Is "the right to self defense" a human right? \ stacker news ~security

pull down to refresh

Is "the right to self defense" a human right?

1285 sats \ 20 comments \ @kepford 3 Apr security

If you want to score extra points include this. Is it a negative right or positive right?

Yes, of course96.4%

No3.6%

28 votes \ poll ended

view all related items

75 sats \ 2 replies \ @grayruby 3 Apr

I have difficulty with the term human right. Both because the way it is used politically to try and decree everything as a right and philosophically because are there truly any human rights? Sure we have agreed on protections but do we really have a right to them?

Anyways, whatever human rights actually are self defense should be one of them.

40 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford OP 3 Apr

Yeah... I know what you mean. Part of why I'm asking.

15 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby 3 Apr

I think it is fine to call agreed on protections humans rights even though they may not be but if we are going to do that I think they should be very limited and there should be serious push back against those that seek to bastardize the threshold for what a right is for personal or political gain.

5 sats \ 4 replies \ @NovaRift 3 Apr

Yes, it's by nature we've got it: fight or flight! But when we label it as a human right, this gets confusing and political as well. If it's a do or die situation, then it's definitely a right to defend yourself at all costs. If it's a fight between two or more people, or even any kind of war, both sides will fight and defend themselves. How about we rename it a natural right? You cannot say if it's a negative or positive right; when anyone is doing their self defense, it's their natural right, even if they are wrong. No law or anything could suppress this natural law of staying alive?

10 sats \ 3 replies \ @kepford OP 3 Apr

I read natural right as a negative right. As in... a right we can't be granted but can be denied. Or put another way, a right that is not dependent on the actions of others.

People will say things like "health care is a human right". Well, if it is that's a positive right. Or one that requires the actions of others to provide. Or the fact that it has to be provided and doesn't exist naturally as you say.

The "natural right" to speech for example doesn't depend on anyone to provide it. It just is.

I use human right as kind of a linguistic tool. Because the positive rights people use it to make up all sorts of things they think should be. Yet, I have found many have no issue removing the basic natural right of self defense.

This comes up with so called gun control debates. I see these things as violations of the natural right of self defense. And, what is interesting is that this violation affects those that are the weakest among us most heavily. Those that are smaller, weaker, and possibly lacking full mobility. The response is to say the police state will protect them... which is both naive and inconsistent since these people often tell me how prejudice the police are. We should defund them. Yet also we should depend on them?

It is much clearer to discuss the right to defend one's self vs. getting in the weeds about the Constitution or the latest gun crime.

15 sats \ 2 replies \ @NovaRift 3 Apr

Wow, now I maybe get what you mean; you're right!

This comes up with so called gun control debates. I see these things as violations of the natural right of self defense. And, what is interesting is that this violation affects those that are the weakest among us most heavily. Those that are smaller, weaker, and possibly lacking full mobility. The response is to say the police state will protect them... which is both naive and inconsistent since these people often tell me how prejudice the police are. We should defund them. Yet also we should depend on them?

States and governments have never done much to protect the human made "right to self defense." Look at a few decades of data and see how much countries' own governments have killed their innocent civilians compared to during war. Gun laws will do very little; I'm not a conspiracy theory spreader, but governments now fear that things are slipping from their hands, so they want civilians to be weak. Bad guys are still going to find guns with just one click online; it's just that they want people to be weak so they can do their nonsense. They'll give stupid reasoning talents from some well known personal tragedies that happened to people, and the solution? Ban guns. Laws are making the right to self-defense a lot weaker or heavily controlling, but it's still there. Thanks, I have an interesting question to ask everyone now.

10 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford OP 3 Apr

I'm beginning to think for the last few years in the US some areas have been under anarcho-tyranny. Refusing to defend people while prosecuting those people that seek to defend themselves against violence. Its terrible and its happening in many countries.

7 sats \ 0 replies \ @NovaRift 3 Apr

That's true! it's becoming a trend among governments to control everything that circulates around people, from our offline world to online. I'm just exploring these things more, and the more I learn, the darker it gets. I don't know if any rights made are really applied or if they are just lost in fancy legal words designed to fool people into thinking they are safe and have a private life.

49 sats \ 0 replies \ @SpaceHodler 14h

It's a negative right, because it doesn't require others to do stuff for you to have it. It doesn't rely on enslaving others.

70 sats \ 3 replies \ @ch0k1 3 Apr

Ofc it's a positive right - if we talk about defence

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @kepford OP 21h

Why do you say that? What outside force is required to secure the right? Do you consider speech a positive right as well?

54 sats \ 1 reply \ @ch0k1 20h

Why do you say that?

Because that's my opinion! If you want me to explain myself why think that way - because basically self defence is a right of the last resort to protect yourself physically from a third party extinction threat!

What outside force is required to secure the right?

I'm not sure whether I understand the meaning of your question, can you please elaborate?

Do you consider speech a positive right as well?

Yes I do, it's the basic or de facto right that everyone should be freely able to exercise by default

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 18h

Gotcha. The reason I asked is because you have the polarity reversed to what I've typically heard. FWIW we are on the same page but you are calling it positive instead of negative.

70 sats \ 0 replies \ @carter 3 Apr

negative right

15 sats \ 0 replies \ @watchmancbiz 21h

They need to make "common sense" a human right again. Who's not going to fight for their life if they need to? Yea! I'd say it is!!! it's probably the most basic, fundamental right. the right to live. the right to exist. human nature!!

5 sats \ 1 reply \ @DarthCoin 15h

Are you referring to "human right" from the HRA? That is total bullshit. See here #664257

I think the question is wrong. Reformulate.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 7h

Your rights do not come from some else, for if they did you would be a slave.

I don't disagree. I phrased the question this way on purpose because the people that believe in positive rights and write things like that document don't seem to care about the natural right to defend one's self. They act as if they care about their fellow man. Yet they have no problem with governments punishing people for using guns or other weapons to protect themselves. You should know better by now @DarthCoin ;) I'm not a positive rights statist.