[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
One can’t be both a proponent of gun control and a proponent of the concept of natural rights. There is no way to limit the arms another man possesses that is at all consistent with the concept of natural rights. The only way to limit another’s arms is to reject the concept of natural rights in favor of legal rights(i.e., the concept that some are more equal than others).
One can always give up HIS arms, but one can’t demand that another give up the arms he rightfully(that is, acquired without violating the life, liberty, or property of another) possesses.
If my neighbor owns a kitchen knife, and neither I nor my other neighbor believes that he should own that knife; we can’t give up our own knives, take the knife-possessor’s knives, and claim that we have respected his rights to life, liberty, and property.[/quote]
You can certainly believe in gun control and Natural Rights at the same time, just like you can believe in a less-than absolute freedom of speech and Natural Rights at the same time.
In a State of Nature, people have the ability to act with perfect freedom, meaning that the only thing to stop them from expressing their free will in any form they choose is the presence of some sort of force that can physically stop them from doing so. In such a situation, our security is threatened by those who are physically bigger, or those who can form the larger faction.
We quit such a state in order to retain the security of our beings and possessions. The idea is that people of a like mind come together and form a society. Ideally, the form of gov’t they create offers a protection of some sort from those who would disregard the liberties of others.
Your argument is sort of like saying you can’t believe in keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of madmen and still believe in Natural Rights. The right to bear arms is simply a particular form of self-defense. If the right to bear arms in furtherance of securing a free State is an extension of our Natural Rights, certainly the category under which gun rights falls (the right to self-defense) is also a Natural Right.
But no one acknowledges in here that the right to self-defense is so pure as to allow for the right to a private nuclear missile silo, complete with an armed missile. And yet, would you offer forth the argument that those people are contradicting themselves if they also claim to believe in Natural Rights?[/quote]
Which “natural rights” do you recognize? I refer to life, liberty, and property, when I use the term. If one believes in those natural rights, then only a violation of another’s life, liberty, or property can be justly punished. Ownership of even nuclear weapons does not violate the life, liberty, or property of anyone, so that person can’t be either justly punished for owning the weapon or have the weapon justly taken from him.
And “freedom of speech” is merely a result of the rights to life, liberty, and property. One obviously does not have “freedom of speech” where it violates another’s life, liberty, or property. These sentences may not be worded as well or clearly as I would like them to be.
When we start talking about disallowing ownership of certain weapons, we leave behind the concept of “natural rights” in favor of FDR’s Four Freedoms(freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear-this is where prohibition of certain weapons fits).
If you(anyone) want to restrict others’ rights to life, liberty, and property, then so be it; but don’t do it from behind the concept of natural rights, because that is silly.
There may be a million good reasons to not permit private ownership of nuclear weapons in a society, but such restrictions aren’t consistent with the concept of natural rights(at least not the ones I named).
And, once more, prohibiting the ownership of Weapon Super-Mega-Bad is NOT the same as prohibiting speech that causes harm/damage. Prohibiting the USE of Weapon Super-Mega-Bad is the same as prohibiting harmful speech. Prohibiting ALL SPEECH is the same as prohibiting ownership of Weapon Super-Mega-Bad, in principle.
I’d love to go back in time and prevent humans from gaining knowledge of, and the ability to create, nuclear weapons, but that’s not going to happen.[/quote]
Natural Rights are simply the rights that people have by virtue of their nature. They literally encompass any and all actions one is capable of. That would include the ability to violate the rights of others. In man’s Natural State, I most certainly have the right (meaning I was given the ability) to violate the rights of others.
But man quits that state in order to preserve life, liberty, property. When we join together in societies, we join with like-minded individuals and we NEGATE our prefect freedom/original liberty. We never fully give up the right to all actions; we RESERVE them for use when one enters into a State of War with us. A State of War is simply defined as a condition in which our life, liberty, and property is at risk.
You’re confusing Natural Rights in a pure sense with those that are protected once we form a society. You mention FDR. Laughable. I suggest you read up on John Locke or Cicero before you come on here and try to lecture about Natural Rights, because your concept of them is clearly lacking.