Re: [OT] was Re: diff display
> If all rights descend from the government (whether that be an absolute
> monarchy or a parliament), then I'd posit that no, you don't have a right to
> defend home and hearth.
That doesn't follow.
If rights descend from the government, then you have a right to defend
home and hearth if the government defines such a right (though many
governments choose to define instead the right for home and hearth to
be defended, by duly appointed authorities).
Conversely, if rights come from Nature, that doesn't in itself
demonstrate that you have a right to defend home and hearth. It
happens to be one of the first rights that the natural-rights folks
claim, but it needs a separate proof; one could just as well say that
all people have a natural right to warmth and shelter, which
invalidates others' rights not to share hearth and home.
There's a useful distinction here between rights in the legal sense
("You have the right to remain silent," which you didn't before
Miranda v. Arizona, and you don't in every country), which are
obviously socially defined, and rights in a universalist
natural-rights sense.
Natural-rights-as-an-inherent-part-of-humanity do not exist, because
there is no objective way to measure or test them. If we say "Every
man has three hearts," we can find out just by cutting up a fresh
corpse. If we say "Every man has the right to three wives," the
proof/disproof cannot be based on observation, only speculative
argument. The hearts are objective fact; the wives are theology.
Just so, saying "People have a natural right to self-defense" is not a
statement about people, it's a statement about the speaker's belief
system, roughly equal to "I would not blame anyone or take action
against them for practicing self-defense." And attempts to prove that
such a right exists can only take the form of attempts to convince
others to share that belief.
The question "What natural rights exist?" is still useful, when
properly understood as being the equivalent to "What legal rights
should everyone have?" And I should point out, I probably agree with
most list-members' judgments about that; and I feel just as strongly
as anyone else about the matter. I just don't claim that rights exist
in some metaphysical plane; I'm willing to acknowledge that they're a
social agreement.
So, um, how about that Debian, huh?
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 2:08 AM, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote:
> On 09/10/08 22:17, Celejar wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:31:51 +0200
>> Johannes Wiedersich <johannes@physik.blm.tu-muenchen.de> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2008-09-10 09:52, James A. Donald wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the
>>>> kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the
>>>> arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
>>>
>>> I am happy that I am privileged to live in a society that has abandoned
>>> that kind of morality that probably was custom around the stone ages,
>>> but has since experienced the advancement of civilisation.
>>
>> Your society does not accept the right to defend oneself and one's
>> property?
>
> If all rights descend from the government (whether that be an absolute
> monarchy or a parliament), then I'd posit that no, you don't have a right to
> defend home and hearth.
>
> Did you know that many states have Concealed Carry (each time such a law has
> been considered, gun control freaks wail that it will turn the state into
> the Wild West, with daily OK Corral shootouts, but, of course, that has
> never happened) and Shoot-The-Burglar laws? The home invader doesn't have
> to threaten you, or even be armed. The mere fact that he/she has illegally
> broken into your home gives you full rights to shoot the person.
>
>
> --
> Ron Johnson, Jr.
> Jefferson LA USA
Reply to: