NOW THE court has agreed to open another Pandora’s Box.
Never mind that for
decades now the question of the Second Amendment’s root meaning has been left
open while a consensus gradually formed, namely that the individual’s right to bear arms does not mean the government
cannot regulate that right for good reasons (emphasis mine - KM). To
quote a balanced appellate decision back in 2001 out of the Fifth Circuit (U. S.
v. Emerson ), the “Second Amendment does protect
individual rights [but ] that does not mean that those rights may never be
subject to any limited, narrowly tailored specific expectations....”
(emphasis mine - KM) This decision upheld an act of Congress denying
the right to buy or carry a gun to someone who was under a protective court
order for good reason. In that case, the defendant had threatened his estranged
wife.
The decision in Emerson made good sense—and good constitutional law. The right to bear arms may belong to the individual, but
that doesn’t mean it’s an absolute right that trumps society’s interest in
saving life and preserving the peace. (emphasis mine,
again - KM)
Some people and most judges just don't get it. All rights are, by definition, absolute. A right limited is a right violated. No government has the authority to limit a right; otherwise it would not be a right but only a privilege. "Privilege" is the polar opposite of "Right", since privileges are granted by masters to slaves or by parents to children, whereas rights come from within. A privilege can be granted, revoked, or limited, but a right can only be respected or violated.
"Society" has no interests that justify violating rights because "society" in this case is just a weasel-word for a multiplicity of individuals. The rights of the individual always trump the "interests of society", or else rights are completely meaningless. Each individual has an interest in saving his or her own life and preserving his or her own peace. That "interest" does not fall to anyone else, especially not some nebulous "society". The best and most effective way for the individual to save lives and protect the peace is for that individual to exercise the absolute right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms (guns, knives, swords).
The absolute human right to own and to carry weaponry does not mean you have a right to use that firearm (or anything else) to violate the rights of anyone else by shooting, or threatening them when they are doing you no harm.
Why is that so difficult for some people to understand? I'll tell you why: because it is not in the interests of their seized power or their victimhood to understand it.
I gotta disagree with you there about rights being absolute. But if we're talking about government, then yes, government should be forced into treating our rights as absolute. (just before government is eliminated completely)
ReplyDeleteSo how would you propose to limit them? By what criteria?
ReplyDeleteOne's own decisions, of course. Every trade we make, every contract, implies a narrowing of the scope of our rights. If I give you 20$, I relinquish any property rights over that 20$. The right itself is absolute, because it is derived from self-ownership, but the scope of that right is highly variable.
ReplyDeleteIf you give me $20, I would presume that you did so in a voluntary trade that gave you the rights to something else, even if it were only a sense of well-being from your generosity. I don't look at rights as connected to property (such as the $20), though. In this way I see "property rights" as a completely different subject than "rights".
ReplyDeleteHow are property rights different? They are derived the same way. And what about trades involving my actions specifically, such as work contracts?
ReplyDelete"Property rights" are different because they can be bought, sold, or traded. While a particular "property right" belongs to you, I would still say it is absolute, but it is within your personal rights to sell off that particular property right. You can not legitimately sell your personal rights (such as selling yourself into slavery)without getting into a whole mess of ethical questions. In a work contract you still retain your same rights, basically the right to not be attacked or defrauded; in a "selling yourself into slavery" situation, your would no longer have any rights over that which you sold. That would violate your personal rights so it would be void, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteHow do I retain the same rights when I get a job? I have voluntarily limited my actions in order to reap a financial reward.
ReplyDelete"Actions" are not the same as "rights". In taking a job you are selling some of your time in exchange for something else (money). You are agreeing to do certain things in exchange for money. You are not (or, at least shouldn't be) selling your body, but only renting it out. If I rent something from you, you still retain limited property rights to that thing. My rental agreement does not allow me to destroy that which I rent. With your person, you can give up some property rights to your time and actions for a set amount of time, but you can not sell off your basic human rights. You do not give up your right to not be atacked or defrauded. You do not give up your right to defend yourself against these things. If your boss demands that you give up those rights you have no obligation to abide by his wishes as they violate your basic human rights and are null and void.
ReplyDeleteMaybe this is why I SUCK at being an employee. LOL
ReplyDeleteI'm not talking about rights to property, I'm talking about rights to action. When you take a job, you sell parts of your right to action in exchange for property.
ReplyDeleteDo you think you can sell away your rights to actions such as self defense or maintaining life functions? Or do you only sell your rights to actions such as eating when you want and performing certain work at a certain time?
ReplyDeleteIn my view, the first set of actions would fall under basic human rights and the others would not. The ones that do not are the ones that can be sold or rented, the others can not (legitimately, anyway).
I suppose it might be possible to trade away your right to self-defense, sure. Something like "I contract not to defend myself and to only let agency X do it." It would not be a great contract, but it would be possible.
ReplyDeleteBut would such an agreement hold any legitimacy in your eyes? It wouldn't in mine. This is similar to the problem I have accepting the nanny-state embracers and their abdication of responsibility and acceptance of cradle-to-the-grave "care". Abdicating a right is tantamount (to me) to refusing to accept a responsibility that belongs only to you. I am not comparing you to them, though. Just thinking out loud.
ReplyDeleteI come away from this thinking that we actually agree (pretty much); we just have different terminology for the concepts.
If I agreed to it? Sure! Why not?
ReplyDeleteI can't agree or disagree with the State: I am supposed to obey.
Of course, I also believe that slavery is compatible with MA, but I know that's a contestable point.