pull down to refresh
10 sats \ 3 replies \ @kepford OP 3 Apr \ parent \ on: Is "the right to self defense" a human right? security
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.
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.
reply
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.
reply
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.
reply