- Messages
- 1,631
- Reactions
- 1,753
No Kidding? (There Are Actual Rights In The US?)
The Market Ticker ® - Commentary on The Capital Markets
2014-01-19 15:59 by Karl Denninger
in 2ndAmendment , 3271 references Ignore this thread
No Kidding? (There Are Actual Rights In The US?)
From the no **** file we have this:
In the original ruling, Chang seemed to grant Second Amendment advocates a big win in both noting the responsibility of governments to protect its citizens, but also reportedly writing, on the other side of this case is another feature of government: certain fundamental rights are protected by the Constitution, put outside governments reach, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment.
This is from the ruling where the judge gave Chicago 180 days (six months) to re-write their law banning gun stores, stating that the city's law was clearly unconstitutional.
Well, duh.
But let's step back a bit because this really does speak to the issue, doesn't it?
From The Declaration:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Note: The Laws of Nature establish equal station, not man and therefore not Government.
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.
The root of these unalienable rights are found in the fact that one has, by virtue of being human, ownership of one's own person.
That is, you, and you alone, have the title, right and sole interest in the sack of meat that comprises your corporeal body. Nobody else does. You, and you alone possess that and you don't possess it because a King, a President, a Congress or a Parliament said so, you possess it by mere fact of your humanity.
--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Governments are instituted for one -- and only one -- purpose. To provide a means other than by taking one another's lives to secure that fundamental right and all that flows from it.
Absent government the only means of deterring someone from taking your right to self-ownership for themselves is to use physical force against them, and all such contests have the potential to devolve immediately into lethal force. This is undesirable, for many disputes have end-points that have no particular reason to devolve into one party (or both!) dying.
This does not mean that all disputes do not end in death even with government, but it does mean that a just government increases the odds that every-day and reasonable disputes will end in a fashion short of death.
There is no other just purpose for the existence of a government cited in The Declaration.
--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.
At the point that it becomes clear that the existing government exists primarily or even exclusively for other purposes it is the right of the people to alter said government if possible, or destroy it if necessary, and replace it.
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.
The people not only have the right to do so they have the duty to do so.
If you do not accept that you, and only you, own your sack of meat, then there is nothing further to discuss. You are not an American and whatever goals you choose to pursue politically are those not of American values. You thus are one of the people who the men that signed the Declaration were talking about.
If you do accept that you own your sack of meat then you must have the right to attempt to prevent its destruction irrespective of who is trying to destroy it. The only time that your right to do so is properly infringed is when you have attempted, or are imminently attempting, to damage or destroy someone else's sack of meat.
Now not all such means of destruction are by gun, baseball bat or knife. If you steal from someone you are in fact attempting to destroy their sack of meat; your theft may or may not cause such a destruction but your intent is to diminish the ability of that person to use that possession, whatever it may be, to further his or her own existence. That is, by definition, an attempt at destruction, because if I own my sack of meat then I have the right to determine what happens to it and to use my abilities to make its existence better. Your attempt to diminish same through the use of force or fraud is thus a crime. The only means by which you may take my possessions lawfully is to freely negotiate with me.
That is, I have the right to diminish or enhance my opportunity by whatever negotiation I choose of my own free will, without being conned or otherwise deceived, to enter into. If I choose to drink myself to death I have that right, because my sack of meat is my property and I have the right to destroy my own property. You, on the other hand, do not have the right to force me to drink myself to death, nor do you have the right to adulterate what I consume without honestly telling that you have done so, because in both cases you are attempting to destroy or diminish my property (my person, that is.)
In the instant case since I have the right to prevent you from murdering me, and since the only means known and ever invented by man (thus far) to equalize the weak and the strong, the male and the female, the old-and-infirm and the young-and-scrapping is the firearm I thus have the right to keep and bear defensive weaponry for that purpose. It is only when I attempt to, or do, use said weaponry for offensive purpose, that is to harm another beyond the boundaries of defense of my sack of meat from outside aggression, that I have committed an offense.
That is what Nature's Law states. That government widely disrespects Nature's Law and your ownership of your sack of meat is not material to what Nature's Law is.
In addition, and to the point for those unable to parse the Judge's words, one does not need to seek permission before choosing not to be victimized in this fashion. Such a demand is in fact both an assault and extortion as it is a demand to not take an action that one is entitled by Nature's Law to take, backed by the threat of force. The Constitution places such acts beyond the government's reach on purpose.
Indeed each act of such disrespect by a government, and each improper act of punishment for an action that is in conformance with Nature's Law places yet one more bit of mass on the scale justifying the alteration or abolishment of that particular organ of government.
One would think that governments formed, directly and indirectly from this original document would take good heed of this fact, for it is a fact, and not subject to dispute. Alas, it seems that in the intervening 200-odd years there are many who think that such founding principles are mere fantasies, as if the words written on that page never were written at all, nor did the brave men and women 200-odd years ago stand and demand those words be respected, along with being willing to enforce that demand if it became necessary.
I note for posterity that it did indeed become necessary.
One would hope that such an event would never need to be repeated, because in point of fact no organ of government founded through The Declaration can claim legitimacy while at the same time tracing its roots to that document.
Alas, it seems that certain political subdivisions of this nation have forgotten from whence they came.
It is my sincere hope that they choose to remember.
The Market Ticker ® - Commentary on The Capital Markets
2014-01-19 15:59 by Karl Denninger
in 2ndAmendment , 3271 references Ignore this thread
No Kidding? (There Are Actual Rights In The US?)
From the no **** file we have this:
In the original ruling, Chang seemed to grant Second Amendment advocates a big win in both noting the responsibility of governments to protect its citizens, but also reportedly writing, on the other side of this case is another feature of government: certain fundamental rights are protected by the Constitution, put outside governments reach, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense under the Second Amendment.
This is from the ruling where the judge gave Chicago 180 days (six months) to re-write their law banning gun stores, stating that the city's law was clearly unconstitutional.
Well, duh.
But let's step back a bit because this really does speak to the issue, doesn't it?
From The Declaration:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Note: The Laws of Nature establish equal station, not man and therefore not Government.
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.
The root of these unalienable rights are found in the fact that one has, by virtue of being human, ownership of one's own person.
That is, you, and you alone, have the title, right and sole interest in the sack of meat that comprises your corporeal body. Nobody else does. You, and you alone possess that and you don't possess it because a King, a President, a Congress or a Parliament said so, you possess it by mere fact of your humanity.
--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Governments are instituted for one -- and only one -- purpose. To provide a means other than by taking one another's lives to secure that fundamental right and all that flows from it.
Absent government the only means of deterring someone from taking your right to self-ownership for themselves is to use physical force against them, and all such contests have the potential to devolve immediately into lethal force. This is undesirable, for many disputes have end-points that have no particular reason to devolve into one party (or both!) dying.
This does not mean that all disputes do not end in death even with government, but it does mean that a just government increases the odds that every-day and reasonable disputes will end in a fashion short of death.
There is no other just purpose for the existence of a government cited in The Declaration.
--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.
At the point that it becomes clear that the existing government exists primarily or even exclusively for other purposes it is the right of the people to alter said government if possible, or destroy it if necessary, and replace it.
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.
The people not only have the right to do so they have the duty to do so.
If you do not accept that you, and only you, own your sack of meat, then there is nothing further to discuss. You are not an American and whatever goals you choose to pursue politically are those not of American values. You thus are one of the people who the men that signed the Declaration were talking about.
If you do accept that you own your sack of meat then you must have the right to attempt to prevent its destruction irrespective of who is trying to destroy it. The only time that your right to do so is properly infringed is when you have attempted, or are imminently attempting, to damage or destroy someone else's sack of meat.
Now not all such means of destruction are by gun, baseball bat or knife. If you steal from someone you are in fact attempting to destroy their sack of meat; your theft may or may not cause such a destruction but your intent is to diminish the ability of that person to use that possession, whatever it may be, to further his or her own existence. That is, by definition, an attempt at destruction, because if I own my sack of meat then I have the right to determine what happens to it and to use my abilities to make its existence better. Your attempt to diminish same through the use of force or fraud is thus a crime. The only means by which you may take my possessions lawfully is to freely negotiate with me.
That is, I have the right to diminish or enhance my opportunity by whatever negotiation I choose of my own free will, without being conned or otherwise deceived, to enter into. If I choose to drink myself to death I have that right, because my sack of meat is my property and I have the right to destroy my own property. You, on the other hand, do not have the right to force me to drink myself to death, nor do you have the right to adulterate what I consume without honestly telling that you have done so, because in both cases you are attempting to destroy or diminish my property (my person, that is.)
In the instant case since I have the right to prevent you from murdering me, and since the only means known and ever invented by man (thus far) to equalize the weak and the strong, the male and the female, the old-and-infirm and the young-and-scrapping is the firearm I thus have the right to keep and bear defensive weaponry for that purpose. It is only when I attempt to, or do, use said weaponry for offensive purpose, that is to harm another beyond the boundaries of defense of my sack of meat from outside aggression, that I have committed an offense.
That is what Nature's Law states. That government widely disrespects Nature's Law and your ownership of your sack of meat is not material to what Nature's Law is.
In addition, and to the point for those unable to parse the Judge's words, one does not need to seek permission before choosing not to be victimized in this fashion. Such a demand is in fact both an assault and extortion as it is a demand to not take an action that one is entitled by Nature's Law to take, backed by the threat of force. The Constitution places such acts beyond the government's reach on purpose.
Indeed each act of such disrespect by a government, and each improper act of punishment for an action that is in conformance with Nature's Law places yet one more bit of mass on the scale justifying the alteration or abolishment of that particular organ of government.
One would think that governments formed, directly and indirectly from this original document would take good heed of this fact, for it is a fact, and not subject to dispute. Alas, it seems that in the intervening 200-odd years there are many who think that such founding principles are mere fantasies, as if the words written on that page never were written at all, nor did the brave men and women 200-odd years ago stand and demand those words be respected, along with being willing to enforce that demand if it became necessary.
I note for posterity that it did indeed become necessary.
One would hope that such an event would never need to be repeated, because in point of fact no organ of government founded through The Declaration can claim legitimacy while at the same time tracing its roots to that document.
Alas, it seems that certain political subdivisions of this nation have forgotten from whence they came.
It is my sincere hope that they choose to remember.
