Sharp as a Marble - Well written words that will fall on deaf ears

<< There is something amazing | Home | It’s like the red-light district of graphic design >>

Well written words that will fall on deaf ears

Self Defense

It all comes down to this: Is there an inalienable right to self-defense? If there is, each man has indisputable, inestimable value, value that he may rightly preserve even if the life of another man is forfeit. A man may kill another in lawful self-defense even if the policy preferences of the state would prefer his death. If a right to self-defense actually exists, it is in a very real sense the highest law of the land and all lesser laws must pay it deference. It fundamentally defines the social contract, the nature of the relationship between man and the state.

But if there is no such inalienable right, the entire nature of the social contract is changed. Each man’s worth is measured solely by his utility to the state, and as such the value of his life rides a roller coaster not unlike the stock market: dependent not only upon the preferences of the party in power but upon the whims of its political leaders and the permanent bureaucratic class. The proof of this analysis surrounds us.

These words are what I’ve been arguing for years. Sadly, those on the left and even many on the right cannot comprehend them. My life is the property of me and me alone. It does not belong to you, it does not belong to the state, nor does it belong to any group or organization. Because it is mine, I may defend it and I will defend it regardless of the laws you put in place to demand I forfeit my existence in some insane plan to assuage the guilt of the cowardly who cannot muster up the courage to defend theirs.

Even if the laws were changed tomorrow that all guns were illegal, I would not be morally a criminal for continuing to carry. You may demand I lay down my arms because you lack the conviction and the compassion necessary to defend your life and the lives of your loved ones and thus desire to bring all men down to your level and I will say “No”.

posted @ 8/21/2011 8:05:19 PM

Incoming Links

QotD • Where Angels Fear To Tread on 8/23/2011 8:01:04 PM

WORD!!! « Interned In Northfield on 8/24/2011 9:22:13 AM

why are they so eager to expose their bigotry? | walls of the city on 8/26/2011 5:14:23 PM

Comments

Sean D Sorrentino says:

on 8/21/2011 9:10:06 PM

too true. It's all first principles. Either I, as a private citizen without any special dispensation from the gov't, have the right to kill in self defense or I don't. This whole fight over guns is just a sideshow. The real argument is whether or not I am permitted to kill.

45er says:

on 8/21/2011 9:12:03 PM

Unfortunately, it is down to the very roots of your make-up. If you believe in personal responsibility and that it extends to your self-preservation then it is an easy assumption to make. In our crowd, that's the roots of our being. On the other side, dependence on the state is paramount. Therefore, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that you are responsible for your own protection as well. It's hard for me to wrap my head around someone that doesn't think self-protection and the protection of their family isn't first and foremost and entirely your own responsibility.

djmoore says:

on 8/21/2011 9:15:26 PM

"those on the left and even many on the right cannot comprehend [these words]."

I'll go further than that: I believe that in essence, comprehending and abiding by the inalienable right of self defense is the crucial dividing line between what we call "right" and "left", statist and libertarian.

Once you accept that individuals are competent to exercise the power of life and death in defense of themselves and those around them, what other power can you deny them?

John Hardin says:

on 8/21/2011 9:31:05 PM

And if you wish to push the issue, you’re going to need guns and the fortitude to kill another human being over what you believe is right.

They have hired thugs for that. Their hands won't get dirty.

Barron Barnett says:

on 8/21/2011 9:54:30 PM

If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave. – John Adams

I wrote something up last January using that quote, focusing on the fact that simple principal stated above.

It's funny how you and I both find that principal simple yet so many fail to understand the power or concept behind it.

McThag says:

on 8/21/2011 10:40:24 PM

There's a related idea in, "if it is immoral to do something, it is likewise immoral to hire someone to do it in my stead."

Those who would take our rights are certainly willing to hire others to do their immoral work.

Mycroft says:

on 8/21/2011 11:36:45 PM

Just government has no power or authority that does not originate in the individual citizen, for if the individual lacks the specific power or authority how then may that power or authority be delegated to the government on his behalf.
Any government claiming power or authority denied to the individual is, by definition, unjust.
"... government of, by and for the People..."

ubu52 says:

on 8/22/2011 1:48:21 AM

And if your neighbor, while defending his own life, accidentally shoots and kills your daughter, you will be okay with that because his inalienable right to self-defense is the most important thing. (Plus, in Florida, you can't even sue him, can you?)

Braden Lynch says:

on 8/22/2011 2:00:58 AM

As an extension of the insights above, if we have no intrinsic value that will trump our utility to our government then we might as well bring back slavery and the genocide of the "undesirables" and the "useless eaters".

Just to be clear, we do have an absolute right to kill in self-defense or for the innocent and this is not murder. [Please do not quote me the Sixth Commandment in error on this]. We collectively have a moral obligation to defend all innocent life, to include our own life, even if it means at the expense of the criminal.

If not, why do we arm our police and let them use deadly force to protect us? On a larger scale, why did we bother with our part in WWII if we did not have this moral imperative? We could just have let the Axis powers win. [This argument is why pacifism is cowardice and treason.]

Braden Lynch says:

on 8/22/2011 2:43:17 AM

@ubu52:

Your so-called ethical dilema is weak.
Since you want to pose a hypothetical, I have some for you, too.

You did note the term, "accidentally" and while this does not just absolve my neighbor from other legal repercussions, the risk of such bad possible outcomes does not take away a basic human right (i.e. self-defense).

How about if my neighbor did not use his firearm for self-defense and was killed himself. Now personally, I would be less invested in his death than my daughter's death, but it would still be a death of an innocent. The blame still goes on the criminal for creating this situation.

How about if this gang-banger with the lousy aim, shot at my neighbor who had opposed drug dealing and my daughter was killed instead? Should we now blame the neighbor for irritating the thug?

How many innocent bystanders have died from police fire against criminals?

What about all of the collateral damage when despotic regimes are overthrown by military might? We inflicted a hell of a lot of deaths on French citizens from the D-Day preparation bombardments. I'm also sure there were anti-Nazi Germans who were living in Dresden before the firebomb raids.

Clearly, no one wants to see bystanders killed, however, such regrettable things do happen. We're not discussing knitting here, rather the use of deadly force, to prevent deadly violence. To not oppose evil, is evil.

We tolerate a lot of dead people on our highways from traffic accidents and that is not even one of our Constitutionally enumerated and fundamental human rights. Think about that.

Finally, ubu52, you should go ahead and remain defenseless throughout your life and put all of your trust in government and the police that they will always be there to protect you and never abuse you. You can try to convince yourself that you are on the moral high ground, but in reality, you will just be letting others do the dirty work for you.

Sean D Sorrentino says:

on 8/22/2011 7:07:25 AM

I will never understand the anti-gunners. They raise irrelevant points and stupid hypotheticals and act like they have contributed to the debate.

Here's a better question. Should my neighbor be required to die violently to prevent the remote chance that my neighbor might injure or kill someone other than his attacker?

This just leads straight back to the original question, who owns you. Do you own yourself and thus have a say in your own murder? Or does the State, or Society, or some other amorphous group own you, and thus "they" have a right to dispose of you in a manner convenient to them.

Some fools would argue in favor of the latter argument.

Eck! says:

on 8/22/2011 7:27:25 AM

The gun grabbers fear their own nature, they fear their ability to be violent. What they don't understand it that self defense is not violence it's the reaction, or better response, to it.
They can deal in the real world, they hide from it.

Having come close on a occasion or so the idea of using deadly force is not anything wanted but I recognize at that time it was the responsible, and only possible recourse. I can say the end of a rifle barrel made the social contract clear, his bat or his life, and not mine.

Life is not hypothetical, maybe their money or luck as shielded them but they have no dominion over me. If they think so they better look in the mirror and ask do they believe they are that elite as to be king or my protector. If the choose the latter they have the responsibility for my safety in exchange and they better not fail or their act is one of criminal neglect. I don't offer them that as they take no responsibility for their own safety, they do not and cannot protect me as they do not believe in their neighbor and are not will to act in that neighbors behalf. There is a name for that, coward.

Eck!

Greg Tag says:

on 8/22/2011 9:35:22 AM

In this discussion on state versus private power, and just what being armed for self-defense means to a free citizen, I am drawn to the Texas Declaration of Independence, 1836. Among the indictments against the Mexican tyranny recounted in the Declaration is this:

" It has demanded us to deliver up our arms, which are essential to our defence, the rightful property of freemen, and formidible only to tyrannical governments".

Arms are the rightful property of whom?
Arms are formidible only to whom?

Sadly, the sheep of this world have given up their freedom in pursuit of a non-existent ( this side of Heaven) physical security.

Regards

GKT

Speakertweaker says:

on 8/22/2011 1:35:23 PM

And if you wish to push the issue, you’re going to need guns and the fortitude to kill another human being over what you believe is right. Which is sad considering you wouldn’t even do just that to defend your own life.

That's the kicker, right there (regardless of who is holding said gun). They won't kill in defense of life, but they will kill in defense of control.

And we're the deranged ones? Fukdat.

tweaker

ubu52 says:

on 8/22/2011 4:36:06 PM

Hypothetical? Here: Gang banger self- defense against other gang bangers...

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan/17/local/me-selfdefense17

So innocent people were killed. "Inalienable right to self-defense," remember?

Robb Allen says:

on 8/22/2011 4:42:41 PM

Yup, you've brought up that single story several times now ubu. Too bad a single instance doesn't counteract millions of other stories of innocent bystanders not getting shot or you would have a valid point.

So, the question to you is - Do I have the right to defend my life or must I beg the state for permission to do so?

Firehand says:

on 8/22/2011 6:23:56 PM

Robb, you already know his answer.

Braden Lynch says:

on 8/22/2011 6:31:42 PM

@ubu52

Robb Allen has it right, do we have the right to defend ourselves or is it the duty of the state?

Wait for it...no the SCOTUS has deemed that the police have no duty to protect you. That responsibility resides with me then.

So, if my bullet aimed at a criminal instead kills an innocent person, it will be a huge personal moral/legal issue, however, my original right to self-defense has not cancelled out because of this inherent risk.

Braden Lynch says:

on 8/22/2011 6:38:57 PM

@ubu52

I've read you link and the simple answer is that the gang member who initiated the attack needs murder charges brought against him (as an accessory to murder).

Despite the gang-bangers likely being disgusting individuals, do they have no rights? Are they supposed to be ducks in the shooting gallery so that no one else is ever hurt.

What about if the drive by shooter had actually got a shot off from his gun and killed the 9 year old girl instead. We would have noted this as "standard" gang violence and charged him with murder.

The only reason you have this example is that it is the very rare situation where a self defense shooting went very, very wrong. You ignore all of the many crimes averted and all of the lives saved by the use of firearms. One extreme example does not make for good global policies.

Robb Allen says:

on 8/22/2011 6:42:48 PM

Or Ubu, let me put it another way - Does your desire to drive to the local nail salon to get a manicure override the hundreds, if not thousands, of people's right to life? Because you put them at risk every time you get behind the wheel, you realize that right?

Joe in PNG says:

on 8/22/2011 11:35:28 PM

How about when Ubu's vacation time comes about? How many thousands are placed at risk because he wants to zip along in a jet plane... or even a locomotive? Hell, just by breathing he risk the lives of billions (all that nasty CO2 and water vapor you know). Heck, just being having an electrically powered computer can kill children- you need electricity to power one of those things- and downed power cables can be deadly. How would Ubu feel if his neighbor's daughter got killed because his power line snapped and she picked it up and electrocuted herself?

There is no risk free existence.

Braden Lynch says:

on 8/23/2011 12:23:45 AM

I'm still waiting for ubu52 to answer the question that has been posed and ignored many times.

Does the individual have the absolute right of self-defense?

Matthew Carberry says:

on 8/23/2011 9:47:23 PM

It would be probably be instructive for ubu52 to take a basic course in Philosophy as what he/she is using (if sincere) is a sort of ill-thought out and incomplete Utilitarian argument.

Braden Lynch says:

on 8/25/2011 12:01:57 PM

Hmm...crickets.

Still wondering if ubu52 will answer the question.

1) If yes, then he must support firearms ownership as a basic right. To be able to protect yourself, it is a necessity.
2) If no, then he's a control freak who wants to dictate to everyone that the nanny state will take care of us. We've seen how that plays out in repressive countries (skulls stacked neatly on shelves, mass graves, gas chambers, ovens, etc). For benevolent countries, see response #3 below.
3) A qualified yes, given that police do often help out, we can see that it is still a losing response. The police have no duty to protect you (SCOTUS ruling) and their response times are such that personal harm will have been completed by the time they arrive.

Comments have been closed on this topic.