read JM's latest comment. I will say that I think one of the problems is, we have multiplied human rights to an absurd extent.
I personally don't agree with the notion of positive rights. I think they are counter to rights in general. For instance a negative right would be that you have the right to seek and obtain healthcare from another person through mutual agreement. A positive right would be that you have the right to healthcare in general and the State is responsible for providing it.
Again, if your 'right' is dependant on someone else to provide it for you, it's not a right at all. It's a privilege.
JM,
Umm, the constitution can be changed! I rather doubt there was any reference to many things that the government has since made laws on. The constitution is a starting point, and never was, nor was it intended to be a set of laws written in stone.
Scroll up to my first comment in this post where I dealt with this. Of course the constitution can be changed, but it must be changed not openly interrupted.
scott said: Nor did I invoke an omnipresent Deity into any part of my argument (nor did Stephen for that matter).
CK said: Actually stephen said @ 3:55pm -
"Personally, I believe human rights are bestowed by the Creator of us all".
Then scott said: Well that's a statement of faith, not an argument.
Indeed it is a statement of faith (and was not unexpected) - yet stephen 'invoked' God in an attempt to justify his statement regarding human rights. It did nothing to add to his argument and I told him so.
JM said: The problem with the concept of "natural" rights, is you are saying, by definition, EVERY HUMAN BEING should have these things, regardless of government, rule of law or social/cultural mores. Which is pretty ridiculous when looked at from your mythical third party perspectve.
Or just plain ridiculous..... and a form of cultural imperialism... since they are *our* beliefs.
Interesting conversation, but I think some arguments are confusing ethics & politics. Good politics are derived from good ethics, but the two don't always intertwine.
Wether the right to bare arms comes from the second amendment or from the lack of authority granted to the federal government is not a mutual exclusive argument. Both can be correct.
The idea that someone, and individual would own a nuclear weapon is ridiculous and it's a red-herring. Again, good ethics should lead to good politics, and prohibition of firearms is bad ethics.
Every individual has the right to self-defense and a weapon in the possession of an honest, responsible person is a threat to no one, save a criminal.
"Every individual has the right to self-defense and a weapon in the possession of an honest, responsible person is a threat to no one"
And the fact hat the USA has WAY more gun deaths each year than any other "free" country shows how true that statement is - obviously assuming tha the USA has an AWFUL lot of criminals, aged from tiny babies through to centarians
Gun deaths per 100 000 population (1999):
USA 10.58
Canada 3.34
Switzerland 6.28
Scotland 0.39
England/Wales 0.35
Japan 0.09
Although perhaps we have all been getting it wrong and we should be asserting the right of all Americans to bare arms, as Godwacker said:-) That is something they could export to other countries:-)
Of course, the above is ot an argument against the concept of the right to bear arms, which is held by citizens in both Canada and Switzerland (I think the Swiss MUST own a gun - for civil defence purposes), but it is an argument against the assertion that only criminls get hurt by them.
Godwhacker said:
Every individual has the right to self-defense and a weapon in the possession of an honest, responsible person is a threat to no one, save a criminal.
That is hogwash. According to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry...
- In 1998, more than 10 children and teenagers, ages 19 and under, were killed with guns everyday. Many more are wounded.
- In 1998, 77% of murdered Juveniles age 13-19 were killed with a firearm.
- Currently, an estimated 39% of households have a gun, while 24% have a handgun.
- From 1993 through 1997, an average of 1,409 children and teenagers took their own lives with guns each year.
- Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 22 times more likely to kill a family member or friend than to kill in self-defense.
The final fact is the most telling, gun ownership promotes shootings. No Guns in the home would drastically reduce the number of children killed by domestically held firearms.
So guns legally held are only a threat to criminals are they...a very blinkered view of the situation
godwhacker said: Every individual has the right to self-defense and a weapon in the possession of an honest, responsible person is a threat to no one, save a criminal.
Except that the 'right' to own a lethal weapon and the right to self defence are not one and the same thing.
Certainly in the UK we have a right to self-defence upto and including the use of lethal force - but we're just not allowed to have firearms to do so.
Aginoth: Children don't fit the definition of responsible individuals. It is irresponsible to allow a child to handle a gun unsupervised. The statistics you quote are questionable. It seems like they made their minds up that guns are bad and then went out to find numbers to match them.
The one effect of gun rights that has no good numbers is: "How many crimes go uncommitted because the victim "might" have a weapon? American cities with the most restrictive gun control also have the highest crime rates.
Cyberkitten: Wow, that's a lot like being "allowed" to drive, but only being given a bicycle.
Godwhacker said: Cyberkitten: Wow, that's a lot like being "allowed" to drive, but only being given a bicycle.
It seems to work for us. There's no need to have guns to 'protect' ourselves against people who (normally) don't have guns. Of course I might chose to have a gun if I was afraid that other people also had easy access to guns - which I think goes a long way to explain gun ownership in the US. Imagine if only some police had guns... and no one else (except for a vanishingly small percentage of 'bad guys')... It seems to work pretty well in most other countries except the USA.
But I don't think that mere ownership of firearms is the problem there. Canada appears to have a similar ratio of people to firearms with a much reduced number of gun related deaths.... There appears to be something about the American psyche that's different.
But I think that's a debate that will take place after scott's second post on this subject.
Indeed to that, so without further ado...
Cyberkitten:
Stephen 'invoked' God in an attempt to justify his statement regarding human rights.
This is why I don't usually address you directly. It isn't because your arguments defeat me. It's because you're intellectually dishonest.
I made a statement about my personal beliefs. Then I immediately acknowledged that there's no agreement on that subject, and I developed a secular variation of the argument.
At no time did I appeal to you — or anyone else, for that matter — to accept the existence of human rights based on the existence of a Creator.
As I said before, you either lack the capacity to follow my argument, or you're unwilling to do so (i.e., intellectually dishonest). Either way, in the statement quoted above, you misrepresent my argument.
Thank you stephen for a text book example of how we do not (and it seems cannot) understand each other.
Oh and thanks for (yet again) calling me names. I'm sure it does you and your 'arguments' great credit.
Anytime I discuss the Constitution or the Bill of Rights I try to rely upon the writings of the people who wrote it. Only their words can explain their intent. James Madison once said, "Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government. "
So, any attempt to discuss gun control or the second amendment we must look back to the historical background and the text for a clear understanding of what the founders meant.
They had just undergone a war to free themselves from the British. They were fearful of any new form of government that would become, then, or further down the line, the same as which they had just fought.
Therefore, the quotes of those founding fathers on the issue of firearms should be able to give a clearer understanding of why it was important that the second amendment be part of those rights that were clearly defined, even though Hamilton did think they were limiting in their scope.
George Washington said, "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. To secure peace, securely and happiness, the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good."
John Adams said, "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion... in private self-defense."
Thomas Jefferson said, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
In reading these quotes it is clear that the right to keep and bear arms were intended as a means of personal self defense, and as a last resort in fighting a government that had become tyrannical and oppressive. Any infringement upon the right to keep and bear arms was a limitation upon those two principles.
Post a Comment