National Federal Judge Rules Felons Aren’t Protected by Second Amendment

[The Heretic]

This is the kind of stuff about natural rights that no one really wants to think about.

Oh, us libertarians think about it a lot. If you don't have the right to those things you earn, you don't have the right to your own life.

 

[Koda]

But we're talking about individual human rights. For most of history people largely had communal ownership of possessions - often in the form of the leader controlling the ownership.

Was clothing community owned and controlled by the group leader? Individual rights like the idea of owning property are a part of Natural Right theory that goes back hundreds of years.

 

[Yarome]

I am saying that some people have made the assertion that Natural Rights do not exist because governments "can take away" those rights. Or putting it another way; they assert that no rights exist because all rights can be taken away.

The fact that a some people here have asked what Natural Rights are, while still arguing for 2A rights, indicates to me that those people do not understand the history of the BOR in the US Constitution, or even the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. Now maybe they were being rhetorical or facetious, but I don't believe so - I have encountered too many people who do not understand Natural Rights, much less delved into the history of them and the BOR.

I have also encountered people who assume/assert that all of the rights in the BOR only apply to US citizens, which indicate to me they don't understand Natural Rights or probably never heard of them.

You can interpret it that way, I guess. The way I interpret it is that natural rights have been established so they do exist, but they can in fact be lost... or rather... forfeited through the act of violating the natural rights of others. The rule of law must exist for the preservation of all persons natural rights. That's the only way a free society can exist.

I read the "what are natural rights" question as more rhetorical, but I don't doubt that some may be genuinely asking that question. Not everyone focuses or studies out the "why" of the freedoms they enjoy. Granted.

Edit: I was going to reply to the last bit, but that really is getting off on a philosophical and largely religion based tangent that isn't particularly germane to the thread topic or firearm related.

Let's refocus(?)

 

[RX-79G]

Was clothing community owned and controlled by the group leader? Individual rights like the idea of owning property are a part of Natural Right theory that goes back hundreds of years.

Hundreds of years out of tens of thousands. You might be the only one to use your clothes, but the idea that the village bread oven is owned by one tribe member to rent to other members is a recent idea.

It's the way we do things now, so we've adjusted our philosophies to support our preferences. There isn't anything natural about it.


At least the more philosophical things like dignity and free speech aren't tied directly to economics. Those are just ideas and behavior.

 

[Stomper]

LOVE those guys. Used to laugh my butt off listening to their skits back in the day.

Dave's not here!!

 

[The Heretic]

Hundreds of years out of tens of thousands. You might be the only one to use your clothes, but the idea that the village bread oven is owned by one tribe member to rent to other members is a recent idea.

Community owned property is an adjacent concept that has been discussed in our recent (~200 years ago) history; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

It isn't so much about such things as an oven that somebody created, but rather natural resources that need to and/or must be shared and/or protected. Such as public land, air, water and the mineral rights under the land.

FYI - this is where I part ways with some Libertarian economic theory; I hold that such "property" is never truly owned by an individual - it was not created by an individual, only "discovered" and often claimed, but not earned or created. It has always been there and usually needs to be protected from base human instincts (greed, ignorance, etc.). An individual might "claim" they own such property, they might develop/exploit it, but they never truly owned it.

Natural Rights theory does discuss "property" that an individual has created/bought with their own labor/currency, or that they inherited, such as clothes, food, shelter, tools (including guns) and other created property. Natural Rights maintains we own our own bodies, our own time, our own effort, and therefore also any property/wealth, we own because we bought it with the fruits of our labor, or that we created, or that someone has voluntarily given to us.

 

[RX-79G]

Natural Rights theory does discuss "property" that an individual has created/bought with their own labor/currency, or that they inherited, such as clothes, food, shelter, tools (including guns) and other created property. Natural Rights maintains we own our own bodies, our own time, our own effort, and therefore also any property/wealth, we own because we bought it with the fruits of our labor, or that we created, or that someone has voluntarily given to us

I'm sure it does. The philosophers that started these ideas definitely lived in a time where people legally owned possessions - and other people. But there was time before that.

 

[The Heretic]

I'm sure it does. The philosophers that started these ideas definitely lived in a time where people legally owned possessions - and other people. But there was time before that.

Human Nature is Human Nature. In the stone age, humans created property and maintained ownership; a person worked to create a stone knife (a LOT of work) and maintained personal ownership of that item. They may have voluntarily shared food they gathered alone, but it was voluntary sharing, not always mandated. If they killed an animal and used the skin as clothing or shelter, the individual owned the item.

 

[RX-79G]

Human Nature is Human Nature. In the stone age, humans created property and maintained ownership; a person worked to create a stone knife (a LOT of work) and maintained personal ownership of that item. They may have voluntarily shared food they gathered alone, but it was voluntary sharing, not always mandated. If they killed an animal and used the skin as clothing or shelter, the individual owned the item.

And if the chief said to give someone else your stone tool because you had two, you did. Because there wasn't a RIght to personal ownership developed at that time.

 

[Koda]

And if the chief said to give someone else your stone tool because you had two, you did. Because there wasn't a RIght to personal ownership developed at that time.

who says? How do you know how tribes operated in the stone age or whatever?

 

[The Heretic]

And if the chief said to give someone else your stone tool because you had two, you did. Because there wasn't a RIght to personal ownership developed at that time.

The right was there - it always has been - Natural Rights are based on what is "right" for human nature. Human nature has not changed dramatically in many many millennia. An individual could comply with the tribal/clan/group rules/demands, or leave that group.

Yes, groups (often more aptly named "mobs") often try to compel compliance with their wishes - that too is human nature, but it does not make every wish of the group "right". Rights of the Individual are the basis of Natural Rights. There is naturally a tension there between what the individual wants and what the group may want. Natural Rights theory addresses that tension.

 

[The Heretic]

who says? How do you know how tribes operated in the stone age or whatever?

We know about individual rights by implying them from archeological digs where we find pre-historic peoples buried (purposefully, or their bodies found where they died) with their personal possessions.

 

[RX-79G]

who says? How do you know how tribes operated in the stone age or whatever?

Stone age people like the Yanamomo still exist and are studied.

 

[RX-79G]

We know about individual rights by implying them from archeological digs where we find pre-historic peoples buried (purposefully, or their bodies found where they died) with their personal possessions.

Or buried with the tribe's possessions that they would need in the afterlife.

 

[The Heretic]

Or buried with the tribe's possessions that they would need in the afterlife.

A person's clothes, jewelry, tools are typically their own. This is human nature. It is just as valid, even more so, to assume they are personal possessions.

 

[Koda]

Rights of the Individual are the basis of Natural Rights. There is naturally a tension there between what the individual wants and what the group may want. Natural Rights theory addresses that tension.

Learning that possession is a part of natural rights changes the understanding of it. We can try to guess how people exercised their rights in ancient history but that does not change natural rights. Even a hard core socialist and communists today owns posessions, and their governments have to be careful how they oppress their power over them even if they do.

 

[RX-79G]

The right was there - it always has been - Natural Rights are based on what is "right" for human nature. Human nature has not changed dramatically in many many millennia. An individual could comply with the tribal/clan/group rules/demands, or leave that group.

Yes, groups (often more aptly named "mobs") often try to compel compliance with their wishes - that too is human nature, but it does not make every wish of the group "right". Rights of the Individual are the basis of Natural Rights. There is naturally a tension there between what the individual wants and what the group may want. Natural Rights theory addresses that tension.

Look, that's the problem with all this natural rights stuff - it is easy to say some principle exists and then retroactively apply it where you want to support your philosophy. But most of the world population consisted of serfs until only very recently, so saying there was some natural law that no one applied for most of history implies that this natural law has little clout or inspiration.

120 years ago it was considered immoral for a man to wear a wrist watch (they were for women). Something similar happened to men wearing their hair long in the late 19th century. People like to take their current values and act like they are universal and historical, but often enough they are not.

 

[P7M13]

TLDR.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I deem 'well regulated' as being trained, able to take orders, and operates within rules.
Drugs, non-condoned violence, theft -- (in theory) all those would be grounds for a dishonorable discharge from the military for essentially being 'unregulated'.
I don't have compassion for offenders. IDGAF if they have addiction problems, their mother didn't love them as children or whatever excuse some may conjure. Can't obey society's rules, feed them into the wood chipper. Here we get into the gray area of "which rules", as I think we would all agree there are a lot of BS laws codified by local, state and federal entities.
There will always be good and bad apples among us. As I say, great freedom necessitates equally great brutality, and places the responsibility for that freedom squarely on the shoulders of the individual. Broach simple laws of civility, and experience the repercussions of that brutality.
So while one may legitimately ask "which felons?" I say they already sorted themselves out -- phuk 'em.
Besides, how many felons actually obey society's laws?

 

[Koda]

Look, that's the problem with all this natural rights stuff - it is easy to say some principle exists and then retroactively apply it where you want to support your philosophy. But most of the world population consisted of serfs until only very recently, so saying there was some natural law that no one applied for most of history implies that this natural law has little clout or inspiration.

I think what The Heretic is suggesting is a more broad context, even you operate under Natural Law regardless if you understand or know its in action. You suggested that a chief could demand someones property, and thats exactly whats happening today with guns... and people are resisting those efforts. Just like any prehistoric example we might imagine.

The definition of Natural Rights are any rights that laws cannot take away. Its interesting to learn how simple possession factors into this.

 

[The Heretic]

Look, that's the problem with all this natural rights stuff - it is easy to say some principle exists and then retroactively apply it where you want to support your philosophy. But most of the world population consisted of serfs until only very recently, so saying there was some natural law that no one applied for most of history implies that this natural law has little clout or inspiration.

I didn't say "history"; I said "pre-historic".

Also, there was many millennia of history before the European ages of serfdom.

I am pointing to basic human nature that hasn't changed since we became sentient. Indeed, many other animals, including primates have similar instincts and nature. Yes, humans share, and yes, we form social groups, but we also have a natural instinct to acquire and keep personal property to ourselves - the more effort & time we put into that acquisition, the more tendency we have towards keeping it to ourselves.

Socialism, especially enforced by law, has seen some spectacular failures.