“My right to safety”

[jamil]

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

In other words, you can pursue that which you have the means to obtain. You only get the guarantees you can afford.

 

[Tombs]

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

Money never grants rights, only blood.

Even with money, blood is still required for them, you can just buy someone else's blood.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

In other words, you can pursue that which you have the means to obtain. You only get the guarantees you can afford.

We have the right to pursue happiness. One could argue that feeling safe could be a part of one's happiness so we have the right to pursue safety. We don't have a right to pursue our happiness over the rights of others pursuing their own happiness. Therefore if safety is a component of happiness and I believe being responsible for my own safety makes me happy, your right to pursue happiness does not eclipse my right to feel safe.

 

[actaeon277]

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

book yes
movie no



I own a lot of Heinlein books.

 

[dugsagun]

Like someone said above about the millions of guns in the hands of the millions of gun owners. On this past valentines day, one cowardly criminal used one gun to kill 17 kids. Completely ignoring the hundred laws he prolly broke, what about the 100million people on that day who own over 300million guns who DIDN'T break the law? What about us, the 99.99% of law abiding gun owners who didnt commit mass homicide that day. Nope , we don't apparently matter, the .01% of people who do these horrendous , evil deeds, we need to pass laws (that they will ignore) to stop them. The people who think like that (the anti's and anyone dumb enough to believe their gigantic load of crap) can just kiss my fat butt.

 

[Mgderf]

My reply to the "My right to be safe..." argument is always the same.
Your fears don't trump my rights.

Liberals may not like the response, but I don't care.

 

[churchmouse]

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

^^This^^

 

[jamil]

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

What natural right can be guaranteed? Who has the right to guarantee it? Perhaps the most pragmatic question, what is the guarantors’ track record in honoring that guarantee?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

What natural right can be guaranteed? Who has the right to guarantee it? Perhaps the most pragmatic question, what is the guarantors’ track record in honoring that guarantee?

Yeah...that's not technically accurate. No rights are guaranteed. A tornado doesn't care about your right to life, property (which is what was originally supposed to be there instead of pursuit of happiness), or your safety. But we all know what he means even if the language is not precise enough.

 

[2A_Tom]

.

 

[churchmouse]

What natural right can be guaranteed? Who has the right to guarantee it? Perhaps the most pragmatic question, what is the guarantors’ track record in honoring that guarantee?

Track record..........Very Poor.

 

[eldirector]

As for as I can figure, none of the current Western "natural rights" are absolutely guaranteed. I think Locke mentioned 3: life, liberty, and property. Only the the first is present at birth, and then is only held due to ones family. The others are only present by force. Both liberty and property can only be held buy those willing and able to defend them. "Nature" cares little of mans' rights, and will strip them away in the blink of an eye.

Interesting, too, (if you do a little Bing-ing) that our so-called natural rights have changed dramatically over the millennia, and differ greatly between cultures.

 

[jbombelli]

There's no such thing as safety. Safety and security are nothing more than illusions sold to us by people who want either your money or your vote.

 

[jamil]

Yeah...that's not technically accurate. No rights are guaranteed. A tornado doesn't care about your right to life, property (which is what was originally supposed to be there instead of pursuit of happiness), or your safety. But we all know what he means even if the language is not precise enough.

Well, sure, it’s an issue of precision. I’m getting more to an underlying sentiment that “safety” can’t be a right because it’s not a natural right. Not all rights are natural. If someone asserts that the right to safety is inherent, then of course that’s nonsense. But one can assert that people ought to have a right to safety, which is a positive right, which prescribes action.

The point is that the thing that makes the right to safety absurd isn’t that it’s not a natural right, or even that it’s a positive right. It’s that it’s impossible to posess. All natural rights are possible to possess by definition. Positive rights are only possible to possess to the extent that society has the capacity to provide. And I think that’s really what he meant by “guarantee”. And it’s good enough that we know what is meant, but then we have to know what he meant.

 

[eldirector]

Almost sounds like we are getting to the root of two differing philosophies:

On one side, one feels they should be given these "rights". "I have the right to be safe!"

On the other, one feels they should pursue said "rights". "I have the right to provide safety for myself!"

 

[jamil]

There's no such thing as safety. Safety and security are nothing more than illusions sold to us by people who want either your money or your vote.

Well, maybe this is another issue of precision. I know what you mean, but there is such a thing as safety. It’s just not practical to extend to the definition these people want. “Safety” is relative, and saying they have a right to it implies an absolute use. It begs the question, just how safe do you think you have a right to be? Perhaps the better question, if you have the positive right to safety, who is obligated to give it to you? What if they decline? Making your own safety is the safest way to be safer than not safe.

 

[jamil]

Almost sounds like we are getting to the root of two differing philosophies:

On one side, one feels they should be given these "rights". "I have the right to be safe!"

On the other, one feels they should pursue said "rights". "I have the right to provide safety for myself!"

It is the old quarrel between the primacy of negative vs positive rights.

 

[churchmouse]

We have never fooled ourselves. Gov. is pretty much useless in providing much of anything as far as our rights.I feel they would abolish the whole premise if they could.
Keep you and yours safe.

 

[ATOMonkey]

It is the old quarrel between the primacy of negative vs positive rights.

I am not a fan of the legaleze that defines the use of force as a "positive right." If you need to take something from someone else in order to have it, then it isn't a right, in my opinion.

I know that is how it is taught in law school, I just fundamentally disagree with it. The reason being that the concept of Rights was derived during a time of Imperial Monarchies where your lord owned everything, Only the government and outlaws were allowed to be armed, and even your life and liberty could be ended at the whim of your lord.

 

[chipbennett]

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.

Unless and until humans can control and overcome the laws of nature (physics, thermodynamics, gravity, the existence/instinct/actions of wildlife, etc.), the idea that humans can assert a "right to safety" is absurd hubris and abject sophistry. I can plausibly assert that I have the right to protect myself from the natural elements; I cannot plausibly assert that I have the right to be safe from (free from the risks of) the elements, for example.

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.

I agree that the only way to ensure absolute safety of an individual is the commensurately absolute elimination of freedom of that individual - but even then, the ostensibly benevolent agent subjecting the individual to such conditions cannot ensure absolute safety. The padded room could fall into a sinkhole, or get destroyed by a tornado, hurricane, or tsunami.

Arguing using nuclear weapons is to base decisions on an edge case. The simple answer is that if something is truly a right, then it can be properly exercised by one individual without compelling or constraining another individual. The hard line is the point where the actions of one individual harm or otherwise infringe upon the exercise of rights of another individual.

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.

Even the founders would agree. See the Declaration of Independence. They viewed the righteous role of government to be the arbiter of that line between the exercise of rights by the individual: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

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?

How about the freedom of every household to have its own, tiny nuclear power reactor?

But to answer your question: the same proportion of law-abiding society can be assumed to possess nuclear arms, while posing zero risk to society. And the same proportion of lawbreakers could obtain nuclear arms (see: suitcase dirty bombs), today, regardless of existing or future laws prohibiting such possession.

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.

I argue that such a public-utility test is not a morally justifiable means to infringe upon a natural, civil, and constitutionally protected right. But, you are correct: if such a test were properly applied, the end result would be obvious, beyond reproach or argument.