And isn't that the crux of the argument here. Many of us believe that this place, this society, gave us those rights by virtue of our birth place and establishment of citizenship. Therefore the problem in our society as I see is that not that we don't have that right but we now have a whole host of individuals telling us we no longer have that right. Our society and government can use a number of ways to remove those rights and some already do so. Most gun legislation has been pushed down from the Federal level to one of states rights for regulation, without removing our rights to keep and bare arms in accordance with the Constitution as it was written. I am certainly not going to tell other countries that they should grant the same rights as our Constitution and I do not expect others, who have not ever been given any such rights, to tell me that I do not have a right to them. And yet we are constantly being told by certain members of Congress and special interest groups that I should not have the rights afforded to me by the Constitution.

My rights don't come from "society" and "society" has absolutely zero authority over my rights. Society is made up of individuals and individuals have rights, not society. And the rights of a billion people do not supersede those of a single individual.

My rights don't change depending on which culture or "society" I happen to live within.

If you deny that unalienable rights exist, I can kill, rob, rape, or otherwise abuse you and you have nothing to complain about.

If you believe we have the right to life, you believe we have the right to defend that life by any means necessary. If you claim I don't have the unlimited right to keep and bear any number of any type of weapon I choose, you deny that I, or that YOU have the right to life.

If you think the exercise of my rights is shoving something down your throat, then fine I hope you choke on it. I'm not saying YOU must own guns or infringing on your rights, but those who want to make guns illegal ARE infringing my my rights and will pay with their lives if they push too far. I and the other gun owners will use our guns to defend this unalienable right.

The matter of rights has always been contentious. The problem is that all rights overlap other people's rights. One man can't have a right without it affecting someone else's rights somehow. That's why gun ownership and the fact that pro-gunners have such a hard time when they resort to the 'it's my right' argument. The simple act of them saying they have the right to carry a weapon infringes on another persons right to their particular way of life.

That's why I don't believe the second ammendment is worded correctly and that it will eventually fail.

"I have the right" is not a good enough argument anymore, and it never was.

You falsely claim that one man can't have a right without it affecting another person's. That is laughable. My right to life does not infringe on the rights of others to live. My right to keep and bear arms does not affect anyone else's rights. My rights do not infringe on the rights of anyone else.

Feel free to tell me how my right to own a gun has any effect on the rights of my neighbor.

We've got piercehawkeye45 stupidly claiming that rights don't exist in reality when they are as tangible and gravity. They are self-evident and real, and if you attempt to violate my rights you will get a very real bullet passing through your skull.

How is this for an argument...

I have the right to keep and bear arms. I was born with this right. If you attempt to violate this right, I will violate your right to life in return. Try to take my gun, and I WILL take your life...PERIOD.

Yes it does. If that other person is threatening your right to live, you'll shoot them, thus eliminating their right to live. You are putting your right to live above that persons right to live.

It's very simple radar. All rights infringe on others.

Wrong.

My right to life does not infringe on the rights of others to live. Nor does my right to defend my life. If you choose to infringe on my rights and I take your life, I have not violated your rights because I was using DEFENSIVE force, rather than OFFENSIVE force.

Try again.

I don't need to try again Radar. I have proved my point. You're just too obnoxious to realize it.

Cya.

Oh, just one more thing to correct you on before I do leave you to it though.

Your right to live is one right.

Your right to defend yourself is another right.

They are two separate rights, not one combined.

No, as usual you've proven nothing and are touting empty claims of victory. You're too dimwitted to realize that we all have inalienable rights including the right to wield any weapon we can obtain honestly and that our rights do not infringe on the rights of others.

You are acting in your typical idiotic way.

Your right to life is not separated from your right to defend that life. You seem to be clueless on virtually every subject. I have to set the record straight every time you spew your nonsense.

What??? No it doesn't, lol.

And how would you have worded it, keeping the intent in mind of course...

It should be worded like this so people don't try to misconstrue it as they are now.

All individuals are born with the right to keep and bear arms without limitations on their number, type, or kind of ammo and this right will NEVER be limited, restricted, or kept track of by any level of government. This right will be defended at all costs by the federal government and if it is violated, the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. government will cease to exist.

If you say so.

I'm not qualified to say how it should be worded jinx. I do believe that if so many people who have to live according to that constitution of yours and can find the wording so obscure as to feel the need to argue about it constantly, then it's not worded correctly.

I find this amusing. Asking an anti-gun nut how they would word the 2nd amendment in a way that would keep with the original intent of the founders to protect the birthright of every person in America to keep and bear any number of any type of weapons they choose.

It reminds me of a tv show I saw recently where someone wanted to ask the Republicans in a debate if they could have gone back in time and aborted Hitler or Saddam Hussein when he was a fetus if they'd do it, or if the only way to prevent a nuclear war in America would be for them to have sex with someone of the same sex, if they'd do it.

There will always be people who try to infringe on the rights of others, no matter how the protection of those rights is worded. Including the right of free speech apparently...

That's true jinx. Perhaps the problem is that the constitution is based on a philosophy or philosophical thought, and I guess it's pretty easy to see that if philosophy is a way of thinking about things, then it follows that people will interpret what is written differently.

The philosophy behind the Constitution is known as libertarianism. It affords people maximum liberty at minimum cost. It means all power comes from the people and is retained by the people. It means government has only those specific powers granted to it by the people and that these powers will never be above those of individual Americans.

Some thought our rights were so self-evident that nobody would dare contest them and saw no need for a bill of rights. We can see how wrong they were. Now we have anti-gun nutjobs claiming that government should have all the guns....the exact opposite of the philosophy of our founders and the opposite of what they had risked their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to defend.

I've still yet to see proof to back up your argument.

Rights are not tangible to gravity. We've already been over this before and you have just shown your lack of knowledge in physics. Rights would be tangible to morals. Morals and rights mean shit when there is only one person because they involve the interaction between two people, so therefore you need a society to exercise rights and morals. Morals are influenced by society and so are rights.


Just because I probably will have to spell this out for you, I do believe in the idea of rights, it is imperative for our society to avoid falling apart, but I do not believe some magical creature or a nihilistic cage gave them to me either.

You believe a piece of paper gave them to you?

No, I believe that society determines how important a single right is. For example, American society places the right to bear arms as much more important than British society does. Western society has the right to free speech as much more important than Islamic society does.

Rights work in basically the same way as morals do. To a single person, rights and morals mean nothing because you need a second a party for them to have any meaning. But once you get a society together, rights and morals are needed for that society to survive and just like a society will place special emphasis on some morals, it will also place special emphasis on some rights.

To think that our society has perfected unalienable rights while all others has not is foolish and it makes much more sense that we just embrace the rights that our society emphasizes as the "true rights".

Because honestly, how do we know which rights are the "true rights"? How did we discover them? The only way that makes sense is that we took the ones that benefited us the most and made them "true rights" just like religion has taken morals and tried to make them absolute.

We've been through this before and you proved that you know absolutely nothing about physics or about rights. You proved that you would deny gravity while falling off a cliff. Deny rights all you like, but as I said, you'll feel a very real and tangible bullet going through your skull when you try to violate my rights.

Society has no bearing on rights. Nor does the number of people who exist. Our rights are the same regardless of how oppressive a government we happen to be living under. Our rights are the same even if we're the only person on earth. If you believe our rights have anything to do with the society in which we live, or you believe rights have anything to do with morality, you are clueless.

Our unalienable rights are self-evident and are as real and tangible as gravity. If you deny that they are self-evident and tangible, you are just a 'tard and a childish little troll as we discovered during our last conversation.

I don't believe in god. I don't believe in magic. I do believe in rights because they are very real and tangible as I've proven many times over.

You come off as a pseudo-intellectual wannabe who is over compensating for your woefully pitiful understanding on the subject. Perhaps if you would actually read a few books, you'd have a better understanding of our very real, tangible, undeniable, and unalienable rights.

Start off by reading these...

Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do - Peter McWilliams
The Law - Frederic Bastiat
Natural Law - Lysander Spooner
Libertarianism in One Lesson - David Bergland
Restoring the American Dream - Robert Ringer
The Discovery of Freedom - Rose Wilder Lane
The Ethics of Liberty - Murray N. Rothbard
On Liberty - John Stuart Mill
Two Treatises of Government - John Locke
Declaration of Independence - Thomas Jefferson
Man vs. the State - Herbert Spencer
Essays on Freedom & Power - Lord Acton
Civil Disobedience - Henry David Thoreau

Then you'll be partially qualified to have a conversation with me on the topic of human rights. Until you've read those all twice and let them sink in, you know less than nothing about the subject.

That's a lot of reading to figure something out that is supposed to be self evident.

Some people are stupid enough to deny their own existence. They need things drummed into their empty little skulls. For 99.9999999% of the earth rights are self-evident, tangible, and real and have nothing to do with the society in which we live, public morality, or the number of people who happen to be there. For the retarded, insane, poorly educated, or purposely obtuse others, it must be spoon fed.

The word "society" immediately translates to "majority rule", in my mind.
Majority rule is exactly what the founding fathers were trying to avoid.
The Bill of Rights spells out, the majority are NOT allowed to infringe upon, or dictate to, any minority.... even a minority of one.

Pardon me for butting in here but.....has it been proven that one would actually feel the destruction of one's brain, the organ that registers the senses?

In that circumstance, would someone not just "wake up dead" without feeling the bullet?

Just askin' here.

Back up your shit Radar. I have yet to see proof of unalienable rights.

Where did I say this Radar? I think you are throwing words in my mouth again.

Ok, I will get into this. First of all, do you know how gravity works Radar? There is something that causes the acceleration of gravity whether it is a particle or something else, something causes gravity. What causes rights? Who gives us rights?

Then, you can take away gravity but not rights. If I take away whatever is causing gravity I can physically have a world without gravity. You cannot do the same things with rights. You cannot have a physical person without rights, it is impossible to even imagine. That is why rights are abstract concepts. You cannot take away their effects so therefore you can not tell if rights are real or not.

Are you sure about this? Can you give me at least a survey that suggests this? Because actually, this is the only board I've been too that thinks we have unalienable rights.


Radar, can you answer these questions.

What is the difference between philosophy and science?

Who or what gives us rights? If you say that nothing gives us rights than name something else in the universe that we have or affect by but is not caused by anything.

How do you know that "killing all the Jews" isn't an unalienable right because some people believe it is?

How do we know that "bearing arms" is an unalienable right and "killing all the Jews" isn't? Who told us? What told them or how did they find out?

Lets be realistic, the majority are not allowed to infringe on a minority as long as the majority allows them too. If a gay man wants to get married to another man, why are we taking away his rights to do so?


This isn't necessarily directed at you Bruce...

Because remember, according the declaration of independence only white males are allowed to have rights. Non-whites and woman (probably homosexuals too) are not allowed to have them.

Why did we change that? Did we discover something else or did *gasp* society change its views on race and gender?

How is that relevant? A real and tangible bullet goes through brains with no regard to whose rights are what.

It's been my experience, and observation that peoples fears (real and perceived), the real and perceived need for self preservation, selfishness, greed, social standing, emotional condition, religious belief, all play a much larger role then their knowledge of any existence of rights they were born with. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's been my experience that 99.9 % of the world does not know this thing about rights, and if they do, they really don't give a damn. If they do they sure do understand them differently then what we are discussing on this board.

We have such a luxury that we can laze around and discuss this. Believe me, I'm grateful for that.

I think it's ironic that in one breath people I know personally say that they are patriots, and American! Law abiding tax paying citizens! And in the next breath they say that if Congress repeals the 2nd amendment, and bans or restricts guns in the U.S. they will kill the guy that comes for theirs. Rather then run for office or get seriously involved in the process we have here for change. It sounds inconsistent to me.

What really burns my nads is this: when I have to give something up because someone else has abused something. A guy walks into a mall, probably mentally ill, drunk, high or all three. Kills some people with a fire arm. I have to give up mine, for that? I'm not mentally ill, I don't drink alcohol, and I don't use mind altering drugs. Nope, it is not right that I should have to give mine up for that.

It's not the only place I've experience this type of thinking. Very few things get my blood up more then that kind of injustice.

It's like saying that flies cause garbage, and getting rid of all the flies will get rid of all the garbage.

Wrong. You've seen it many times, but you just deny it much like a child putting fingers in their ears while saying, "I can't hear you!".


By denying the existence of natural rights, you deny the existence of gravity. Both are equally part of natural law.


Natural law encompasses gravity and natural rights. You claim that gravity exists because a particle exists. Natural rights exist because nature exists.

No, you can't take away gravity. Society has no bearing on gravity. Every single person on earth could unanimously vote to get rid of gravity, and it would still exist. The same is true of our natural rights. If every single person on earth voted for our rights to go away, we'd still have them. Nothing you say or do will remove either gravity or our natural rights.


Yes I'm sure about it and I don't need to provide a survey. By all means do your own survey. Ask everyone you meet if they have the right to live. Then ask if that right comes from their government or if they are born with that right.


I'll wait to answer this until you've completed your assigned reading.

Nature (aka the laws of physics) grant us these rights at birth.

I know that murdering Jews isn't a right because if one human being has a right to life, we all do. My rights end where another person's begin. I don't have a right to kill another human unless it is in my own defense. My right to swing my fist ends where another person's nose begins.

Bearing arms does not infringe on the rights of others. Murder does. Bearing arms is part of our right to life. Murder is not one of our rights because our rights don't include infringing on the rights of others.

Now shut up your yap, and do some reading.

You've proven that you have not read the Declaration of Independence. As usual, you blather on and on about things you have no clue about. The Declaration of Independence does not say that "only white males are allowed to have rights". Feel free to back that up.

The right to bear arms is the most important of all our rights. This is why people say they will kill anyone who comes to take their guns. Without our right to keep and bear arms, we have no means of protecting any of our other rights.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

We have a right to overthrow the government by force when it violates our rights.

The most important, to you. The framers of the Declaration put life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness at the top. Otherwise I think it would have read: ..life, liberty, and the right to bear arms. The authors of the first ten amendments put the 1st amendment at the top. Don't get me wrong, it is very important. As important as any other of our freedoms and rights here in the U.S.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I wonder why that amendment comes before the 2nd?

I don't think the second amendment will be repealed any time soon. If it ever is, it will be according to the framework set up in our constitution to do so. If that is the only amendment repealed it will not constitute a long chain of abuses and usurpations, it would constitute one amendment being repealed.

To jump immediately to armed rebellion and overthrow of the U.S. Government over the repeal of the second amendment to the constitution does not sound like the actions of a prudent man. Especially if the repeal was accomplished through the process set forth within our system of government.

You mention life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The first among those is LIFE. Part of life is defending that life by any means necessary. In other words, the right to bear arms IS life.

If the 2nd amendment were repealed entirely, we'd still have the right to keep and bear any number of any type of weapon we choose without any government oversight.

The Constitution doesn't GIVE us any rights. It protects the rights we're born with. Even if the Constitution were no longer protecting that right, we'd still have it.

The federal government has already proven that it can't be trusted and that it works many times against the citizens and against our civil rights. repealing the 2nd amendment would be the last straw, and it would be prudent indeed to overthrow the government at such a time.

If society determines our rights then there can be no such thing as human rights violations then, right? If a particular society decides that they don't want any filthy jews mucking up their gene pool, then jews have no right to life there, correct?

Did you go thru public schools here in the US pierce?

I must of missed it then. :rolleyes:

I honestly have not seen any proof of natural rights. Since I am obviously not as smarted as you, please explain it for me word for word.

You could theoretically take away gravity if you take away what is causing it. You can not take away what is giving us our rights. I can imagine what a world would be like without gravity, we would all die, but I can imagine it. I cannot imagine a world without rights.

If we lived in a universe without gravity space would just seem empty and all energy would probably be spread out. Since I am not as smarted as you, can you explain to me what the universe would be like if we did not have rights.

Ok, if you want it that way. If we take away that particle we can take away gravity. We can not take away nature so there is no way we can test your version of rights, which makes it philosophy, which means you cannot prove or disprove it.

Where the fuck did you get this from? I never said society has any effect on gravity, I said that particle or whatever causes gravity does.

What you are saying is completely retarded. That would be like a society saying that we should get rid of morals. Rights and morals come with society, you cannot have a society without rights or morals.

Remember, rights are just justifications. You do something because you have the right the do it. You justify your shooting at people who take away your guns because you have the right to own a gun.

If I am the only human on Earth, what would be the point of rights because I wouldn't need to justify myself. The same goes with morals, morals are basically guidelines on how we interact with other people. If there is no one to interact with, there is no need for morals. So since there are no need for rights or morals until a society is formed, why would nature create rights or morals when the chance of a society actually forming is so small? Since you don't believe in a god, you probably do realize how small the chance is of an organism that feels the need for justification (rights) to evolve.

That is what I am trying to get at. The fact that rights came with society and will leave when society falls. There is no need for nature to create rights when society can.

You are a joke aren't you? I never said we don't have the right to live. I said that rights are a sociological construct.

I already have a book list in double digits that I need to get too. I'm not going any of your books ahead of the ones I want to read, I just don't care that much.

Prove it.

Is there like a ten commandments saying what our rights are? Where are you getting this information? All I hear is what you are saying rights are, not what nature is saying what rights are.

No. I am saying society determines rights. So if you go against what society says right are, you have human right violations.

There we have a conflict of interests. If a society determines that jews have no right to life, the jews have no right to life from THEIR perspective. But our, and the Jewish society, says that jews have a right to life, so we will protect them from that society that doesn't think they have the right to life. If the Jews think they have a right to life, they can protect themselves.

I can't think of a good human example, so I will go to animal rights. We as a society says that dogs have a right to life and if you breed them in horrible living conditions and kill them at will you will go to jail. But, we as a society says that pigs do not have a right life and it is accepted that we breed them in horrible living conditions and kill them at will.

Since life and pursuit of happiness is something that no sane society will deny themselves, I will have the stay with property. In many different ways of living, rights to property do not make sense. For example, owning property in a hunter-gatherer society would destroy that whole system. In a far left socio-economic system, right to property is also taken away as well because property goes against that political philosophy. They are not wrong in their beliefs, it is just a difference in culture in dealing with rights.

Owning property is historically a rightist mindset and does not work in a leftist system. So to say that owning property is an unalienable right means that you are saying that a far leftist system is wrong, which is absurd.

Yes I did, why?

rights are.

society can only limit them, not grant them.

Marriage is a privilege, not a right.

That's not true.

Once again Pierce gives us a stunning display of his wanton stupidity and ignorance.

First, he claims we can get rid of gravity by getting rid of what causes it.... like all matter in the universe? I suppose you're right if we got rid of all matter in the universe, gravity would be gone, and so would all life so it wouldn't matter much.

I guess that means if you get rid of all matter in the universe, you'd get rid of nature too so we'd have no natural rights. What is the likelihood of this happening though? Oh, that's right...it's IMPOSSIBLE. That means it's IMPOSSIBLE to get rid of gravity or natural rights you douchebag.

That is SCIENCE!!

Society does not determine our rights. Our rights exist and have no connection to which society we happen to live in.

You say society determines our rights. What is society? A group of individuals. How large a group? If everyone on your block says you don't have a right to live, does that mean it's ok for them to kill you? How about everyone in your town? Would it be ok these people to tell you that you don't own your own body? Does it take everyone in your county? Your state? Your country? How many people exactly make up "society"?

Where does "society" get these powers to determine your rights? If society is a group of individuals, clearly power comes from the individuals who make up society. Where do these individuals get powers from? THAT'S RIGHT!!! FROM OUR INDIVIDUAL AND UNALIENABLE RIGHTS!!!

The "perspective" of a society is irrelevant. The opinions of the majority when it comes to rights is irrelevant. Our rights exist regardless of where we live, or what the opinions of others happen to be.

Human rights would not exist without private property ownership. If we don't own ourselves we can't complain if someone enslaves us. If we don't own our minds we have no right to think freely. If we don't own our thoughts, we have no right to express them.

Owning property genuinely is an unalienable right. This isn't a "rightist" mindset. It's just the correct one. The far leftist and far rightist systems genuinely are wrong and infringe on our natural rights and this is not absurd, it's just the truth.

Guess what? There is such a thing as wrong and right. And in this case, you are wrong. I'm guessing this is the case on most other topics as well. Murdering people because your "society" (whatever that is) doesn't think they have a right to exist is murder and it's wrong and it violates the RIGHTS of the people. This isn't up for debate.

For the record, we knew you went to a public school before you answered.

I disagree. Marriage is a contract and we all have the right to enter into contracts. It doesn't matter if it's 2 people or 20 and if they are all of the same gender or even if they are related. As long as all parties are the age of majority and enter into the contract willingly there's no problem.

If the government recognizes one form of contract, it should recognize them all.

So, Radar, do you want pocket nukes for everyone?

As long as they can store them safely without endangering their neighbors with leaking radiation, I don't see a problem with it.

Eh, you missed the point with my gravity argument.

I'll change it. If there was some way we could ignore gravity for one person, they would be able to float around like we see in videos of space shuttles. We can imagine what it would be like without the force of gravity. You cannot imagine what a person would be like without rights. If you can, describe a person without rights. If you cannot take away something, how do we know its true effects?

And you are being way too idealistic with your examples. I have stayed away with right of life because I do not know a single person who doesn't think they have a right to life. If there is a dispute, it is usually one group forcing what they think rights are on another group, which I ideally disagree with. I don't believe in unalienable rights but since right to life is something that everyone can agree on when it comes to themselves, we can assume it is. Same goes for pursuit of happiness.

The reason why I find this discussion funny is because our views are not that different. We only vary on a few small differences while the rest remain the same. I say that everyone agrees that they have a right to life so it is a right that everyone enjoys while you say it is fundamental and it cannot be taken away. The real only difference is where we get our rights from and I say in hypothetical situation where a group of people say they have no right to life, it wouldn't be immoral to kill them. Just that a group of people that say they have no right to life would be wiped out immediately from the gene pool.

Besides property in a few situation (that is only if no individual has property) I do not argue the rights to life, property, and pursuit of happiness because everyone can agree that they should have those rights. I do not look for rights that we automatically have, I look for rights that everyone can agree we have. Of course I know that some are idealistic (POH for example), because there are a lot of times when one has to take away someone else's pursuit of happiness to promote one's own but that is a different issue.

I wouldn't take this kind of bait; Robert J. Ringer's writing shows us that rights are not unlimited, but in a balance. A right restricted is a right preserved, to paraphrase him; the right to shout "Fire!" aloud is restricted in, say, a theater; the liberty to swing a fist ends at the tip of the other fellow's nose, etc. So, no, not wholly unlimited -- the art of the thing is to achieve the greatest right at the least practicable restriction. Pierce seems altogether excessive about his restrictions, which is altogether typical of the non-firearm-oriented persons of great ignorance.

They think they are going to thrash libertarians and gun people on points such as this. Unfortunately, for those with greater understanding of the matter, these points are as invalid as they are stubbornly held by the persons of ignorance. There is no worth in overdoing ammunition restrictions. There is very little republican, that is republic-preserving, worth in doing ammunition restrictions of any sort, really.

This is not as a rule bad; you're just pretending it is because this philosophy doesn't happen to be agreeable to you. Making a philosophy fact is exactly the thing that started our nation, I'll have you keep permanently in mind.


Id est, the current state of affairs -- which is always subject to suitable modification if some details are unsatisfactory. Amend and repeal.

This is not subject to proof or to disproof, Pierce. That you would complain about someone telling you of the freer way and insist on taking the less free way tells us something about your thinking: that it is not free, nor remarkably adult.

At its best, the Libertarian Party is the Party of Adult Thinking. This sometimes leaves the libertarian thinker just a bit uncomfortable. But that's the price of freedom -- and if you can have freedom at that price, that's a damned good bargain.

I do; as I've said on other threads here, it is difficult to use a nuclear weapon as designed and intended in a moral way. Collateral damage (counting radioactive pollution under that heading) and collateral deaths are too large a problem, and there doesn't seem a solution to it on the Earth's face.

In deep space, there the problem is much reduced if not completely solved, but evoking science fiction isn't a very present help in this present trouble.

Killing tools of a less comprehensive nature are easier to use morally: though some would have us believe that only killing those who should be killed is some kind of moral failure in itself. This is an idea I don't buy.

UG, you don't think that you might be a bit biased as well? It is natural for you and Radar to side with unalienable rights because your views do not allow you to have any leeway with those issue so making it absolute works best for your interests. While I and others accept some leeway in some scenarios so I will naturally side with the idea that rights were created by society. Now where we can see how our argument started, lets do this in a more laid out and break this down step by step. Remember, this is just philosophy so there are no right or wrong answers. ;)

By this I am not saying you do not have an answer, just I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Who gives us our rights?
You - ???
Me - We give ourselves rights by justifying our actions but society uses social norms and laws to influence which ones are more important.

What would humans be like without rights?
You - ???
Me - Humans cannot get rid of rights as long as we justify our actions. If we did that, we would still be able to perform the same actions like how any animal can defend itself (right to life) dig a den (right to property...kind of) or hump on my leg (pursuit of happiness) but we would just not justify our actions like how animals don't need to justify their actions.

If rights are just justifications, and humans are the only species that need to justify our actions, we can say that rights would not be discovered/created without the evolution of humans. Explain if you disagree with that logic.

When did the first human group discover/create rights?
You - ???
Me - When justification was needed to explain one's actions.

Did rights exist before humans evolved?
You - ???
Me - No, humans created rights so there was no concept of rights before humans evolved.

If you answer those questions I can get a better idea of what you believe and then we can further this debate.

We didn't make philosophy fact anymore than Iran made their Islamic philosophy fact or the Soviets made their philosophy fact. We all just made our philosophy into reality. Some will do better than others but that does not make a particular philosophy fact because of the enormous variation of initial conditions that can make or break a theory. Individual preference has a play in that as well because many Islamic conservatives would say their lifestyle is fact just as quickly as you have.

Oh c'mon. Can you at least try not to be so extremely biased?

Not and remain a decent moral being, no. Not for all the -- youthful -- piercehawkeye sophistry under Heaven. You like to clatter on, and voluminously, but in the end it's all just sophistry, without much wisdom in it.

Can you not abandon a nigh-fascist evil and join the people of freedom?

I thought he laid it out pretty nice for ya UG - why not answer his questions?

Why should he answer pierce's questions when pierce never answered mine?

From where I'm sitting, PH laid it out extremely well, very well done, and UG evaded it with utter shameful weakness and an ad hominem jab.

One signal of how strong your philosophy is, is how thoroughly you are willing to sincerely test it. Not just amongst others, but in your own mind as well. An avoidance of tests is telling.

What we repeatedly see from you, UG, is knee-jerk avoidance with flowery language. UG, you're not just hiding things from us, you're hiding things from yourself. All these high-falutin' vocab words are just nuanced obfustication. You believe if you *say* it smart, you don't have to actually *be* smart. And every time you're called on it, you dig an ostrich hole and hide in plain sight.

A more confident person would be embarrassed by this behavior. A smart but self-centered person says, "I know I am right. Bring on all challenges so I can laugh at them." A wiser person says, "I think I am right, but I am not the arbiter of truth. I have not learned all I can learn. So I will honestly check myself at every opportunity. Bring all challenges so I can consider them."

A smart person of weak character says, "These people are not smart enough for me to learn from." A wise person of strong character says, "People are of differing intelligence, but all from different points of view. All people have found their own truths, from perspectives I cannot ever share; therefore, there are no people I cannot learn from."

I'd like to know why public school education makes a difference to this debate.

Edit: for the record, I think it's arrogant to ask a question like that and not explain why, especially when pierce asked for an explanation after answering the question.

Amen, UT.

This one?

I said I wasn't going to get into that because I have not met a single person who doesn't think that he or she does not have the right to life so trying to take away or debate the right to life becomes pointless but I will try to explain further.

First, I have changed my stance slightly from just society to a more justification standpoint. If someone attacks me with a knife I will defend myself because I think I have a right to life, no matter if society thinks I do or not. Like morals, how strong someone believes in which rights are worth defending are individual decisions, but society will play a role in molding and enforcing those rights.

Since right to life is basically universally accepted I will not get into that right now but if we look at the difference between gun culture in country of America, where belief in the right to bear arms is extremely high, and Britain, where belief in the right to bear arms is lower. Now, it is stupid to say that genetics has anything to do with views because most "rednecks" (I am not using that in a bad way, just a label for whites that live in the country in lack of better word) are Brits, so we can narrow that down to sociological effects.

In "redneck America", the feeling that we have a strong right to bear arms is enforced socially in many ways (preaching, seeing guns in households, learning to shoot guns early, learning importance of guns and gun safety, media) while that enforcement is not present in Britain so it is only natural for "redneck America" to defend the right to bear arms more than in Britain. These are obviously generalizations, it is extremely possible that someone raised in "redneck America" doesn't believe so highly about zero gun laws while there is an equally high possibility that someone in Britain thinks about gun laws in the same way as you Radar.

That is how I believe rights work. They seem to work in the same way I have seen morals work.

Now I will try to dwell into right to life. Now, as I said earlier, I haven't met a single person that doesn't think they have a right to life so not only will every society have a strong social enforcement of the right to life, the individuals that do stray from that will not last long and will be wiped from the gene pool. So assuming that everyone believes they have a right to life, our views come together where there is ideally no justification to taking a life. It would be seen the same, but just not to that extreme, as a group that forces another group to have extreme gun laws against their will or a group that forces another group to have zero gun laws when they do want some.

If a group does not want the right to own assault rifles, then enforce gun laws, its their choice. If a group does want the right to own assault rifles, then don't have gun laws, its their choice. If you live in a society where the sociological voice goes against your personal views, you can either deal with it, fight to get it changed, or move.

To answer your questions more throughly, when I say society, I am making a generalization about what that society says. It obviously gets extremely complicated when we deal with societies that are split on issues and getting into subgroups ("redneck" and Urban America are different societies but both part of American society).

Hopefully that explains my view that guns laws should be democratically voted on and enforced by state, country, or city governments because "redneck" and urban America have such different views on gun laws and rights a universal law would screw over one of the two groups. It makes things more complicated but it is the only solution that does not totally violate a group's wishes.

Then prey tell me why Iran does not have the right to have a nuke?

That's an excellent question deadbeater. I can't wait for the answer. lol

They do have that right. All sovereign nations have the right of self-determination and can choose for themselves which weapons they will or won't develop.

The problem is that those nations who got the technology first, like to bully around other nations and say they can't or shouldn't have them.

Like the United States?

to be fair radar has always stayed consistent on that point. he has said in the past that everyone has the right to have every weapon. they simply don't have the right to use those weapons for anything but their own defense. IIRC

So he would have been happy enough if Iraq had had nukes and used them on the US when their country was illegally invaded?

what a nice mess we'd be in now if that were the case.

If Iraq had nukes, America would not have invaded. Bullies like Bush are only interested in easy victims.

It seems these days the only way to stop America from invading your country is to get nukes.