“My right to safety”

[ChristianPatriot]

I guess this is where this discussion goes. I’ve heard it said over and over, even before these past couple weeks. Something along the lines of, “My right to be safe is more important than your right to own an assault rifle.” Got me thinking. Do we have a right to be safe? I actually did go back and read through all the amendments and whatnot and I didn’t see it in there. I think the government has an obligation to protect it’s citizens from enemies foreign and domestic but it just kinda twists me the wrong way when people say I have a right to be safe. What government could possibly ever guarantee your safety at all times? Even beyond that, I don’t think safety is a basic human right.

Thoughts?

 

[Mikey1911]

Every time someone comes up with a new “right”, usually about how they wish to “feel”, I think of this passage from Heinlein’s “Starship Troopers”:

"The results should have been predictable, since a human being has no natural rights of any nature."


Mr. Dubois had paused. Somebody took the bait. "Sir? How about 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'?"


"Ah, yes, the 'unalienable rights.' Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry. Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If the chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'?

As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is the least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost.

"The third 'right' -- the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is ismply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives -- but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it."

 

[Drail]

I pulled out my copy of the Constitution and I can't find the right to be safe in there ANYWHERE. There also doesn't seem to be any right to health care or demanding a gay wedding cake or having a safe space.

 

[ATOMonkey]

A right is something available to a person in the absence of government. In the absence of government I can and will bear arms to defend myself. In the absence of government, I can and will practice my religion. In the absence of government I will be secure in my possessions. Etc.

The bill of rights exists to specifically delineate 10 of these natural rights, since the concept of natural rights was so foreign to the common person at that time. In the days of monarchies, you had whatever your lord gave you or allowed you to have. Even your body was his property. Being a FREE person is a concept which is still relatively new in the history of the world, and it didn't take long for those in power to begin gnawing away at it.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Therefore, in the absence of government, you can only be as safe as you are willing to defend yourself.

 

[MCgrease08]

Safety is not and never will be a natural right simply because it cannot be guaranteed.

 

[russc2542]

Every time someone comes up with a new “right”, usually about how they wish to “feel”, I think of this passage from Heinlein’s “Starship Troopers”:

"The results should have been predictable, since a human being has no natural rights of any nature."


Mr. Dubois had paused. Somebody took the bait. "Sir? How about 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'?"


"Ah, yes, the 'unalienable rights.' Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry. Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If the chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'?

As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is the least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost.

"The third 'right' -- the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is ismply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives -- but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it."

Glad I'm not the only one that likes that book.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I guess this is where this discussion goes. I’ve heard it said over and over, even before these past couple weeks. Something along the lines of, “My right to be safe is more important than your right to own an assault rifle.” Got me thinking. Do we have a right to be safe? I actually did go back and read through all the amendments and whatnot and I didn’t see it in there. I think the government has an obligation to protect it’s citizens from enemies foreign and domestic but it just kinda twists me the wrong way when people say I have a right to be safe. What government could possibly ever guarantee your safety at all times? Even beyond that, I don’t think safety is a basic human right.

Thoughts?

There's no government in the world that ensures the safety of it's citizens.... but they ALL ensure the safety of themselves. Think about that for a moment. The Second Amendment, at it's core isn't about you protecting yourself, but about you protecting the government.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

There's no government in the world that ensures the safety of it's citizens.... but they ALL ensure the safety of themselves. Think about that for a moment. The Second Amendment, at it's core isn't about you protecting yourself, but about you protecting the government.

Yeah I can see that aspect of it. In the context of a properly functioning government being useful for the preservation and flourishing of a people.

 

[EyeCarry]

My right to safely own, and if necessary use, a rifle, handgun, baseball bat, spoon, book, is just as important as your right to be safe.

 

[eldirector]

You have the right to be safe BECAUSE I own an AR-15.

 

[Tactically Fat]

For those of you looking through the Bill of Rights and/or the Constitution for the "right to safety" - keep in mind that neither is your right to privacy.

Not that I agree with a right to safety, but to believe that the Bill of Rights is an exhaustive list of the rights we have - is dangerous and ignorant.

 

[chipbennett]

There is no such thing as a "right to be safe" - or, its permutations, a "right of safety" a "right to be free from harm", or a "right to be free from fear".

A "right" is defined as "a moral or legal entitlement to have or to obtain something or to act in a certain way." By definition, a right is not, and cannot be, dependent upon another person in order to assert or to exercise.

I have the right to life, which means that I have the right to protect and to defend my life against the myriad risks against my life. I do not have the right to "safety", which would mean the right to be free of the myriad risks against my life.

 

[Tombs]

For those of you looking through the Bill of Rights and/or the Constitution for the "right to safety" - keep in mind that neither is your right to privacy.

Not that I agree with a right to safety, but to believe that the Bill of Rights is an exhaustive list of the rights we have - is dangerous and ignorant.

Have you read the 9th amendment?

 

[BugI02]

There's no government in the world that ensures the safety of it's citizens.... but they ALL ensure the safety of themselves. Think about that for a moment. The Second Amendment, at it's core isn't about you protecting yourself, but about you protecting the government.

This is so wrong I cannot believe it is not rhetorical

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It doesn't mention securing any particular government. It deals with what is necessary to secure our freedom and allows us to accede to the government upon us (always with the right to throw it off) rather than have it forced upon us

Just like it doesn't mention any specific class of arms allowed

 

[bwframe]

This is so wrong I cannot believe it is not rhetorical

Difficult to believe that there are those among us that feel this way.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Difficult to believe that there are those among us that feel this way.

It shouldn't be difficult, you can just look around.

 

[jedi]

 

[Leadeye]

For the most part, you get the rights you can afford.

The ones you think are getting for free are likely being paid for by another to make a third party even wealthier.

Always follow the money

 

[jamil]

I guess this is where this discussion goes. I’ve heard it said over and over, even before these past couple weeks. Something along the lines of, “My right to be safe is more important than your right to own an assault rifle.” Got me thinking. Do we have a right to be safe? I actually did go back and read through all the amendments and whatnot and I didn’t see it in there. I think the government has an obligation to protect it’s citizens from enemies foreign and domestic but it just kinda twists me the wrong way when people say I have a right to be safe. What government could possibly ever guarantee your safety at all times? Even beyond that, I don’t think safety is a basic human right.

Thoughts?

Well. I'll not make the "what don't you understand about shall not be infringed?" argument.

The idea of the right to safety isn't necessarily incompatible with a free society, unless it is predicated on the primacy of positive liberty, the prescription of how you must act; over negative liberty, the prescription for how you must not act. So by primacy, I mean the person believes positive rights are generally, inherently superior to negative rights. Then, it's just an ideological artifact and will necessarily make the society not free.

So I don't think it's always a binary choice between negative and positive rights, where we must always choose negative rights to be a free and well functioning society. It's the pragmatic, rational, and moral placement for where the line is drawn. For example if safety is an absolute right, the only way society can guarantee that right is to lock everyone up in a padded cell. And if the right to own anything is an absolute right, then I should be able to own nukes without regulation. That we have laws and a police force and public infrastructure implies we at least have some positive rights.

So it's not really a binary, and there is a place to draw the line. So where to draw the line between a positive right to be free from people who can harm people with powerful weapons, and the negative right to be free to own them. If I had my way, I'd probably take a very libertarian position on this and tell people, make your own ***damn safety, *****. But that's not actually a reasonable way to solve it practically, for hopefully obvious reasons. Most people would disagree with at least part of the statement. To get my way I either with the system we have or force the system I want.

A free society forcing freedom is ironic. So I think a reasonable, practical, moral way, to go about deciding where to put the line is to determine proportionality of practical harm. Feeling arbitrarily "unsafe" isn't what I'd call practical harm. So let's use an absurd example to illustrate. What proportion of society can own a nuclear weapon without the high potential for harming enough people, such that the negative right to own it is outweighed by the positive right for people not to reasonably fear that they're gonna be accidentally or purposefully nuked?

So then let's apply that to guns. One hundred million gun owners altogether manage to own 350 million firearms in the US, including EBRs (evil black rifles), and compared to the practical harm, it's really hard to make a reasoned case that the line should go anywhere near positive rights as a solution to that perceived fear. So yes, there are legitimate positive rights (although I'd argue it's just a synonym for group power), even for some level of safety (or why have armies), but you should not have the right to tell someone that they can't have something that doesn't cause a majority proportionality of practical harm.