Self-Defense: The Individual Right

[Phil Elmore]

Sneak Preview of Martialist Editorial: Self-Defense, The Individual Right

 

[Trent]

Outstanding article Phil. Everyone here should read it and consider it deeply, especially those who don't agree with it.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Thanks, Trent. I'm actually surprised it has not gotten more responses, since it's a fairly strong statement of belief.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

:roflmao: OK, let me get this straight:


the only "correct" or "valid" social contract we have is to not mess with each other, but it is a restriction of our rights to be under social obligation to HELP one another

collective or shared property means that no-one has anything, that there is nothing

government is wrong and evil

Please tell me that you grew up in this country, that someone in your family has taken advantage of Social Security, public schools, National Parks or Monuments, city or state programs.

 

[Baoquan]

Hey Phil,

you ever make it past 17th Continental philosophy? Put down Hobbes, pick up Foucault, or Eco.

 

[tshadowchaser]

When some misguided individuals appeal to "collective rights" with regard to self-defense, they are invariably making a plea for the subordination of the individual to the collective, for the infringement of rights in exchange for something they identify incorrectly as a "greater good" or a "collective benefit."

Refusing to initiate force does not mean, of course, that you cannot use force morally in your defense. When force is initiated against you, there is no other recourse but to use force in response. By definition, you cannot reason with someone who has rejected reason. You must therefore respond in kind. Ideally, you must respond with superior force, though legally we are allowed only parity of force.

An aggressor who seeks to harm you without provocation and without justification -- he who initiates force -- is committing an immoral act, violating your sovereignty and granting you moral sanction to use force (preemptively or in retaliation) in order to eliminate the threat.

I don't agree with much of what phiil writes at times but I do agree with the above statements.

As a whole I find the article way beyound what most people would care to read or try to understand. Some of it I agree with much I found unnessicary for a self defence article.

 

[Phil Elmore]

the only "correct" or "valid" social contract we have is to not mess with each other, but it is a restriction of our rights to be under social obligation to HELP one another

It is an infringement of our rights to be forced to help someone. You should, out of respect for your fellow human beings' potential as human beings, feel favorably towards them and help them if you choose to do so. To be forced to do so is not morally right, however, and there is no moral justification for it.

collective or shared property means that no-one has anything, that there is nothing

For something to be "collectively owned" is oxymoronic, for reasons explained in the piece, yes. When "everyone" owns something, no one does -- because ultimately access is determined by a select few in power, regardless of lip service to the contrary.

government is wrong and evil

Did you truly read what I wrote? I said quite explicitly that government is a necessary evil. The role of government in a free society must be strictly and narrowly defined. This is not the same as wishing for no government at all.

Please tell me that you grew up in this country, that someone in your family has taken advantage of Social Security, public schools, National Parks or Monuments, city or state programs.

Please confine your arguments to rational, substantive points built on the points in the article, rather than fallacious attacks on the arguer.

you ever make it past 17th Continental philosophy? Put down Hobbes, pick up Foucault, or Eco.

I'll take Locke over Hobbes any day. I thought Foucault's Pendulum was stimulating, but a little disappointing.

 

[Baoquan]

It is an infringement of our rights to be forced to help someone. You should, out of respect for your fellow human beings' potential as human beings, feel favorably towards them and help them if you choose to do so. To be forced to do so is not morally right, however, and there is no moral justification for it.

Hmm...yeah, that reminds me of your inimitable manimals spray, in which you recount how you watched a homeless man bother a young woman, did bugger all about it, but ran home to write a staggeringly inhumane load of @ss about how "sub-humans" are adversely affecting modern society.

There are two kinds of evil people; those that perpetrate evil acts, and those who stand by and do nothing as evil acts are perpetrated.

For something to be "collectively owned" is oxymoronic, for reasons explained in the piece, yes. When "everyone" owns something, no one does -- because ultimately access is determined by a select few in power, regardless of lip service to the contrary.



Did you truly read what I wrote? I said quite explicitly that government is a necessary evil. The role of government in a free society must be strictly and narrowly defined. This is not the same as wishing for no government at all.



Please confine your arguments to rational, substantive points built on the points in the article, rather than fallacious attacks on the arguer.



I'll take Locke over Hobbes any day. I thought Foucault's Pendulum was stimulating, but a little disappointing.

If you put your stuff out on the web for others to read and comment on, especially a tired and overabused load like that, dont get huffy when they do.

You failed to answer FM's questions, btw. Have you ever enjoyed the benefits of public schools and parks? Social Security? Or, adversely, how many people have you educated, or parks have you built? Are you a big philanthropist, Phil?

Its awfully easy to spout about the infringement of personal freedoms, and sometimes, its very warranted. However, throwing out the old "lip-service" and "non-thought" memes to undermine the possibility of collective good is both unconvincing and philosophically retarded.

To paraphrase, you back at yourself, if you could also limit your comments to the rational and substantive, i for one would appreciate it.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Hmm...yeah, that reminds me of your inimitable manimals spray, in which you recount how you watched a homeless man bother a young woman, did bugger all about it, but ran home to write a staggeringly inhumane load of @ss about how "sub-humans" are adversely affecting modern society.

Spoken like someone who doesn't have to interact with the homeless on a regular basis. Such creatures are adversly affecting modern society and they also pose an individual security threat -- but of course, don't let that get in the way of helping you feel all compassionate and falsely morally superior.

There are two kinds of evil people; those that perpetrate evil acts, and those who stand by and do nothing as evil acts are perpetrated.

There are two kinds of people in the world -- people who think there are two kinds of people, and people who don't.

If you put your stuff out on the web for others to read and comment on, especially a tired and overabused load like that, dont get huffy when they do.

Who's huffy? The points raised were addressed in the original piece, as I pointed out.

You failed to answer FM's questions, btw.

That's because I don't fall for rhetorical traps designed to remove the discussion from the substantive points raised to logically fallacious territory.

Its awfully easy to spout about the infringement of personal freedoms, and sometimes, its very warranted. However, throwing out the old "lip-service" and "non-thought" memes to undermine the possibility of collective good is both unconvincing and philosophically retarded.

That might be true -- if the piece included nothing but that. It does not; it is a fairly thorough (if brief, given space restraints) derivation and identification of natural rights coupled with the applications implications of them. There is no such thing as a "collective right," and there is no "collective good." The term is an oxymoron designed to help people feel better about taking what they have not earned in order to be generous and compassionate with other people's earnings. The concept extends to the use of the "collective good" argument in passing civilian arms prohibition legislation -- which, in effect, violates the individual's right to self-defense in the name of the non-concept of the collective.

To paraphrase, you back at yourself, if you could also limit your comments to the rational and substantive, i for one would appreciate it.

Would you? It does not appear so, since there is no substance to your comments -- but there is certainly much personal hostility. If we remove from your post everything that is not an indignant personal attack, with what are we left? Precious little, I'm afraid.

(Now this is the sort of response I thought the article would get. )

 

[Bod]

There is no such thing as the collective; there are only quantities of individuals. Every group of people can be broken into individuals.

And every person can be broken into individual cells. So people don't exist either. It's pointless discussing their rights, when you should be talking about the rights of their individual cells. Or should it be the atoms withins their cells?

But a cell is not a rational being. Why not? It always behaves rationally. It doesn't do anything irrational.

So if we don't define a rational being as an entity that behaves rationally (such as a block of wood) then what is a rational being?

A being that can change it's behaviour from irrational to rational? But surely it can change back? How many smokers have you seen go back to cigarrettes after kicking the habit, and then heard them say 'I know it's wrong but I'm doing it any way.'

Humans are characterised by their irrationality!

Maybe humans have the capability to reason. What is this capability? A computer can deduce things logically. What do we do that is different. Why, we induce things, illogically! It is our irrationality that makes us human.

Does a collection of communicating human beings act more or less rationally than a single person? Can it survive without 'rights'? Can it try to survive without 'rights'?

The 'right' of an individual to try to survive is pretty meaningless if the species does not survive. People in general don't just want to survive. They know they can't in the long run. Sometimes they want procreate, so that the species survives.
People do other things for the 'right' of a collective to survive. Sometimes they go and get themselves killed. Yes, they are willing to die for their country. Go and tell a war widow that their husband died irrationally, fighting for nothing but a collectivist nonsense. That he should have thought rationally of his own 'rights'. Hmm.

 

[Phil Elmore]

And every person can be broken into individual cells. So people don't exist either. It's pointless discussing their rights, when you should be talking about the rights of their individual cells. Or should it be the atoms withins their cells?

But a cell is not a rational being. Why not? It always behaves rationally. It doesn't do anything irrational.

So if we don't define a rational being as an entity that behaves rationally (such as a block of wood) then what is a rational being?

That's a faulty analogy. When a molecule of any given substance is broken down into its component atoms, it ceases to be that substance and ceases to possess the properties of that substance. By the same token, a human is capable of goal-directed and volitional action. A cell is not.

Humans are characterised by their irrationality!

No, humans are characterized by their volition. You are a creature of volitional consciousness. You may choose to act rationally or you may allow your emotions and your instincts and your impulses to override your capacity to reason.

Maybe humans have the capability to reason. What is this capability?

It is the ability to organize the data provided by our senses into concepts -- to integrate what we see and hear into abstracts from which we draw conceptual conclusions.

A computer can deduce things logically. What do we do that is different.

Computers are not conceptual. They do not think abstractly, at least not as we do (not yet). (I'm no expert on the computer applications and programming involving "fuzzy logic.") When they can do so as well as can we, artificial intelligence will have been born.

Why, we induce things, illogically! It is our irrationality that makes us human.

An inductive argument can indeed be a logical one, provided we produce a compelling body of evidence to substantiate it.

Does a collection of communicating human beings act more or less rationally than a single person? Can it survive without 'rights'? Can it try to survive without 'rights'?

A collective of human beings cannot take action. A collective is a concept, not truly an entity. Only the individual human beings comprising what we choose to identify as the collective may take action, and then they may do so only individually. Their efforts may indeed occur in concert, but that does not change the fact that each of them acts independently. Until you can place some sort of governing chip in humans' brains and force them to act as one according to your puppetry, they will never truly "act" as a collective -- and even then, arguably, it is you who is acting, using them merely as tools.

The 'right' of an individual to try to survive is pretty meaningless if the species does not survive.

The survival of a species is meaningless if the individual members of that species do not survive. No "species" truly survives, for a species is a classification. It is not an entity. If enough representatives of a given species -- enough people who possess traits that we have chosen to identify as that species -- survive individually, we may choose to call it the survival of the species, but in fact it is the individuals who have survived and who have taken goal-directed action for their survival.

People in general don't just want to survive. They know they can't in the long run.

I concur; mere survival is not enough if one lives irrationally. However, in order to do anything in life over more than the short term, one must take goal-directed action and exert effort towards long-term survival. It is this that makes all other actions possible. The alternative is to take no action, because one has ceased existing.

Sometimes they want procreate, so that the species survives.
People do other things for the 'right' of a collective to survive.

Collectives do not and cannot have "rights." This is a non-concept, as I stated already.

Sometimes they go and get themselves killed. Yes, they are willing to die for their country. Go and tell a war widow that their husband died irrationally, fighting for nothing but a collectivist nonsense. That he should have thought rationally of his own 'rights'. Hmm.

Rational human beings may choose to die because the alternative is to live irrationally or to live in a world in which living rationally is not possible. This is why brave men and women give their lives in war, ideally -- to preserve a world in which it is possible to live rationally (and therefore freely).

 

[Phil Elmore]

For more detailed information on these concepts, go to...

The Philosophy Page at PhilElmore.com

 

[Bod]

The survival of a species is meaningless if the individual members of that species do not survive.

Nope, a species can survive when individual members cease to exist. And that survival will have meaning.

No "species" truly survives, for a species is a classification. It is not an entity.

Yep, and the wind doesn't truly blow, for air is merely a collection of molecules. It is not an entity.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Nope, a species can survive when individual members cease to exist. And that survival will have meaning.

You're not grasping this. A species cannot survive unless individual members of the classification we call a species are themselves surviving. It is the individuals who do the surviving, not the species.

To put it another way, no species can survive without individual surviving members to comprise it.

Yep, and the wind doesn't truly blow, for air is merely a collection of molecules. It is not an entity.

Flawed analogies don't bolster your point. The blowing of wind, the explosion of stars, the rising of tides -- these are not mortal entities capable of goal-directed action. Do you classify all inanimate objects as entitites rather than as existents?

 

[pete]

sharp phil,

the picture you paint is one of a very lonely existence; a perception of a world which i do not share. rather than argue this point till the dead horse is deader, i'll just leave it as the difference between you and i, and will respect your view as such.

the analogies put forth by other posters are in fact valid and while flawed in your view, not necessarily flawed universally. specifically, one analogy to the many cells losing their individuality by becoming a human entity can be related to many humans losing their individuality by becoming part of a group... herd mentality is how i'd describe it.

your use of the word creatures to describe the homeless is, well, a little telling of our differences. having been born and bred new yorker, i think i've seen and interacted with my fair share of such misfortuates. many are there because the choose to, others would rather be somewhere else. on the whole it is quite sad, but pose little threat to others. its not my place to decide what's best for them, and in retrospect can only feel regret of not helping them more.

you seem to be quite literate and skilled debater, with whom i do not wish to argue, but simply state that your views are just that and not universally held even though you choose to write them as such. but i think you understand that and get opposition as expected.

"not quite dull" pete

 

[Bod]

You're not grasping this. A species cannot survive unless individual members of the classification we call a species are themselves surviving.

Yes. But the species can survive while individual members die. Which was the point I was arguing.

Still, feel free to assume that I'm not grasping what you're saying. It doesn't make me look stupid. Grasped that?

Do you classify all inanimate objects as entitites rather than as existents?

No. I classify some inanimate objects and some animate objects and many collections of both as entities. I also classify the relations between them. Existent classifying is not in my job description. I am, after all, a database programmer, and not a semantic obfuscationist.

Flawed analogies don't bolster your point.

Correct. I have not created any flawed analogies to bolster my point.

a human is capable of goal-directed and volitional action. A cell is not.

And a soccer team is capable of goal-directed and volitional action. Well, some of them are.

Don't tell me that a soccer team comprises of 11 people who all, of their own separate wills, wish to kick a ball into a certain net. No. They only wish to do it because that is what the team wishes.

Irrational? Yes! Fun? Yes!

Some people experience absurd joy to see their team win.

Also, the vast majority of people will experience irrational pain when they hurt another. This is the nub of the argument. Arguing your rational 'right' to self defence is pointless, because that pain will be felt, to the point it may rule your life. If you truly are guarding your own self interest, you have to know yourself.

Do I let myself get walked all over? No!

I believe in balance. I've faced the fear of hurting others and know how far I'd go to avoid the pain of being hurt by others, the pain of fear, and the pain of seeing my loved ones get hurt.

The only reason for determining yourself to have a right to self defence is to be able to justify actions to yourself that you normally couldn't justify.

Look at it this way: If you had, logically, no right to self defence would you defend yourself from harm? Of course you would! Logic be damned!

So asserting that you have a 'right' to do unquantifiable things: rationally assess a risk and preemptively strike for instance is not useful. If I know that I have neither a right to nor a prohibition against striking preemptively, then I know I'd better get it as right as I possibly can, and that means assessing potential risks ahead of time as well as I can.

Asserting some 'inviolable right', on the basis of a bunch of pie in the sky unprovable theories, is just a way of glossing over my responsibility to myself to criticise my future actions on how I am likely to feel about them after the event. That includes weighing up my attitude to myself and my compassion for loved ones and for strangers of different types.

If you can't grasp that then stop spewing your rationalizations for causing the maximum pain at the earliest possible moment to the "filth", "manimals" and whatever other pejoritive names your fear-motivated, hating, splenetic rants give to the objects of your online anger.

 

[Phil Elmore]

the picture you paint is one of a very lonely existence; a perception of a world which i do not share. rather than argue this point till the dead horse is deader, i'll just leave it as the difference between you and i, and will respect your view as such.

I don't see it that way at all. Respect for your fellow human beings -- for their rights and for their boundaries -- makes it easier to share their lives with them on a voluntary basis. It is societal compulsion -- collectivist interference with the rights of individuals -- that breeds discontent and builds walls between and among citizens.

the analogies put forth by other posters are in fact valid and while flawed in your view, not necessarily flawed universally.

Well, no, they're not, and yes, they are. An analogy is flawed when its components are not analogous the argument against which they are directed. For example, comparing natural physical phenomena like wind to the actions of mortal human beings simply isn't credible in the context of this discussion and with regard to the subject matter.

Specifically, one analogy to the many cells losing their individuality by becoming a human entity can be related to many humans losing their individuality by becoming part of a group... herd mentality is how i'd describe it.

The cells of your body are do not possess your volitional consciousness. They are not functional, independent entities and never will be. You could attempt to draw a less flawed analogy by comparing, say, sperm to human beings, and making some argument about how those sperm become a part of the "collective" that is the human body. This still would not support an argument for the existence of oxymoronic "collective rights" because a sperm is arguably the very person it grows into (though you could score some debating points by pointing out that it is only half the resulting person). It still has no volition; sperm do what sperm do, always, and can no more choose to take a different route consciously than they can choose not to leave altogether when... er... called on.

your use of the word creatures to describe the homeless is, well, a little telling of our differences. having been born and bred new yorker, i think i've seen and interacted with my fair share of such misfortuates. many are there because the choose to, others would rather be somewhere else. on the whole it is quite sad, but pose little threat to others. its not my place to decide what's best for them, and in retrospect can only feel regret of not helping them more.

I have utter contempt for the homeless, that is true. I have watched my city's downtown become a wasteland in which no citizen can walk freely from point A to point B without being accosted by stinking, diseased, increasingly aggressive panhandlers. I have witnessed and have personal knowledge of numerous threatening incidents. It sickens me. These are no longer people at all, but some manner of societal predator. At the very least they are societal parasites -- scavengers who are only too content to play the roles of predators when they see victims of suitable weakness.

As I wrote in Martialist Affirmations Waiting for Coffee...

Anyone capable of holding [views sympathetic to the homeless] has not walked the gauntlet endured by countless urban pedestrians every day. Men and women who actually contribute to society, who in many cases are walking to jobs they'd rather not work for less pay than they deserve, must suffer further by dodging the grasping claws and barked demands of harassing, unstable, persistent panhandlers.

Why does this topic make me so angry? I am, after all, a lone, armed white man more than capable of fending off a single panhandler. I am not angry for myself, though. I am angry for every woman who has ever felt disgusted and fearful listening to the catcalls and feeling the gaze of a stinking, too-close beggar looming in her path. I am angry for every peaceful man who has had to wonder if he must use his fists simply to walk through a parking lot or down the street. I am angry for every person who is walking with his or her children, who has a physical disability, or who just doesn't wish to be yelled at by strangers who want what they have not earned.

The Affirmations article is worth reading because it recounts yet another true story. I ended it as follows:

Now, is he a harmless hobo whom society has left behind? Is it just possible that when approached by a shaking, angry, reeking man – who is yelling obscenities and cursing you out for refusing him money – you'll recognize him for the threat he represents?

Compassion is a wonderful thing Misplaced compassion will get you maimed or killed. No amount of compassion will change the harsh realities of street predation. Remember that the next time you're out.

Okay, back to the post:

you seem to be quite literate and skilled debater, with whom i do not wish to argue, but simply state that your views are just that and not universally held even though you choose to write them as such. but i think you understand that and get opposition as expected.

That is entirely fair. I always write confidently. I believe in supporting my views logically. I take it as a given that my opinion is just that -- mine. Anyone wishing to dispute it is free to do so, and I will glady discuss the matter if they're capable of doing so substantively.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Yes. But the species can survive while individual members die. Which was the point I was arguing.

You're still not getting it. There can be no survival of a species that lacks individual members who are themselves surviving -- because it is the individuals who do the surviving. A species is a classification. It cannot exist without individual members. It is those individual members who take actions that either promote or act against their survival. The collective takes no action; only its individual components can do so.

Still, feel free to assume that I'm not grasping what you're saying. It doesn't make me look stupid. Grasped that?

There is no need to get angry. I'm simply pointing out a concept that you don't seem to understand by virtue of the way you're choosing to argue it. Look at it another way: you could argue that a government or a corporation can "outlive" its board of directors and its president. This is true on paper, but if none of the individuals who are the entities capable of goal-directed action survive, there can be no corporation or government. Collectives are conceptual fictions -- arbitrary groupings of individuals. Only individuals survive (or fail to survive).

No. I classify some inanimate objects and some animate objects and many collections of both as entities. I also classify the relations between them. Existent classifying is not in my job description. I am, after all, a database programmer, and not a semantic obfuscationist.

This is not a matter of semantics. An entity, for purposes of this discussion, is a mortal being capable of goal-directed action. All entities are existents. Not all existents are entitites, however. Even if we do not agree on the definitions of the terms used, the concepts remain the same. You cannot compare a physical phenomenon such as weather to a mortal being in this context and expect the analogy to be anything but flawed.

Correct. I have not created any flawed analogies to bolster my point.

We've established that you've created flawed analogies. If this was not done to bolster your point, to what purpose was it performed? Were you simply jeering from the stands -- a spectator rather than a participant to a reasoned discussion? That is certainly your choice.

And a soccer team is capable of goal-directed and volitional action. Well, some of them are.

No, it isn't. No team, no committee, ever does anything. Only the individuals comprising them are capable of doing so. If you hold meeting after meeting but never assign "action items" to individuals who carry out those actions, your committee will never "act" -- because it cannot.

Don't tell me that a soccer team comprises of 11 people who all, of their own separate wills, wish to kick a ball into a certain net. No. They only wish to do it because that is what the team wishes.

There is no team. There is only a collection of individuals. Individuals who work together -- who work in concert -- toward shared goals remain individuals. There is no mystical team-being that takes over their bodies and performs tasks with them. Only their individual willingness to cooperate for mutual benefit makes it possible for them to act together -- to act as one metaphorically. They are still acting separately, for only individuals can act.

Also, the vast majority of people will experience irrational pain when they hurt another.

It is quite normal to experience grief, remorse, guilt, or any of a number of emotions when our actions hurt another being or beings. This is, in a rational human being, a recognition of and respect for our fellow human beings' potential as human beings.

This is the nub of the argument.

No, it isn't. This is an irrational tangent -- an attempt to argue morality using pleas to emotion. It's also built on the flawed premise that reason and rationality are incompatible with compassion, which they aren't.

Arguing your rational 'right' to self defence is pointless, because that pain will be felt, to the point it may rule your life.

I would caution you against projecting your own (or any hypothetical) emotional issues, weaknesses, or experiences on others in an attempt to make your points -- this has no credibility. One's emotions have no bearing on one's rights; emotions are not tools of cognition. The fact that you might feel bad because you were forced to use violence to defend yourself does not alter the moral justifications for doing so in the first place.

If you truly are guarding your own self interest, you have to know yourself.

That, at least, is true, but it proves my points rather than yours.

Do I let myself get walked all over? No!

Did anyone imply that you, personally, did?

I believe in balance. I've faced the fear of hurting others and know how far I'd go to avoid the pain of being hurt by others, the pain of fear, and the pain of seeing my loved ones get hurt.

I don't believe in balance, unless we speak of healthy diet, a diverse stock portfolio, or a good root in delivering physical techniques.

I don't believe there's such a thing as an acceptable level of tyranny, a tolerable amount of slavery, or an agreeable degree of theft. I also don't believe there's any moral equivalence between the pain felt by a rapist and the pain felt by the one he rapes -- particularly when the rapist is injured, crippled, or killed by his potential victim. I don't believe the pain of a murderer is comparable to the pain of those he murders. I believe we must recognize this morally and that is why I chose to write the article that starts this thread.

The only reason for determining yourself to have a right to self defence is to be able to justify actions to yourself that you normally couldn't justify.

This is logically fallacious. The reason for taking the time to derive, substantiate, and profess our inalienable right to self-defense is to provide philosophical support for those who find themselves at odds with people who seem determined to blame the victor for not being a victim and who delight in making it more difficult for free citizens to protect themselves from violence. In our society, burglars sue homeowners for getting hurt while breaking and entering. Muggers and rapists sue their victims for getting hurt when the victims fight back. Crowds of people who have supported disarming the law-abiding in the mistaken belief that this will make society "safer" are, in fact, the ones trying to justify something that cannot truly be justified.

The fact that so many people do not understand morality or the true nature of rights does not mean the burden of proof falls on those who do -- but it behooves the latter to make arguments as compelling as possible in order to defeat the former on the battlefield of ideas and in the legal and governmental arenas. Unfortunately, this is a battle between those who believe what they do rationally and those who do not -- which makes it extremely difficult for those trying to defend the inalienable right to self-defense. By definition, you cannot reason with someone who is unwilling to see reason, whose pleas for action are based on emotion rather than reality.

Look at it this way: If you had, logically, no right to self defence would you defend yourself from harm? Of course you would! Logic be damned!

I think you fail to grasp the more fundamental concept of "rights" and what these imply. A felon who has escaped custody may very well use violence against the police officers trying to capture or kill him. He is not engaging in "self defense" except in those most technical and literal of terms). He has committed immoral acts and is committing further immoral acts in an attempt to evade the consequences of his actions -- which is why we punish him still further if he shoots a police officer, but we decorate the police officer who shoots him (at least ideally). There is a fundamental moral difference between the two, and that is the moral difference I am going to great pains to identify.

A great many of the people who do not understand their rights commit this sin of establishing false moral equivalency. It would be merely unfortunate if it were not also offensive to those it equates with society's predators.

So asserting that you have a 'right' to do unquantifiable things:

This, too, is logically fallacious because we have not discussed anything thati s unquantifiable. Saying, "Your right to violence is inviolable" is asserting a right to something unquantifiable (broadly). Saying, "your right to self-defense is inviolable" encapsulates the context in which your actions take place (and thus quantifies them as retaliatory or preemptive in the face of a credible threat of initiated force).

If I know that I have neither a right to nor a prohibition against striking preemptively, then I know I'd better get it as right as I possibly can, and that means assessing potential risks ahead of time as well as I can.

Having the right to defend yourself and conducting yourself in the manner you describe are not mutually exclusive. In fact, in order to exercise your right to self-defense, you must first determine that what you are doing or will do is in fact self-defense. Preempting a credible threat is self-defense. Whacking someone for looking at you strangely is not. Rational people understand this and act accordingly, knowing they will be penalized if they do not (even in an ideal society in which the inalienable right to self-defense is recognized).

Too many people who do not understand both rights and force seem to believe recognizing your right to self-defense is license to behave violently and irresponsibly regardless of context. This is the straw man argument used most often by gun control groups, who howl about the blood in the streets that will follow if citizens' rights to arm themselves are not infringed. The howling is only lessened somewhat by the decrease in violent crime statistics that invariably follows (Florida and Texas in the United States are two states in which this occurred) -- but the diminished shrieking is only temporary, as such groups invariably find some other piece of misinformation on which to get hysterical.

Asserting some 'inviolable right', on the basis of a bunch of pie in the sky unprovable theories,

Simply dismissing as unprovable a logical derivation does not constitute a substantive refutation of it. You can only do that substantively and point by point.

is just a way of glossing over my responsibility to myself to criticise my future actions on how I am likely to feel about them after the event.

Your feelings are not tools of cognition, unfortunately. If you conduct your entire life and build your morality based on how you will feel, I suppose the best outcome for which you can hope is to be a hedonist. I'm not sure what that would accomplish, but you'd have fun.

That includes weighing up my attitude to myself and my compassion for loved ones and for strangers of different types.

Compassion and reason are not mutually exclusive, either.

If you can't grasp that then stop spewing your rationalizations for causing the maximum pain at the earliest possible moment to the "filth", "manimals" and whatever other pejoritive names your fear-motivated, hating, splenetic rants give to the objects of your online anger.

"Splenetic" is a good word; I shall have to remember it. The only person I see getting angry here is you, though I'll state gladly that I am outraged at the degree to which our society is being harmed by the presence of the societal parasites to which I referred earlier.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Gotta love the internet.

 

[Baoquan]

Spoken like someone who doesn't have to interact with the homeless on a regular basis. Such creatures are adversly affecting modern society and they also pose an individual security threat -- but of course, don't let that get in the way of helping you feel all compassionate and falsely morally superior.

Yeah, Sydney, a densly packed, urban centre with little or no urban planning to speak of doesn't have homeless people. And Australia doesn't have the most highly urbanized population on the planet. I couldn't see that for all the roos and koalas and stuff.

Hey Phil, would that paragraph be both (a) a logical straw man, and (b) a personal attack? Surely, you wouldn't sully this thread with things like that would you?

There are two kinds of people in the world -- people who think there are two kinds of people, and people who don't.



Who's huffy? The points raised were addressed in the original piece, as I pointed out.

So what have you done to help alleviate said problem??

That's because I don't fall for rhetorical traps designed to remove the discussion from the substantive points raised to logically fallacious territory.

No, what you do is fail to answer valid questions. You're "article" was an opinion piece, so other people's opinions, and questions towards the validity of your opionion based on your own life experiences are just as valid. Every time someone has questioned you, you either reply with "No, thats not valid," or "No, you don't get it."

Yeah, *someone* deosn't get it.

That might be true -- if the piece included nothing but that. It does not; it is a fairly thorough (if brief, given space restraints) derivation and identification of natural rights coupled with the applications implications of them. There is no such thing as a "collective right," and there is no "collective good." The term is an oxymoron designed to help people feel better about taking what they have not earned in order to be generous and compassionate with other people's earnings. The concept extends to the use of the "collective good" argument in passing civilian arms prohibition legislation -- which, in effect, violates the individual's right to self-defense in the name of the non-concept of the collective.

If it was "thorough", and the rights were "natural", why wouldnt the argument be more compelling? Why would so many respondants disagree? Mebbe because your arguments dont track, your opinion is unconvincing, and your article reads like a first year philosophy paper.

Its about as convincing as wearing a mass-produced necklace declaring yourself an individual.

Would you? It does not appear so, since there is no substance to your comments -- but there is certainly much personal hostility. If we remove from your post everything that is not an indignant personal attack, with what are we left? Precious little, I'm afraid.

(Now this is the sort of response I thought the article would get. )

Umm...nope, i won't. You see, I understand that once you place your opinions in the public sphere, any response is valid. Mebbe not constructive, or salient, but valid, nonetheless. You on the other hand, thank everyone that agrees with you, and state that anyone who disagrees "doesn't understand". So I'll continue to express my opinions on yours, and you, based on my experience of such. It might not be constructive, or salient, but it will be valid.

Finally, quoting oneself is really not done unless one is the leading authority on a subject, and it's really quite gauche even then.