Gun Control

[commonsense]

All we have to do to ameliorate the problems arising from private ownership of guns is to increase funding for policing by a vast amount, arm all of the officers and agents and watch what happens. Private citizens would be better protected and cops could learn not to shoot someone for the crime of not following orders.

Of course, the Constitution would have to be amended to allow for a police state first.

[Alexiev]

Gotta sit this one out, boys. That constitutional right does not belong to me. I carry nunchucks.

Dick flashin' is perverted. You shoulda been ostracized, not jailed. And, whether, the law likes it or not, you still have a natural right to any property you choose...including a gun.

Property rights are not "natural rights". In fact, property means nothing other than the legal right of one person to control other people. If you own a car, your ownership has no impact on the car, but if someone tries to drive it without your permission, you can have him arrested.

Without the guns, jails and Billy clubs of the state, property rights would be next to meaningless.

Karl Marx correctly stated this obvious truth.

P.s. The above does not suggest I am opposed to property rights, only that we should see them for what they are.

[henry quirk]

IF I created a weapon with the ability to kill all men within fifty kilometre radius, do you think you have the right to own it if I am selling?

If I can meet your price: sure.

and by the same measure, do you think all wo/men have equal right to own this weapon?

If any can meet your price: sure.

[henry quirk]

Property rights are not "natural rights".

A person has a natural right -- an exclusive moral claim -- to his life (his existence); his liberty (his self-direction, -reliance, and -responsibility); and his property (that which he creates or fairly trades for).

The law either supports this or blunts it: it, law, is never the source of this moral claim.

[Sculptor]

Property rights are not "natural rights".

A person has a natural right -- an exclusive moral claim -- to his life (his existence); his liberty (his self-direction, -reliance, and -responsibility); and his property (that which he creates or fairly trades for).

A shockingly subjective and ethnocentric point of view.

The law either supports this or blunts it: it, law, is never the source of this moral claim.

If the right to bear arms is not to be infringed then does every person have the right to own a bomb?
Would you recommend that right to be enshined in law?

[henry quirk]

shockingly subjective and ethnocentric point of view.

Nope. It applies to all persons, everywhere.

If the right to bear arms is not to be infringed then does every person have the right to own a bomb?
Would you recommend that right to be enshined in law?

Yep.

You don't need a law. You need to recognize other folks' natural rights.

[Sculptor]

shockingly subjective and ethnocentric point of view.

Nope. It applies to all persons, everywhere.

If the right to bear arms is not to be infringed then does every person have the right to own a bomb?
Would you recommend that right to be enshined in law?

Yep.

You don't need a law. You need to recognize other folks' natural rights.

Your ignorance is astonishing.

[henry quirk]

shockingly subjective and ethnocentric point of view.

Nope. It applies to all persons, everywhere.

If the right to bear arms is not to be infringed then does every person have the right to own a bomb?
Would you recommend that right to be enshined in law?

Yep.

You don't need a law. You need to recognize other folks' natural rights.

Your ignorance is astonishing.

And your slaver instinct is showing.

'nuff said

[Sculptor]

Nope. It applies to all persons, everywhere.



Yep.

You don't need a law. You need to recognize other folks' natural rights.

Your ignorance is astonishing.

And your slaver instinct is showing.

'nuff said

So do you think that agreeing to not have the right to own a personal nuclear weapon means I agree to slavery?

spade.jpg

[Alexiev]

Property rights are not "natural rights".

A person has a natural right -- an exclusive moral claim -- to his life (his existence); his liberty (his self-direction, -reliance, and -responsibility); and his property (that which he creates or fairly trades for).

The law either supports this or blunts it: it, law, is never the source of this moral claim.

Property entails nothing other than the legal right of one person to control other people. One's ownership of a car has no impact on the car, but if someone drives it without permission he can be imprisoned.

Owning land involves no "creation". In fact, it conflicts with your stated right of liberty. Self-direction can lead to arrest if you trespass.

Of course all laws (property laws included) conflict with liberty. Why those of Libertarian bent see this for most laws, but exclude Property laws, is a mystery.

None of this suggests that Property (or laws in general) should be eliminated. It merely suggests we should see things as they are.

[Immanuel Can]

Property entails nothing other than the legal right of one person to control other people.

That's' something that Nietzsche would have thought, or Marx definitely believed. But it's not true.

Locke had it right: property is an unalienable human right, because a man with no property ("property" considered very broadly here, not merely as land or money) has no freedom or choice either. A person must have something at his/her disposal, in order to make responsible choices in life. If nobody owns anything, then they have no choices, no freedom, and no possibility of responsibility.

Marx was no economist, though he styled himself as one. He was really an economic dolt. For example, he thought "value" was zero-sum game, a situation in which gain by one had to be loss to the others. So anybody who got money, Marx reasoned, had to be a thief, since his gain had to automatically be everybody else's loss. (A highly ironic thing for a chronic mooch and layabout like Marx to imagine, but nobody ever said he wasn't a miserable hypocrite, in addition to his other charms, such as boils, rage, hating the world, and raping his housekeeper then abandoning her son.)

But the truth, as modern economics has so routinely demonstrated, is that value can be created, and often is. A man who invents something new adds value to the world. A person who mines resources and turns them into sellable things others want to own has added value. A person who takes a product or stock and through improving it makes it more useful to others and more desirable for them to purchase is adding value to the world. A musician who composes new music or an artist who paints, or a writer who creates a novel, are all adding value. A business owner who creates a new business, invests his own capital to start it, hires people to work for him, and provides services to the community is adding value.

There is not just one amount of value in the world, such that it has to be divided equally among people; and one person's value-add helps, not hurts society. That's what Marx didn't get.

Owning land involves no "creation".

Have you ever met a farmer? It certainly does. But so does putting up an apartment complex, or opening a recreational space, or any one of a million other things. People don't just buy land and let it sit, you know. If they're smart and self-motivated, they add value by employing that land in some way.

[henry quirk]

Property entails nothing other than the legal right of one person to control other people.

No. Man's law, if done right, is just a codification of and an attempt to recognize, natural rights.

Owning land involves no "creation". In fact, it conflicts with your stated right of liberty. Self-direction can lead to arrest if you trespass

Really? The farmer, he creates nuthin'? The builder, he transforms nuthin'? I plant tomatoes and cucumbers every year. Have I done nuthin'? I've shoveled all over filling in holes and cutting down water retention. Have I done nuthin'? I clean the culverts regularly, again to control water. Have I done nuthin'? If I trespass -- violate someone's moral claim -- I might end up dead.

Of course all laws (property laws included) conflict with liberty. Why those of Libertarian bent see this for most laws, but exclude Property laws, is a mystery.

Most law is in conflict with liberty (which is not license), yes. Not seein' how my natural moral claim to my car, my gun, my tire knocker, my tv, my house, my shoes, etc., in itself, deprives anyone of anything. I'm a natural right libertarian, not a libertine a'la DeSade or Crowley.

None of this suggests that Property (or laws in general) should be eliminated. It merely suggests we should see things as they are.

Yes, we should see the natural, exclusive, moral claim each person has to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property as it is: real.

[Alexiev]

Most law is in conflict with liberty (which is not license), yes. Not seein' how my natural moral claim to my car, my gun, my tire knocker, my tv, my house, my shoes, etc., in itself, deprives anyone of anything. I'm a natural right libertarian, not a libertine a'la DeSade or Crowley.

None of this suggests that Property (or laws in general) should be eliminated. It merely suggests we should see things as they are.

Yes, we should see the natural, exclusive, moral claim each person has to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property as it is: real.

+
You are missing the point. "Natural" vs. "legal" or "fiat" is a red herring. Of course the farmer helps to create something. But that is only tangentially related to property rights. If nobody owned land, the farmer could still create something. He could still dig and plant and water and reap. The only difference would be that other people could harvest and eat the crops. The farmer's ownership of the land in no way affects his ability to dig and plant and reap. Instead, the only thing it does is allow him to control other people vis a vis his property.

Of course the farmer might not be motivated to work the land if he could not enjoy the sole benefits of his labor. That's obvious. Nonetheless, the only thing his property rights do (specifically, rather than tangentially) is allow him to control other people.

The same, of course, is true of guns. Ownership of a gun has no impact on the gun (how could it?). Instead, it allows the owner to control other people's use of the gun. What else could it possibly do? IC's silly dismissal of Marx, reeking as it does of prejudice, fails to address his view of property. Obviously, if there were no prolperty rights, farmers, builders, etc would lack the motives which property rights give them. Still, Marx was correct in stating that property rights MEAN nothing other than the right (legal or natural) of one person to control other people. What else could they possibly mean?

Intellectual property is even iffier. If Newton "stood on the shoulders of giants", so do all copyright and patent holders. Copyrights clearly impinge on free speech. Once again, I support copyrights and patents, but suggest we see them for what they are. There is no "natural right"to prevent other people from singing a song that is under copyright. Instead, we have decided to encourage authors by giving them the legal right to prevent others from profitting from copyrighted material. Fine. That's a good thing. But it's silly to call this a "natural right". Really? We have a "natural right" to control what other people sing or write? No we don't. Instead, we have a legal write that our society has decided to offer in order to promote creativity and allow artists to make money.

[Skepdick]

So do you think that agreeing to not have the right to own a personal nuclear weapon means I agree to slavery?

spade.jpg

Exhibit A: Ukraine.

https://www.npr.org/2022/02/21/10821245 ... n-invasion

[Skepdick]

If the right to bear arms is not to be infringed then does every person have the right to own a bomb?
Would you recommend that right to be enshined in law?

The British people have taken it upon themselves (under the supervision of your monarch and parliament) to build/acquire bombs.

What laws gave you permission to do so?