|
Post by MurphysLawAgain on Jan 27, 2011 16:42:14 GMT
I have been writing the below for a chunk of today on and off and am posting with the last few posts unread. My apologies if I duplicate someone elses thought
I dont really want to get too far into the philosophic underpinnings of the right to bear arms but instead to ask a question about its modern application. What were the reasons for "The right to bear arms" and what does it mean in the modern world? It seems that the founding fathers intended members of their society to have access to weapons to defend themselves from the threats of the day. These included animals, Native Americans, other settlers and government oppression. Modern uses for weapons have specialised into several broad categories listed below with their specialised weapon types.
Killing animals for sport or farming - shotguns or rifles depending on target Defense of home and person from intruders - handguns, rifles & shotguns Open battle with military forces - Assault weapons, missiles, explosive devices
Does anyone believe that an American military force can be directly defeated using shotguns and hunting weapons? This does not cover peaceful change but armed resistance. I doubt it - hence the missiles on my list. Does the right to bear arms still cover items like these or have they been exempted? I am pretty sure that openly carrying a surface to air missile most places in the US would get you arrested. Without it as a minimum however a group of citizens cannot effectively resist modern jets and bombers. A man with a shotgun will have extreme problems when opposing tanks. They may hold out for a while but they will lose (see the history of the Warsaw Ghetto if you want a good example of a heroic but doomed defense by the under-armed). It seems that the right to bear arms has already been downgraded to reduce peoples ability to oppose government. I should also add that a populated modern town or city is no place to be using fully automatic guns, heat seeking missiles or large quantities of military grade explosives. Accident or malice would result in horrific loss of life.
One case which relates to the above is a popular revolution aimed at overthrow of the government. A vast unarmed crowd of protestors converging on Washington might persuade or sway the army and police to let them through. A similar crowd bearing and using weapons would be treated as a bigger threat by the police and armed forces making an open battle more likely. In this case the lack of access to machine guns and anti-tank weapons would become critical. In such a situation it is the concience, education and opinion of the military forces that matters. Look at Tiananmen square. One unarmed man stopped a tank. When the government brought in forces willing to crush the demonstrators the protest was over. No matter their armament they were going to lose - the only question was how many would die in the process. This was not true in the days when Independence was declared. While there may not have been true parity in weapons the gap in capabilities was not nearly as wide. A "rabble at arms" armed with muskets had a chance fighting a government armed with similar weapons. There were no tanks, planes or machine guns to worry about.
I believe that the above broadly eliminates armed opposition to a governmental military force as a reason to bear arms. There is already an acceptance among most people that some weapons shouldn't be in the hands of the citizenry. If you doubt this then ask your local politician of whatever flavour if citizens should have the right to carry surface to air missiles, bags filled with landmines or flamethrowers. Claiming that small arms alone will defend you from federal coercion is an exercise in self delusion. The question then shifts to which types of weapons people should have access to if they are not intended to fight the government.
Modern machine guns and assault rifles capable of firing upwards of 50 rounds per minute through brick, metal and people offer very little sport and a very high risk of unintented injuries used in a home defence. It is simply too much weapon for the purpose. We should thenmove to loonking at handguns & hunting weapons. A hunting rifle is a multipurpose tool - usable for killing deer and intruders. It can have a fairly limited magazine and does not need to have very high power ammunition capable of penetrating walls at intermediate ranges. A shotgun can also defend property and works to kill both vermin and small animals such as ducks, pheasants or even fish. Most hunting & farming use shotguns are not designed with battle in mind and have smaller magazines. The ammunition used can have low penetrating power reducing the risk of unintended harm to people nearby.
The only use for a handgun is to hurt people at close range. It is of almost no use in hunting or pest control. In addition its size makes it more easily concealed. Its short range and small size does make it more suitable for police use (especially in urban areas). Its also very suited to the needs of criminals by allowing them to transport a concealed weapon relatively easily. In the US why isn't this weapon also restricted to law enforcement professionals? A citizen defending his home could use a rifle or shotgun instead. If entering an armed rebellion against authority a rifle would be far more useful than a pistol (although as I discussed above this use would be practically limited). Of course with a rifle you cannot conceal it and easily carry it into meeting places and coffee shops - but isn't this a good thing? What are the beneficial cases for private handguns of any sort?
I am sure its very obvious where I have gone with this. I can see why there is a good case for some personal ownership of shotguns and rifles (more cases with shotguns than rifles in my opinion). Why do so many American politicians appear willing not only to support these but "assault options" on weapons, handguns with expanded magazines and ammunition banned by the Geneva convention from use in war? Is it just fear of the National Rifle Associations political power or is there a significant case for weapon ownership I have missed? I would add that I have fired handguns, shotguns and assault rifles at a range. It was good fun and given the chance I would consider going to shoot clay pigeons, pheasants or duck (where I live the chance to shoot larger game is prohibitively expensive). From my experiences I dont believe that I have some sort of "anti-gun" reflex. I just dont see why a civilised society would want to allow almost anyone to buy a pistol with an expanded magazine, a sub machine gun or a rifle capable of automatic fire.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2011 16:44:35 GMT
Two things. First, what I was describing was in fact the evolution of common (judicial) law, as well as legislative law. So yes, it sounded like it for a good reason. Second, regarding your notion that simple is often 'better' (nevermind what 'better' means - utilitarianism's 'better' as in increasing net happiness? hedonistically? deontologically?) my point is that, while simple is useful for actual day-to-day living - we simply do not have the time to work everything out, let alone the data - it is always wrong. The simpler, the wronger. How's that for simple? Funky lex parsimoniae
|
|
|
Post by eternal on Jan 27, 2011 16:56:17 GMT
You do make a good point, but a lot of people don't see it that way. Some people won't want to or can't wait up to 10 minutes for police response. I think that goes back to your upbringing and cultural/social background - America has always embraced and cultivated a sense of vigilante-ism and this idea of not wanting to wait for the police is part of it. You don't want to wait up to 10 minutes for a police response, but how many times have you required a police response and did it really take 10 minutes? And yet, we, as a nation, honestly feel a "need" to own a gun to "protect" ourselves. I've never fired a gun in my life and have never been the victim of crime, yet I've found myself considering one for "protection". That's not to say you wait until something bad happens to act....I have insurance so I'm comfortable with the concept of hoping for the best but expecting the worst. Rather, I'm saying our fears are largely irrational and based more on shock value than on risk - that is a weakness of our species, not any government or society. Put it like this: you're far more likely in America to be killed in a car than by a criminal, yet you don't see people clammering for car-control (other than safety features which are primarily passive), driving defensively for "protection", or simply refusing to get behind the wheel. The point I'm trying to make, is that a lot of what we consider to be "rights" or "needs" are completely arbitrary. They are important because we deem them to be, not because of any intrinsic benefit or advantage. Agreed on most, but the national average response time really does take that long, depending on the city you live in of course www.apbweb.com/featured-articles/1188-response-times-city-to-city.htmlWe are a paranoid country.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2011 17:30:26 GMT
My opinions are of course partly formed by the surroundings where I grew up with. I only rarely see a gun here in the netherlands and then only in the gunpocket of a policeman. And that is not a bad thing.
I don't think I really understand the following question: "From what governing principle or set of principles would that belief derive?" [/quote]
I ask that question because I think laws follow from governing principles rather than simple reactions to specific events or problems. When they do result as simple reactions to specific events then they can or do contribute heavily to emotive and often arbitrary reflexivity as being a principle of governance. That is something I would hope to avoid.
I don't really want to get into what I personally think are rights because my definition of "rights" would likely entirely derail the conversation.
I tend to avoid pure absolutism; it is one of those cases where "simplest is not best". I also tend to think that in most cases looking at anything as "good or bad" is superstitious thinking, bordering almost on animism. That is irrationally associating a cause with an effect, and believing that non-sentient, non-intelligent things (objects, elements, phenomenon) can in themselves be good or bad.
That is likely how very primitive man saw fire. As just bad. Most of those people probably died off. A few of them probably figured out how to use fire as a tool for warmth and cooking food. In those few groups there was probably a select class of specialist 'fire handlers', those who understood the mysteries and magic of fire and could handle it safely for the benefit of the community. The next phase probably corresponded with the next overall progression in human consciousness and most people realized that fire was not magical or mysterious and that most people could safely handle it to their own benefit so long as they understood how to do so.
Some things simply are powerful. One torch can kill more people in the space of a night than a handgun with a full clip. When it comes to power, historically, civilization has evolved from power being at first avoided as "bad", and then to its being handled only by specialists within the community, and then to its being handled by mostly every adult.
Desperately trying to avoid a narrative- that is what I think rights are. Power. I am a humanist and I strongly believe in the essential 'goodness' of mankind. Not in the goodness of the 'specialists' or organizers of society, but in the goodness of the individual. I am egalitarian rather than elitist. Reciprocal altruism: the individual probably does not have as his life's goal the salvation of humanity, he just wants to feed himself and his family and live generally within the societal norm. In that context, by serving his own best interests he is also serving those of the community and society in general. Not in every single case, but in most cases.
Guns=lethal force, lethal force=power. Power in the hands of the individual as a right. I apologize for the narrative, but that is where I stand personally.
There is an argument for humanistic egalitarianism, and directly against postmodern elitism.
I can't possibly imagine how that is a flaw (without seeing how the reasons why it is not a flaw overcoming entirely how it is a flaw).
I am stunned, but at least we have determined some principle of governance from which your points are derived.
There are many many shades of totalitarianism, including the one that pretends to be flawed democracy. In fact, 'flawed democracy' is probably the most common mask that totalitarianism wears. Even in the most absolute totalitarian countries, there is some vote, some elections. Of course the same people always win.
Postmodern nihlism blehhhh
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2011 17:49:05 GMT
I have been writing the below for a chunk of today on and off and am posting with the last few posts unread. My apologies if I duplicate someone elses thought I dont really want to get too far into the philosophic underpinnings of the right to bear arms but instead to ask a question about its modern application. What were the reasons for "The right to bear arms" and what does it mean in the modern world? It seems that the founding fathers intended members of their society to have access to weapons to defend themselves from the threats of the day. These included animals, Native Americans, other settlers and government oppression. Modern uses for weapons have specialised into several broad categories listed below with their specialised weapon types. Killing animals for sport or farming - shotguns or rifles depending on target Defense of home and person from intruders - handguns, rifles & shotguns Open battle with military forces - Assault weapons, missiles, explosive devices Does anyone believe that an American military force can be directly defeated using shotguns and hunting weapons? This does not cover peaceful change but armed resistance. I doubt it - hence the missiles on my list. Does the right to bear arms still cover items like these or have they been exempted? I am pretty sure that openly carrying a surface to air missile most places in the US would get you arrested. Without it as a minimum however a group of citizens cannot effectively resist modern jets and bombers. A man with a shotgun will have extreme problems when opposing tanks. They may hold out for a while but they will lose (see the history of the Warsaw Ghetto if you want a good example of a heroic but doomed defense by the under-armed). It seems that the right to bear arms has already been downgraded to reduce peoples ability to oppose government. I should also add that a populated modern town or city is no place to be using fully automatic guns, heat seeking missiles or large quantities of military grade explosives. Accident or malice would result in horrific loss of life. One case which relates to the above is a popular revolution aimed at overthrow of the government. A vast unarmed crowd of protestors converging on Washington might persuade or sway the army and police to let them through. A similar crowd bearing and using weapons would be treated as a bigger threat by the police and armed forces making an open battle more likely. In this case the lack of access to machine guns and anti-tank weapons would become critical. In such a situation it is the concience, education and opinion of the military forces that matters. Look at Tiananmen square. One unarmed man stopped a tank. When the government brought in forces willing to crush the demonstrators the protest was over. No matter their armament they were going to lose - the only question was how many would die in the process. This was not true in the days when Independence was declared. While there may not have been true parity in weapons the gap in capabilities was not nearly as wide. A "rabble at arms" armed with muskets had a chance fighting a government armed with similar weapons. There were no tanks, planes or machine guns to worry about. I believe that the above broadly eliminates armed opposition to a governmental military force as a reason to bear arms. There is already an acceptance among most people that some weapons shouldn't be in the hands of the citizenry. If you doubt this then ask your local politician of whatever flavour if citizens should have the right to carry surface to air missiles, bags filled with landmines or flamethrowers. Claiming that small arms alone will defend you from federal coercion is an exercise in self delusion. The question then shifts to which types of weapons people should have access to if they are not intended to fight the government. Modern machine guns and assault rifles capable of firing upwards of 50 rounds per minute through brick, metal and people offer very little sport and a very high risk of unintented injuries used in a home defence. It is simply too much weapon for the purpose. We should thenmove to loonking at handguns & hunting weapons. A hunting rifle is a multipurpose tool - usable for killing deer and intruders. It can have a fairly limited magazine and does not need to have very high power ammunition capable of penetrating walls at intermediate ranges. A shotgun can also defend property and works to kill both vermin and small animals such as ducks, pheasants or even fish. Most hunting & farming use shotguns are not designed with battle in mind and have smaller magazines. The ammunition used can have low penetrating power reducing the risk of unintended harm to people nearby. The only use for a handgun is to hurt people at close range. It is of almost no use in hunting or pest control. In addition its size makes it more easily concealed. Its short range and small size does make it more suitable for police use (especially in urban areas). Its also very suited to the needs of criminals by allowing them to transport a concealed weapon relatively easily. In the US why isn't this weapon also restricted to law enforcement professionals? A citizen defending his home could use a rifle or shotgun instead. If entering an armed rebellion against authority a rifle would be far more useful than a pistol (although as I discussed above this use would be practically limited). Of course with a rifle you cannot conceal it and easily carry it into meeting places and coffee shops - but isn't this a good thing? What are the beneficial cases for private handguns of any sort? I am sure its very obvious where I have gone with this. I can see why there is a good case for some personal ownership of shotguns and rifles (more cases with shotguns than rifles in my opinion). Why do so many American politicians appear willing not only to support these but "assault options" on weapons, handguns with expanded magazines and ammunition banned by the Geneva convention from use in war? Is it just fear of the National Rifle Associations political power or is there a significant case for weapon ownership I have missed? I would add that I have fired handguns, shotguns and assault rifles at a range. It was good fun and given the chance I would consider going to shoot clay pigeons, pheasants or duck (where I live the chance to shoot larger game is prohibitively expensive). From my experiences I dont believe that I have some sort of "anti-gun" reflex. I just dont see why a civilised society would want to allow almost anyone to buy a pistol with an expanded magazine, a sub machine gun or a rifle capable of automatic fire. I want to address mainly your last paragraph. You cannot really answer the statement: " I just dont see why a civilised society would want to allow almost anyone to buy a pistol with an expanded magazine, a sub machine gun or a rifle capable of automatic fire", without getting into the philosophic underpinnings of the right to bear arms. This is what I mean by Governing principles and that is where we are really going in these conversations. It is not so much about society wanting to allow almost anyone to buy (the weapons you mentioned), as it is about society generally agreeing that it is not the role of society to define the needs of the individual; that it is on the individual himself to define his own needs, and to have the right to fill those needs as he has defined them and as he sees fit. Different situations merit different actions. In many situations it is not at all nescessary to own a handgun. In some situations owning a handgun is needed for survival and/or protection of property. Rather than attempting to manufacture an enormous and impossibly complex (and likely entirely internally inconsistent) body of laws addressing every single situation and exception, there is the principle that the individual knows best his own needs and will act accordingly. again: lex parsimoniae Times like this I really wish I was more articulate and had the ability to be more concise.
|
|
|
Post by MightyKhan on Jan 27, 2011 18:05:52 GMT
The 2A is outdated.
(Will edit this post to respond to you when I have time to write more than this.)
|
|
|
Post by holes573 on Jan 27, 2011 21:50:43 GMT
It is not so much about society wanting to allow almost anyone to buy (the weapons you mentioned), as it is about society generally agreeing that it is not the role of society to define the needs of the individual; that it is on the individual himself to define his own needs, and to have the right to fill those needs as he has defined them and as he sees fit. Different situations merit different actions. In many situations it is not at all nescessary to own a handgun. In some situations owning a handgun is needed for survival and/or protection of property. Rather than attempting to manufacture an enormous and impossibly complex (and likely entirely internally inconsistent) body of laws addressing every single situation and exception, there is the principle that the individual knows best his own needs and will act accordingly. I don't think I could disagree more. First of all, just because situations are complex that doesn't mean we can't come up with laws that apply to them. Yes, the laws sometimes need to be reviewed, changed or updated, but societies have been remarkably able to define a set of laws that cover almost all behaviors. And that isn't done by laying a out a laundry list of every possible action/situation. While we will always employ lawyers, like Funky, to argue specific issues, the set of laws that societies have are (and need to be) generally simple enough for the population to understand them. I know, for example, that if I steal my neighbor's car, that I have broken the law which will have some consequences. The law assigned to that act doesn't need to lay out all the possible variations surrounding that (I did it because he insulted me, because I liked the color red, I just intended to take it for a trip to Vegas, etc.). So, laws can and usually do cover complex situations with general principles. But the larger point to me is your belief that a society should allow individuals to fulfill their own needs, as they see fit. I know you like simplicity, but that principle would be simply disasterous, if implimented. Chaos, inefficiency, bloodshed, ... you name it, would result. For example, a society should restrict the following individuals' needs: Bob lives in a city, but in order to fulfill his bucolic roots, he keeps chickens, hogs and a couple cows in his apartment. Sharon feels that she is only safe if she continually sprinkles dangerous chemicals and poisons around her workstation. Alex wants a successful baking business, so he takes his competitor's secret recipe. Teresa wants to buy a new house, so she decides not to pay her taxes for a couple years, so she can afford it. Etc., Etc., Etc. Societies of people can only exist if they can limit expression of many individual needs. -Holes
|
|
|
Post by tomaan on Jan 28, 2011 0:54:21 GMT
I want to address mainly your last paragraph. You cannot really answer the statement: " I just dont see why a civilised society would want to allow almost anyone to buy a pistol with an expanded magazine, a sub machine gun or a rifle capable of automatic fire", without getting into the philosophic underpinnings of the right to bear arms. This is what I mean by Governing principles and that is where we are really going in these conversations. It is not so much about society wanting to allow almost anyone to buy (the weapons you mentioned), as it is about society generally agreeing that it is not the role of society to define the needs of the individual; that it is on the individual himself to define his own needs, and to have the right to fill those needs as he has defined them and as he sees fit. Different situations merit different actions. In many situations it is not at all nescessary to own a handgun. In some situations owning a handgun is needed for survival and/or protection of property. Rather than attempting to manufacture an enormous and impossibly complex (and likely entirely internally inconsistent) body of laws addressing every single situation and exception, there is the principle that the individual knows best his own needs and will act accordingly. again: lex parsimoniae Times like this I really wish I was more articulate and had the ability to be more concise. That sounds really good in theory, but, in reality, people are simply too irrational, in my opinion, to be allowed to make that decision without limits or contraints. This is especially true in a large society that allows relatively unrestricted movement among it's population. And yes, that does mean punishing the honest and sane majority for the actions of a dishonest and insane minority - because those actions have repurcussions which outweigh any restriction of individual rights suffered by the honest majority. That does not mean an absolute ban on guns - unless, of course, society chooses that path through the legislative process. It means limits to types of weapons, magazine size and ammo types, and possibly even rate of fire. For the most part, I think existing laws are sufficient, with the exception of the expired ban on assault rifles and the lack of a uniform code on magazine capacity (sorry, but if you need that many shots, you need better aim). I think the background check process is a step in the right direction, but that it needs a major overhaul. Part of the overhaul is making the difficult choice of how public we want to make mental health records. I'm not suggesting how far we should go in either direction, but I am very sensitive to the potential privacy issues. I would also support greater efforts to curtail the blackmarket trade in guns and ammo as well, as restrictions on legal purchases can only go so far. The bottom line is that every society must accept some level of restriction to personal freedoms in order to function efficiently. We accept restrictions to our speed/movement while driving. We accept restrictions to our ability to sell food and/or medicine to the general public. We should have no problem accepting restrictions on our right to keep and bear arms.
|
|
|
Post by hackenslay on Jan 28, 2011 1:18:52 GMT
The problem is that we aren't talking about "them", we are talking about us...we decided that most of us are smart enough to use a gun and not hurt others. We were right...most of us are.
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Jan 28, 2011 8:14:33 GMT
This isn't an argument against my position, it's a governing principle of it. Yes, the simplest explanation that actually explains the situation is the best. Because reality is complex, explanations are also necessarily complex, if they are accurate. If they are not, they are inaccurate, and often quite misleading. The principle you are citing is that we shouldn't leap to needlessly complex explanations - we shouldn't assume, for example, that the reason for the tides is that the reptiloids are slowly tipping the planet back and forth as a part of the early stages of their plan for terraforming the planet back to the pleistocene era when their race thrived on higher levels of CO2 and higher temperatures. Of course, that example is somewhat silly, because it must be extreme to illustrate the principle. That is because, ironically enough, the principle itself is too simple to be useful - it doesn't explain simplicity. Is it word count? 'Reptiloid terraforming' is fewer words than 'the moon's gravitational influence', though we could of course work out a tie with 'moon gravity', or simplify it to 'reptiloids' vs. 'moon'. Useless. We can, of course, rely on a common-sense interpretation of 'simplicity' to avoid word games, but that too will fail, because it really just passes the buck to common sense, asking 'which seems simplest?' instead of relying on a real objective standard. Of course, when we DO apply the precept as a real objective standard - say, the fewest premises needed to to reach a logically coherent conclusion, producing a valid argument - we begin to realize just how complicated things are. It's one thing to tout simplicity, it's quite another to apply it. Handily, I see that some good soul has already put forth my point quite nicely on wikipedia, and more succinctly: "The principle is often incorrectly summarized as "the simplest explanation is more likely the correct one". This summary is misleading, however, since the principle is actually focused on shifting the burden of proof in discussions.[3] That is, the Razor is a principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories (see justifications section below) until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power. Contrary to the popular summary, the simplest available theory is often a less accurate explanation (e.g. metaphysical Solipsism). Philosophers also add that the exact meaning of "simplest" can be nuanced in the first place.[4]" You need to set aside your adulation of the simplicity principle - you are misapplying it. Funky
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2011 0:52:38 GMT
I need to post here when I am able to apply the kind of reflection and thoughtfulness that I demand of others. I think the easiest thing is to be in ones own way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2011 16:34:27 GMT
There are a few posts that address what I have said specifically. I am going to respond to them one at a time, in order, as time allows. I don't think I could disagree more. First of all, just because situations are complex that doesn't mean we can't come up with laws that apply to them. It is not even necessarily that individual situations are complex, or that situations collectively are incredibly complex. It is that the number and complexity of laws required to address each and every situation would be much much more complex than nescessary. That is what is meant by lex parsimoniae, literally "the law which can be spared should be". If one law can cover multiple situations sufficiently, there is no reason to make an additional law for each separate situation. Exactly. Let me be clear, I see it as an orienting legal principle (a right), not as the absence of law altogether. "That each individual be free to define and exercise his freedom for himself so long as in doing so he does not directly infringe on the freedom of others to do the same". What I am saying is that laws should necessarily adhere to that principle. What constitutes a "direct infringement" of course could be debated, and would be debated and decided by a legislature and most importantly, by the courts. In order for Bob to live in an apartment in the first place, he is a leaseholder or has a contractual agreement as an owner with all of the other parties living in the apartment building. In either case contract law (written agreement between two or more parties) allows for the prohibition of livestock in the apartment without there ever being a law written to prohibit such. Assuming Sharon is an employee, she is working at the pleasure of and on the property of her employer on a contractual basis- again, without a single additional law being written the sprinkling of dangerous chemicals can be prohibited by contract ***Each of the above involves an infringe on the freedom of others, specifically through the breaking of contract. That is a touchy one because I am very very strong advocate of opensource, copyleft etc. I do not think information is something that really can or even should be protected by law. An exception would be the design and manufacture of nuclear weapons etc. This is probably the best one out of the group. Teresa is not directly infringing on anyone's rights by not paying taxes yet she should pay her taxes. An easy answer would be that upon becoming an adult, each person must sign a contract agreeing to pay taxes if they are going to live in a community that meets these two conditions: 1. The taxes pay for specific nescessary services 2. The body which decides what the tax money is used for is composed of individuals elected to it. So if you do not want to pay town taxes you cannot live in a town that requires taxes be paid. If you do not want to pay State taxes, you can live in a State which requires tax payment,s but cannot enjoy any of the services provided by that State. Likewise for Federal Taxes. Society simply cannot limit the expression of individual needs, those needs must be limited voluntarily by the citizens themselves. There is always choice involved on the part of the individual. There being hundreds of millions of individuals (in America alone), the sum result of the choices made by each is a completely unknown and unpredictable factor. If anything, society does and always has, existed precisely as the collective expression of individual needs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2011 17:09:52 GMT
That sounds really good in theory, but, in reality, people are simply too irrational, in my opinion, to be allowed to make that decision without limits or contraints. This is especially true in a large society that allows relatively unrestricted movement among it's population. Being free in so much as the freedom of others is not restricted, is, in its self, a constraint. I am a minarchist, not an anarchist. :-) I disagree but do not want to get too far off topic in writing out a rebuttal. If we look at freedom as a value that can exist in various quantities, then I would argue that the maximum quantity of that value is for the best of everyone. The freedom to do some things must be limited or eliminated in order to maximize the freedom to do all other things. We might agree on that statement. From where I stand though, restrictions need to be very very limited, simple, and incredibly specific. "Cannot shoot at another person unless in provable defense of life, health, or property against unlawful infringement", rather than "Cannot own x firearm with x accessories etc". We volunteer to limit our own actions as individuals in order to remain a part of society. That is the part I think people need to remember. There are no restrictions on speed or movement on private property, in fact, there is really no regulation of transportation what so ever in America when you go entirely outside of the public sphere. When we use publicly built and maintained roads, we must agree (contract) to the terms of use of that infrastructure. To say we accept all restrictions on the sale of food and medicine to the general public I think is an overstatement. There are plenty of small organic farmers who have food safety standards that make delmonte look like a sewer plant, yet they are almost entirely restricted from selling to the general public (S510) while delmonte, of course, is not. These are not "glen beck nutters", many of them are very serious urban farmers committed entirely to sustainable development. One of the primary issues of our time is centralization vs autonomy. There needs to be a balance. Autonomy is safe and efficient. If everyone is supplied by local autonomous food producers, and each food producer services 1000 people, than than any serious violation of production safety standards by any single producer will affect, at worst, 1000 people. If everyone is served by one or two food producers, and each food producer services 150 million people than a serious violation on the part of either can possibly affect 150 million people. There is also the issue of redundancy. Not redundancy in terms of waste but in terms of reliability. Energy reliability, food, reliability. I gave an example of the positive of redundancy in food production. The same holds true in energy production. If most people produced their own electricity, plus a small surplus, the surplus would collectively supply those who do not supply their own. And when one or even a hundred producers went down as a supplier, they likewise would be temporarily fed by the surplus of others. But instead of focusing on food and energy and LEGAL autonomy, we focus on more centralization in each of those phases of life. Yes there should be a balance between autonomy and centralization, but currently the balance is shifted way in favor of centralization and it only takes one small peek at the condition of the world to see the results. edit: sustainable development via food and energy autonomy is really a massive pet-peeve of mine, and a bit of a rant is to follow- There are severely underdeveloped countries where the ability of people to meet their own needs HAS to be facilitated by more developed Nations such as ours. That is not trying to put a walmart in a massive african shantytown, but rather giving them the tools and knowledge to grow their own. In other words, it is not about establishing centralized food production and distribution networks in their countries as artifices to our own profit, it is about helping them GROW their own food production and distribution networks. That WORKS. It works there and it works here. You want people to eat right, get them away from the frozen section of the big-box corporate chain, and get them into a local farmers market, or better yet their own garden. A society that is balanced between centralized regulations and autonomous production and distribution is a perpetually self-renewing society. That is on every front, and you really cannot establish an incredibly centralized and overwhelming principle of Government in one area without also expecting it to serve as a precedent for the establishment of other principles in other areas of life.
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Jan 30, 2011 0:40:20 GMT
I need to post here when I am able to apply the kind of reflection and thoughtfulness that I demand of others. I think the easiest thing is to be in ones own way. This isn't intended as a dig at you, and you seem very earnest in your desire to adhere to intellectual honesty, but...I'm going to have to agree. You're using words carelessly, as labels to express half-formed thoughts. I could point to a half dozen examples in this thread where you misused words (my defense of Olbermann was not 'jingoism', for example, I think you meant something more like 'partisan') or used them without explaining their relevance to the topic (positivism, for example). A useful tool to hone one's thinking is to break down those labels into their component meanings and re-examine them. You'll often find self-contradiction when doing this (I have), and can more accurately resolve those contradictions and express true meaning. I admire your attitude about debate of this kind, but your opinions seem to stand on shaky foundations. I encourage you to think and formulate some kind of reply, even if you don't post it. For myself, I don't know exactly where the tipping point is between individual freedom to bear arms and the benefits that accrue with it, against the cost in lives. I do think there are pretty clear cut cases on either side, however, and that regulating magazine sizes and assault weapons are pretty clearly on the winning side of the cost-benefit analysis. Best, Funky
|
|
|
Post by FunkySwerve on Jan 30, 2011 0:54:47 GMT
One case which relates to the above is a popular revolution aimed at overthrow of the government. A vast unarmed crowd of protestors converging on Washington might persuade or sway the army and police to let them through. A similar crowd bearing and using weapons would be treated as a bigger threat by the police and armed forces making an open battle more likely. In this case the lack of access to machine guns and anti-tank weapons would become critical. In such a situation it is the concience, education and opinion of the military forces that matters. Look at Tiananmen square. One unarmed man stopped a tank. When the government brought in forces willing to crush the demonstrators the protest was over. No matter their armament they were going to lose - the only question was how many would die in the process. This was not true in the days when Independence was declared. While there may not have been true parity in weapons the gap in capabilities was not nearly as wide. A "rabble at arms" armed with muskets had a chance fighting a government armed with similar weapons. There were no tanks, planes or machine guns to worry about. I believe that the above broadly eliminates armed opposition to a governmental military force as a reason to bear arms. History has shown us this isn't the case. Vietnam, and Afghanistan (ever since Russia invaded), in particular. If you're curious, there are a great number of books on how to stage a guerilla uprising, even in an urban setting like the US (including some IN the US, like one I remember written by a black panther). Che Guevara and others have written copiously on this topic. Many of the US army's capabilities are directed at visible enemies - this is one reason we have so much difficulty in Afghanistan, for example. Fighting in your own cities is another matter altogether. These authors talk about everything from downing local power grids to taking out tanks by blowing off a track with an IED. Armed insurrection is certainly NOT impossible, though it certainly has become more difficult, with the advent of high-tech nonlethal weaponry (sonic weapons like those used on Somali pirates, rubber bullets, tazers, etc etc). The last thing I would advocate at this point is completely illegalizing gunpowder weapons. I'd curious to see what happens in Britain over the next couple centuries, though, and might revise my opinion based on that. Funky
|
|