Self-Defense: The Individual Right

[Athena]

phil-

first of all, i think your paranoia regarding homeless people is ridiculous. it discredits your arguments regarding them and until you present some statistics i will continue to think that you are being juvenile and subjective as hell. you're a writer, and so you of all people should know that respect often requires citations. this is one such case, and you can argue with me until the end of time, but (rightfully so) nobody respects those opinions... and not because they "don't understand."

on a less personal note, i think your comments about government being a necessary evil are interesting. aren't governments created in order to protect rights, not violate them? granted this violation is what inevitably occurs, but that is not the original intention. this then brings me to the question, "is it fair for a government to deny your rights in order to protect someone else's?" if self-defense is an inalienable right, what happens if you're incapable of defending yourself? is someone else required to defend you even if it denies them their rights as an individual? how do you choose who to violate if the choice must be made?

 

[Phil Elmore]

first of all, i think your paranoia regarding homeless people is ridiculous.

A recognition of reality is not "paranoia." It may offend your sensibilities and you may consider it harsh, but in this case it is the reality it self that is harsh. Ask anyone who lives or works downtown who has to run that reeking, barking gauntlet every day just how "paranoid" they are to be wary of it.

it discredits your arguments regarding them

No, it doesn't -- not in the eyes of anyone who's actually had to face the problem.

and until you present some statistics i will continue to think that you are being juvenile and subjective as hell.

Reality isn't a Google search or an actuarial table. These are self-evident facts. Go searching for statistics yourself, if you like; I've seen enough actual people who weren't figures in a chart to know more than I wish to know about the matter.

you're a writer, and so you of all people should know that respect often requires citations.

Actually, I think people put way too much emphasis on these things when the axiomatic stares them in the face.

on a less personal note, i think your comments about government being a necessary evil are interesting. aren't governments created in order to protect rights, not violate them?

Governments of free societies, properly defined and limited, are -- that is what makes them necessary. It is the potential for abuse and for overreaching of power that makes them inherently evil. It is Lord Acton's somber warning all over again.

"is it fair for a government to deny your rights in order to protect someone else's?"

No. That was the whole thesis of my article. It is never justifiable to infringe on someone's natural rights in the name of someone else's. By what rationale does the government pick and choose, elevating one individual over another in that fashion?

if self-defense is an inalienable right, what happens if you're incapable of defending yourself?

Rights are rights to action -- not guarantees of success. The fact that you have the right to protect yourself means you have the right to try. That is why it is a right to self-defense and not to continued life as such.

 

[Athena]

Rights are rights to action -- not guarantees of success. The fact that you have the right to protect yourself means you have the right to try. That is why it is a right to self-defense and not to continued life as such.

Does this mean that you disapprove of child rape laws? Should a 40-year-old man be allowed to molest an 8-year-old boy, as long as the defenseless 8 year old has the right to "try" to defend himself? If you create a law prohibiting this situation you are violating the man's right to sexual freedom. Is it still not okay to violate anyone's natural rights under any condition?

 

[Phil Elmore]

Does this mean that you disapprove of child rape laws? Should a 40-year-old man be allowed to molest an 8-year-old boy, as long as the defenseless 8 year old has the right to "try" to defend himself? If you create a law prohibiting this situation you are violating the man's right to sexual freedom. Is it still not okay to violate anyone's natural rights under any condition?

Setting aside for the moment that this example is logically spurious, please do not waste our time with intellectually dishonest ploys like this.

To answer the question, however, child rape laws exist because children (legal minors) do not have the capacity to make reasoned decisions regarding sexual contact, which is why they are considered the dependents of their parents (who are responsible for them until they are no longer minors).

Rape is forced sexual contact and therefore the initiation of force, which I've explained at great length is both immoral and unjustifiable. Laws punishing those who initiate force are entirely just.

There is no "right to sexual freedom with anyone and everyone" -- that would constitute a guarantee of [sexual] success. Certainly you have the right to pursue sexual gratification with any reasoned adult who chooses to do so with you voluntarily -- but this is not a right to sex or to "sexual happiness," because that again would constitute a gurantee of success in the endeavor.

Rights are rights to action, not guarantees to outcomes.

 

[Flatlander]

Does this mean that you disapprove of child rape laws? Should a 40-year-old man be allowed to molest an 8-year-old boy, as long as the defenseless 8 year old has the right to "try" to defend himself? If you create a law prohibiting this situation you are violating the man's right to sexual freedom. Is it still not okay to violate anyone's natural rights under any condition?

Athena, I have absolutely no idea how you arrived at this conclusion. Please try to keep the discussion on topic.

 

[tmanifold]

As Phil said a man has a right to have sex with whome ever he wants as long as that person gives consent. The issue is not sex with a young person per say, it is that the young person can not give reasoned consent. There for a 40 year old molesting, as you said (which btw instantly kills your arguement because molesting by definition is without consent), the 8 year old has pushed his will on another without their consent. He has attacked the eight year old and the state punishes him for it.

Is it still not okay to violate anyone's natural rights under any condition?

My natural rights stop when I intrude on another's. This is one of the most ignored facts when discussing human rights. I can't go out and attack someone because then I would be violating his natural right to self preservation. However, if he attacks me, my right to natural right to self preservation says I can defend myself because he violated my rights knowing the only way I had to stop him was to violate his. He gives implied consent by virtue of initiating contact and force.

 

[Athena]

Athena, I have absolutely no idea how you arrived at this conclusion. Please try to keep the discussion on topic.

i was wondering what his take on minors is, that's all. my apologies.

 

[Phil Elmore]

I don't take anybody's minors.

 

[Cruentus]

I read the article, but not the entire thread. I see points that I both agree and disagree with.

I have a question or two, though...

#1. Aren't things like the right to safety, the right to live in a clean environment, the right to fair competition, and the right to make a decent wage individual rights? If this is true, then why wouldn't the "right to have decent healthcare" be included here too...after all I think it is a safety issue.

#2. Our Individual survival relies on the rest of the species. This may not be true with all organisims, but it IS true with humans. We has humans would have been dead long ago without each other. True or not?

#3. SHOULD corporations, special interests, and other such collections of individuals have the same rights as an individual as defined by government?

#4. This is directed at Phil....Phil, what kind of society do you envision....or rather what social/governmental structure do you think would work the best?

Thanks for the time, all...

PAUL
:supcool:

 

[tmanifold]

#1. Aren't things like the right to safety, the right to live in a clean environment, the right to fair competition, and the right to make a decent wage individual rights? If this is true, then why wouldn't the "right to have decent healthcare" be included here too...after all I think it is a safety issue.

The problem with the right to health care is to question of what consitutes "decent" and at who's expense. Most people mean the best money can buy without paying for it. I live in canada where we have socialized health care. While it is nice to just go to the doctor when you need to rather than worrying whether or not you have insurance, in reality things rarely get done. It can take years for a surgery that would be done in weeks down in the US. Also 50 cents out of every dollar the province spends is on health care and we still can't get it right. That is with the average Canadian paying 40 percent income tax. (In Canada the Federal Gov. and the Provincal gov. share the cost for Health care with the province administering it.) The only solutions they can come up with is to throw more money at it.

#2. Our Individual survival relies on the rest of the species. This may not be true with all organisims, but it IS true with humans. We has humans would have been dead long ago without each other. True or not?

Yes and no. Humans are not herd animals. We could live quite successfully alone and only coming in contact with other humans to breed. However, we would not be were we are today in that mode. The sheer size and scope of our society requires multiple people to do projects of importance. Yet, those projects inverably start with one person.

#3. SHOULD corporations, special interests, and other such collections of individuals have the same rights as an individual as defined by government?

Only in the sense that it would be a recognition of a group of individuals with similiar rights. The a religion has no rights, only the individuals right to follow that faith and as such if the religion is outlawed it is an attack on those members right to believe whatever they want.

 

[Bod]

Setting aside for the moment that this example is logically spurious, please do not waste our time with intellectually dishonest ploys like this.

Well it wasn't a waste of my time, nor was Athena a liar as far as I can tell (that is what you mean by 'intellectually dishonest' isn't it Phil?).
If the purpose of this board is for you to spout your ideas and for us to listen and agree, then, yes it is a waste of our time. Otherwise I find the tone patronising to say the least. Posters with less rich vocabularies usually get clouted by the mods for such behaviour.
What the question has to do with the subject is:

Phil has stated

Democracy is simply majority (mob) rule.

He has stated that an elite (rather than elected) government should decide what is reasonable.

He seems to think he is reasonable. Thus it is not 'intellectually dishonest' to ask what he thinks of a certain situation.

Neither is it off topic. The only mistake Athena makes is to assume that Phil believes children of eight have any rights at all. In this thread Phil has stated:
and

You are born with the inalienable property right to you.

He also states that you belong to no-one. Elsewhere he has stated that a person gives up their inalienable right to their person when they commit a crime which infringes on another rights. Children of course infringe on others rights pretty much all of the time.

So do children have rights? If they belong to non-one they do not belong to their parents, so this is not a question of the parent's rights. It is a question of the child's rights.

Moral judgments only apply to mortal human beings. Where the line between a child who honestly doesn't understand his actions and a adult who does may lie, chronologically, is a topic worthy of debate.

Worthy of debate yes, but Phil's 'reasonable man' must know or it cannot be a 'rational' debate. Either the child has inalienable rights which can only be alienated from him when he does 'wrong' or he has no 'inate rights' until he reaches a certain age.

Thus the queston is valid. It still has not been answered satisfactorily.

As to whether such emotionally loaded questions have validity I can only quote Phil Elmore again. Being a 'reasonable man' (please read 'irony' not 'intellectual dishonesty') he seems to think the technique is valid

Phil Elmore 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

.

Hmm, one rule for 'the mob' another for the 'rational individual'.

 

[Phil Elmore]

#1. Aren't things like the right to safety, the right to live in a clean environment, the right to fair competition, and the right to make a decent wage individual rights?

No. You do not have rights to such things. If you did this would constitute the guarantee of a specific outcome, rather than a right to action. Guarantees of outcomes and claims to goods and services are not natural rights at all, for if they were they would justify enslaving and taking from others in order to fulfill the "rights" without the consent of those producing the necessary efforts.

If this is true, then why wouldn't the "right to have decent healthcare" be included here too...after all I think it is a safety issue.

You don't have a "right to healthcare." What is a doctor if not someone who takes the time and the trouble to become educated in order to trade his skill for value like any other person who offers a good or service for sale? You no more own the doctor's life and time than you own that of the retailer or the manufacturer.

You have the right to try and extend your life provided you violate no one else's rights in so doing. You have the right to try to survive. Neither of these rights constitutes the guarantee of continued life.

Our Individual survival relies on the rest of the species. This may not be true with all organisims, but it IS true with humans. We has humans would have been dead long ago without each other. True or not?

You are identifying the reason that it is in our interests to cooperate with each other for mutual benefit. Mutual gain is the reason any rational group of human beings choose to work with one another. Working towards a shared goal does not constitute the claim of one person (or group) on another person (or group) without consent.

#3. SHOULD corporations, special interests, and other such collections of individuals have the same rights as an individual as defined by government?

A corporation is a legal fiction; while those who comprise it can do certain things in its name (own property, for example), it should not and cannot have the same rights as does an individual.

A "special interest" is simply a group of individuls who have gathered together to lobby their government for whatever reason; we are all part of various "special interest groups" because we all believe in certain things and oppose (or support) certain laws.

Only mortal individuals have rights.

#4. This is directed at Phil....Phil, what kind of society do you envision....or rather what social/governmental structure do you think would work the best?

I envision a free society -- a Constitutional Republic, the role of whose government is strictly defined, whose laws protect the natural rights of the individual. This was the basis for the United States.

Well it wasn't a waste of my time, nor was Athena a liar as far as I can tell (that is what you mean by 'intellectually dishonest' isn't it Phil?).

Making bizarre conclusions like, "You must be against child rape laws, then" is an intellectually dishonest attempt to divert the discussion to some variation of, "You must be a bad person for holding the opinions you hold." It's a ploy, much as it would be a ploy if I said, "Jonathan, given what I know of you, you must support state protection of child molesters."

If the purpose of this board is for you to spout your ideas and for us to listen and agree, then, yes it is a waste of our time.

You're missing the point (as usual).

Otherwise I find the tone patronising to say the least.

Yes, Jonathan, but let us not forget that you find the use of your own name somehow offensive. Try not to read too much into others' text.

Phil has stated
Quote:
Democracy is simply majority (mob) rule.

He has stated that an elite (rather than elected) government should decide what is reasonable.

That is not correct. I have stated that there exist certain natural rights that must be protected regardless of the willingness of the majority to infringe on them. This is not the same as wishing for some sort of Platonic state in which elitists ignore the will of the people.

He seems to think he is reasonable. Thus it is not 'intellectually dishonest' to ask what he thinks of a certain situation.

No, but it is intellectually dishonest to use emotionally charged rhetoric like, "You must oppose child rape laws" in order to imply that your opponent would hold such a disgusting view.

Neither is it off topic. The only mistake Athena makes is to assume that Phil believes children of eight have any rights at all.

The appropriate way to word the query would have been something along the lines of, "But what about minors? Do they have rights and, if so, are they the same as those of adults?"

You are born with the inalienable property right to you.

He also states that you belong to no-one. Elsewhere he has stated that a person gives up their inalienable right to their person when they commit a crime which infringes on another rights.

If you'd read the piece in question you'd know that I also devoted considerable time to the sources of your rights -- among them your capacity to reason and the implications of choosing to use that faculty as a rational human being. As minors lack the capacity to reason, their parents or guardians are responsible for certain aspects of their lives and their decision-making processes until such time as those children can make such decisions.

This does not, however, make children the "property" of their parents -- for their parents still cannot sell them into slavery or physically abuse them. (If they do, the parents have violated the children's ultimate, inalienable property right to themselves and will be punished for it in a rational society.)

Children of course infringe on others rights pretty much all of the time.

This is a strange conclusion; if you mean they infringe on the property rights of their parents, you are mistaken given that the parents have chosen to have the children in the first place. If you mean children infringe on others' property rights you are likewise mistaken; my neighbors can no more drop off their kids to live with me than I can wander into their living room and watch their television without their permission.

So do children have rights? If they belong to non-one they do not belong to their parents, so this is not a question of the parent's rights. It is a question of the child's rights.

Children have certain rights from birth but lack full rights because they lack the capacity to reason as adults. They are the responsibility of their parents, but no the property of their parents. Parents accept this responsibility when they choose to produce those children.

Worthy of debate yes, but Phil's 'reasonable man' must know or it cannot be a 'rational' debate. Either the child has inalienable rights which can only be alienated from him when he does 'wrong' or he has no 'inate rights' until he reaches a certain age.

This does not follow; you are born with certain rights and your ability to reason confers certain others.

Thus the queston is valid. It still has not been answered satisfactorily.

Yes, it has.

As to whether such emotionally loaded questions have validity I can only quote Phil Elmore again. Being a 'reasonable man' (please read 'irony' not 'intellectual dishonesty') he seems to think the technique is valid

Please, Jonathan, keep your bitterness to yourself or this conversation will devolve yet again into a bout of pointless bickering. There is a substantive difference between identifying the implications of a philosophy (correctly) and posting some variation on the theme of, "You must be a bad person for having your opinion."

I understand you are frustrated, but do try to keep your input on topic and productive.

 

[Bod]

It's a ploy, much as it would be a ploy if I said, "Jonathan, given what I know of you, you must support state protection of child molesters."

Nothing wrong with saying that. In fact I do believe in state protection of child molesters in that I argue that the accused has the right to a fair trial by the state, and that the state should carry out the punishment.

The way I see it you have argued from a conclusion (the sort of government you want and the laws they should pass) to a set of axioms which, by the way, I deem unsupportable. From those axioms certain conclusions seem to me and others inevitable. Calling the questioning of either the axioms or the seemingly inevitable conclusions 'intellectually dishonest ploys' is disingenuous. Only a fool would take your assertions at face value and agree with them if they had reservations about the axioms or the conclusions drawn from them, either directly by you, or otherwise.

self
If the purpose of this board is for you to spout your ideas and for us to listen and agree, then, yes it is a waste of our time.
[Phile Elmore]
You're missing the point (as usual).

So the point of this board is for you to spout your ideas and for us to listen and agree? You haven't addressed the point I am supposed to have missed.

selfOtherwise I find the tone patronising to say the least.
Phil Elmore Yes, Jonathan, but let us not forget that you find the use of your own name somehow offensive. Try not to read too much into others' text.

Now I'm beginning to believe you are oblivious to the concept of the term patronising. I mean't that to sound irate, in case anyone thinks I'm oblivious to the tone or percieved tone of my own text.

I have stated that there exist certain natural rights that must be protected regardless of the willingness of the majority to infringe on them. This is not the same as wishing for some sort of Platonic state in which elitists ignore the will of the people.

Now that is a distinction too subtle for me to grasp. The only difference my underdeveloped intellect can percieve is the wording.

No, but it is intellectually dishonest to use emotionally charged rhetoric like, "You must oppose child rape laws" in order to imply that your opponent would hold such a disgusting view.

I implore you to read to the end of my posts before replying. I've dealt with this very issue further on.

Children have certain rights from birth but lack full rights because they lack the capacity to reason as adults.

Where, in your theory, do these rights, inate to a non-rational being, come from?

In my theory, childrens' rights come from the state, in response to the majorities' compasion for them. They are neither God given or inate, nor are they arbitrated by some 'reasonable man'. If the state does not give them these rights then the compassionate need to do what is necessary to ensure that they do.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Nothing wrong with saying that. In fact I do believe in state protection of child molesters in that I argue that the accused has the right to a fair trial by the state, and that the state should carry out the punishment.

Yes, but if I took that and said, "Jonathan, do you honestly think child molestation ought to be legal," I'd be engaging in a ploy intended to cast you in a bad light rather than addressing the concept you were describing.

The way I see it you have argued from a conclusion (the sort of government you want and the laws they should pass) to a set of axioms which, by the way, I deem unsupportable.

The axiomatic is not refutable by definition.

So the point of this board is for you to spout your ideas and for us to listen and agree? You haven't addressed the point I am supposed to have missed.

I haven't addressed it because in stating it your simply indulging in your dislike for me, rather than offering substantive ideas. Anyone is free to disagree with me -- but in doing so they must discuss ideas rather than simply blathering on about how I must be a bad person.

Now I'm beginning to believe you are oblivious to the concept of the term patronising. I mean't that to sound irate, in case anyone thinks I'm oblivious to the tone or percieved tone of my own text.

Yes, Jonathan. Given that I write for a living I must be ignorant of what the word means.

Now that is a distinction too subtle for me to grasp. The only difference my underdeveloped intellect can percieve is the wording.

Well, that's the problem, isn't it? It's the difference between a democracy and a Constitutional Republic like the United States as defined in its founding documens. The Founding Fathers put into a place a means whereby citizens held the reigns of government and possessed the mechanism of self-rule, yet also wrote into the fabric of the nation protections on what they considered inalienable rights. Thus, no matter how many people decide today that they wish to ban privately owned firearms, the Constitution's Second Amendment makes such an act unconstitutional and unsupportable unless the Constitution is itself changed. The First Amendment likewise protects freedom of religion regardless of how many people would like to, say, ban Islam because of the threat of terrorism.

This is what it means to protect inalienable rights against infringement by the majority. It is not the election or the appointment of a Platonic ruling class.

Where, in your theory, do these rights, inate to a non-rational being, come from?

If you don't own you, who does?

In my theory, childrens' rights come from the state, in response to the majorities' compasion for them. They are neither God given or inate, nor are they arbitrated by some 'reasonable man'. If the state does not give them these rights then the compassionate need to do what is necessary to ensure that they do.

No. The State cannot grant rights. It can only choose to protect them or to infringe on them.

 

[Bod]

If you don't own you, who does?

No-one. This question is ill formed. It is meaningless. It is predicated on the possibility of a 'rational existence'. If a child owns itself, and a child is not rational, then a dog could own itself, or a brick. This applies no matter how many times you state that only a mortal human being has objective rights.

You are simply defining an axiom. Irrefutable by definition maybe. But only because axioms can only be defined subjectively. Once they have been agreed the ymay be used objectively within an argument by the parties who agreed them. Outside that agreement they are merely subjective.

I've nothing against the subjective. Believing that the subjective is objective is not productive though.

On the subject of the constitution and gun control, well these matters are still subjective. The right to bear arms could mean a lot of things. But arguing for, or against, any position on gun control is still subjective. Do subjective arguments have merit? Yes. However discussing the merits and demerits of gun control is a sure-fire way to go off topic. I won't go there.

My principle beef with you is that you preach the idea of objective rights. I believe that the idea of objective rights is harmful especially in the arena of self defence.

My secondary problem with you is your methods. You seem to scare away those who do not have the time or bullishness to argue with you, even if they have something good to say. I'm here to learn, not to win arguments (OK not just to win arguments).

That's as honest as I can make it. Do I dislike you because you are bad? No, I used to believe in objective right and loved arguing simply for arguing's sake, doing anything and everything to win an argument. Was I bad? Dunno.

 

[Mark Weiser]

"In my theory, childrens' rights come from the state, in response to the majorities' compasion for them. They are neither God given or inate, nor are they arbitrated by some 'reasonable man'. If the state does not give them these rights then the compassionate need to do what is necessary to ensure that they do."


I have been reading this thread for a bit. I have to step in and say something in regards to the above statement. The State has no more power than those (people) chose to give it. Governement exist at the request of the People the way the above statement reads as if the State has a separate mind or ability to enact laws.

The congress (State representatives and senators) of the state make up the laws and have to vote on it giving it (the State) the illusion of being alive. Rights have never been GRANTED by any government organization. Rights vs privelges are a different matter. Thru the statues passed by a congress we as citizens of that state have certain privelges but the state can never add too or take awary RIGHTS.

In this definition you can see Rights and Privelges are separate

bill of rights
Usage: often capitalized B&R
: a summary of fundamental rights and privileges guaranteed to a people against violation by the state -- used especially of the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution

in the use of related words for RIGHTS here is some Synonyms appanage, birthright, perquisite, prerogative

A lot to chew on lol.

Sincerely,
MArk E. Weiser

 

[Phil Elmore]

No-one. This question is ill formed. It is meaningless.

Incorrect. Ownership is a question of access. You control access to you; you own you.

Children are a special category by virtue of their diminished capacity to reason. They are almost, but not quite, sovereign entitites for this reason. Thus the rights naturally conferred on us by virtue of our existence as discrete biological entities (concepts covered in the original editorial) apply, but the rights conferred by our ability to reason do not (because children lack that capacity). This is why children are the responsibility of their parents.

If a child owns itself, and a child is not rational, then a dog could own itself, or a brick. This applies no matter how many times you state that only a mortal human being has objective rights.

This is logically spurious and does not apply no matter how many times you say it does. Animals do not philosophize.

You are simply defining an axiom. Irrefutable by definition maybe.

Precisely.

But only because axioms can only be defined subjectively. Once they have been agreed the ymay be used objectively within an argument by the parties who agreed them. Outside that agreement they are merely subjective.

Incorrect; axioms are self-evident and irrefutable even if they are not evident to you. They are the principles we all accept, whether we believe we truly do, when we interact with each other. Every attempt to undercut the axioms by which I operate ultimately depends on those very axioms to do it.

On the subject of the constitution and gun control, well these matters are still subjective.

No, they're not, for the reasons stated in my editorial. For that matter, anyone who would call himself a "martial artist" but who supports gun control is not, in fact, a martial artist at all.

Going Armed: Guns, "Gun Control," and "Martial" Artists

My principle beef with you is that you preach the idea of objective rights. I believe that the idea of objective rights is harmful especially in the arena of self defence.

As you are incorrect and cannot support this assertion, why does it matter what you believe?

My secondary problem with you is your methods. You seem to scare away those who do not have the time or bullishness to argue with you, even if they have something good to say. I'm here to learn, not to win arguments (OK not just to win arguments).

Other people's lack of intellectual courage or fortitude is not my problem. I'll argue substantively and rationally with anyone capable of doing the same.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Quite a late response, I know, but hey, better late than never.

First off, this thread isn't in The Study yet why? I know what the subject originally was, but my thought is that this thread belongs there.

Sharp Phil, I understand that you believe there is no such thing as the collective, but only a group of individuals who each have their rights as individuals, and that therefore any argument based on the collective good is unrealistic. But I think it's easy to see how a collective good can be established, just by considering the idea of a music band. According to what you claim, there is no band, but merely a group musicians each separately playing their own instrument. There is no song being played, just a series of sounds that seem to follow a very close pattern. But when you think about it, in order for those sounds to become a song, or for those individuals to form a band, a collective does have to be established. In order for people to be members of a society, they have to form some unified collective in a very similar, though obviously much more complex, manner. As part of society, citizens are bound by things such as the Constitution (the common pattern in the song, if you will), that makes them more than just a bunch of individuals.

I'm sure that in the morning I'll realize that this analogy will need some work, but I think I've made my point well enough for 3 in the morning. To clarify, am I arguing against someone's right to bear arms, or that the individual is always trumped by the communal? Hell no. People are individuals, sure. Im only trying to argue that their is such thing as a collective good in society which binds those individuals. I realize that I'm bordering on social contract theory here, but oh well.

As for your statements about homeless people, I'm just too disgusted by them (meaning your comments, not homeless people) to really respond, so good night.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Save your disgust for someone who cares.

In your analogy you entirely miss the concept of a group of individuals working and towards a shared goal for mutual benefit. That is the basis for all cooperation among sovereign, rational individuals.

 

[KenpoTess]

MOD NOTE

I'm locking this thread Pending Admin review .. it's certainly not accomplishing anything- Inflammatory flotsam & jetsam~!

~Tess
-MT S. MOD-