[TUT317]

Here is the complete Heinlein quote :
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life

Makes sense to me.

Hi Tom,

A rather poor defense of individual rights. Negative liberty means freedom is just about guaranteed if people are fearful enough.

The point I raised in an earlier post was that liberty doesn't work for people who won't or can't take responsibility for their actions. Your reply was, "There is a presumption of a civil society other than that there are laws to cover the few." This is not quite right (in my view).

The presumption actually is that rights existed prior to there being a civil society. I have always found this to be a rather odd concept. How can there be rights prior to there being a civil society to give individuals their rights? The laws to cover the few are obviously inadequate when the cost of their actions so obviously disproportional.

Regards

Tut

[excon]

A rather poor defense of individual rights. Negative liberty means freedom is just about guaranteed if people are fearful enough.

Hello T:

What you say is true. It would be nice if, on our own, we recognized peoples rights, and governments didn't have to codify them... But, that world doesn't exist. So, for those who are less than fairminded, we write them down.

excon

[tomder55]

The presumption actually is that rights existed prior to there being a civil society. I have always found this to be a rather odd concept. How can there be rights prior to there being a civil society to give individuals their rights?

Tut
I disagree... 'positive rights' do not exist until there is a social contract. The social contract itself implies that there is a surrender of some rights for the 'common good'.Police protection ,Armies etc. are services that the people decide are needed.
Are you saying that there is a presumption that government will define and guarantee freedoms ? Sadly that is not the history of human governance... Democracies and individual freedoms are relatively new concepts... and if you look at the world today,the exception. The writing of a bill of rights is to protect the people from the government... Not to codify the rights government thinks you should have.

[TUT317]

Tut
I disagree ...'positive rights' do not exist until there is a social contract. The social contract itself implies that there is a surrender of some rights for the 'common good'.Police protection ,Armies etc. are services that the people decide are needed.
Are you saying that there is a presumption that government will define and guarantee freedoms ? The writing of a bill of rights is to protect the people from the government .... Not to codify the rights government thinks you should have.

Sorry Tom, I mean negative liberty.

I should have said "The presumption is that negative liberty existed prior to their being a civil society.

Tut

[tomder55]

Sorry Tom, I mean negative liberty.

I should have said "The presumption is that negative liberty existed prior to their being a civil society.

Tut

How can there be rights prior to there being a civil society to give individuals their rights?

I'm a John Locke kind of guy. Divine rights are not given to the sovereignty .They are the individuals.

[TUT317]

I'm a John Locke kinda guy. Divine rights are not given to the sovereignty .They are the individuals.

Hi Tom,

Yes, most Americans are ( whether they realize it or not). His contribution is obviously very significant. Locke tried to show that men can live amicably together without submitting to an absolute authority (as you point out). Naturally, this state of affairs can be attained through government by law. Hobbes on the other hand would say that divine rights are given to the sovereign ( from what you say you are not a supporter of Hobbes). Hobbes' position is in direct contrast to Locke. Hobbes says that men cannot live in a society dictated by fear and suspicion. In my view 'a polite society' is a Hobbesian society.

The point I was trying to make was the idea of 'natural rights', i.e.. rights that men enjoyed prior to their being a civil society. As I said before I find it odd that such rights could have existed prior to there being a government and a system of law to grant and uphold these rights.

[tomder55]

So you're a Levithian kind of guy ? Should we then rely on the benevolent ruler to determine which rights we are entitled to... even if the benevolent ruler is subject to the popular franchise from time to time ?

Back to Locke... Under the assumption that the right to be secure in life and possessions is a right either naturally or as part of the civil society ,then how could the right to self defense be denied ? Should we be sheeple hoping that the authorities arrive in time to secure our safety for us ?
Look... I think the civil society has a vested interest in knowing who owns guns ,and to screen gun ownership to keep them out of the hands of those who have served notice to civil society that they cannot be trusted to be responsible owners .So I am not an absolutist on this issue .
But ,an out right prohibition of the right to own guns I could never go along with.
As the founders properly noted ,the individual's right to self defense is not only against the individual thug. It is also for self defense against the Levithian.

[TUT317]

so you're a Levithian kinda guy ? Should we then rely on the benevolent ruler to determine which rights we are entitled to ...even if the benevolent ruler is subject to the popular franchise from time to time ?

Back to Locke...Under the assumption that the right to be secure in life and posessions is a right either naturally or as part of the civil society ,then how could the right to self defense be denied ? Should we be sheeple hoping that the authorities arrive in time to secure our safety for us ?
Look ...I think the civil society has a vested interest in knowing who owns guns ,and to screen gun ownership to keep them out of the hands of those who have served notice to civil society that they cannot be trusted to be responsible owners .So I am not an absolutist on this issue .
But ,an out right prohibition of the right to own guns I could never go along with.
As the founders properly noted ,the individual's right to self defense is not only against the individual thug. It is also for self defense against the Levithian.

Hi Tom,

No, I'm not 'a Leviathan type of guy'. No one takes Hobbes seriously except when it comes to self defense. Yes, Locke had strong view on self defense as did Hobbes. In fact they held more or less the same view. Similar to the view you put forward. Unfortunately, Hobbes and a long term vision of the consequences of self defense. No doubt because he lived in a time where the climate of fear and loathing was the norm. He had an opportunity to think through the long term consequences for a society, for what every reason, decided continued along this path.

By the way a I definitely don't support prohibition of guns. It hasn't worked for anything in the past and it won't for for anything in the future.

[excon]

Hello again:

If a liberal asks you why you NEED an extended clip, tell him you don't NEED it, any more than he needs HIS civil rights. I mean, who NEEDS free speech?

excon

[TUT317]

Hello again:

If a liberal asks you why you NEED an extended clip, tell him you don't NEED it, any more than he needs HIS civil rights. I mean, who NEEDS free speech?

excon

'Unfettered free speech and unfettered self-defense' My point exactly.