“My right to safety”

[chipbennett]

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?

I disagree that "able to be guaranteed" is the appropriate test to determine what is and is not a natural right. Rather, "able to be exercised by an individual without infringing upon the rights of another individual" is the appropriate test.

 

[jamil]

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.

It's not necessarily a legalese thing. I learned about it in a philosophy class. It's just classifying types of rights by how they restrict or compel actions. A negative right generally restricts others from hindering your action. A positive right compels your action. There are some legitimate purposes for positive rights in a functioning free society. You are compelled by law to stop at stop lights. And not all negative rights are practical. Should just anyone be allowed to own nukes? And I've opined earlier on where I think those lines should be drawn and why.

 

[jamil]

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.

100%

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.

I used the edge case on purpose, to demonstrate that the line belongs somewhere between the edges. In other words, there exists a case for the rationality of positive rights, even if its an edge case. It's not a universal binary.

But you make a good point. A right to do something is an action that is right in that, it's not wrong. In other words it doesn't cause harm. The basis for natural rights is based either on god or reason, that one can use one's free will to do whatever does not directly harm other people. I say directly because some would argue that the right to own firearms necessarily harms at least some people. And I would argue back that not having the right to own firearms also necessarily harms at least some people. Same can be said of environmental issues.

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..."



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.

You're making the case for at least some positive rights/laws. 1) the use is regulated such that they're used as utilities, not weapons. 2) the presumed safety is regulated such that it becomes practical for every household to own.

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.

In a society based on the primacy of negative rights, it is morally corrupt to infringe upon this right. My argument should be unnecessary in a functioning free society. But our society is changing and becoming more enamored with favoring the primacy of positive rights.

 

[chipbennett]

I used the edge case on purpose, to demonstrate that the line belongs somewhere between the edges. In other words, there exists a case for the rationality of positive rights, even if its an edge case. It's not a universal binary.

Except, I think a reasonable, plausible argument can be made that it is a universal binary for all but a finite and small number of extreme edge cases (nuclear weapons, and... well, that may be it).

But you make a good point. A right to do something is an action that is right in that, it's not wrong. In other words it doesn't cause harm. The basis for natural rights is based either on god or reason, that one can use one's free will to do whatever does not directly harm other people. I say directly because some would argue that the right to own firearms necessarily harms at least some people. And I would argue back that not having the right to own firearms also necessarily harms at least some people. Same can be said of environmental issues.

The argument that the right to own firearms necessarily harms other people is demonstrably untrue. That over 100 million law-abiding members of society possess some 300-400 million firearms, and cause no harm whatsoever with them utterly refutes the argument. Evil people acting upon evil intent cause harm, regardless of the means or tool used, and regardless of the recognition or denial of the natural right to use or possess any particular tool.

You're making the case for at least some positive rights/laws. 1) the use is regulated such that they're used as utilities, not weapons. 2) the presumed safety is regulated such that it becomes practical for every household to own.

Indeed - as discussed in the Natural Rights thread, IIRC. I am not an anarchist. I believe that humans must institute government to ensure equal protection of the exercise of individual, natural rights.

In a society based on the primacy of negative rights, it is morally corrupt to infringe upon this right. My argument should be unnecessary in a functioning free society. But our society is changing and becoming more enamored with favoring the primacy of positive rights.

The founders knew that to be true, from the beginning.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people”. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
– John Adams

 

[jamil]

Chip. Stoplights. Trivial. But a useful positive law.

 

[jamil]

[...]
The argument that the right to own firearms necessarily harms other people is demonstrably untrue. That over 100 million law-abiding members of society possess some 300-400 million firearms, and cause no harm whatsoever with them utterly refutes the argument. Evil people acting upon evil intent cause harm, regardless of the means or tool used, and regardless of the recognition or denial of the natural right to use or possess any particular tool.

I use this argument all the time with in-laws against their claims to the right to feel safe. 100M gun owners altogether owning 350 million guns, vs the relatively low number of accidental + intentional shootings tends to make their unsafe feeling evidently delusional.

 

[chipbennett]

Chip. Stoplights. Trivial. But a useful positive law.

Travel from one place to another is a natural right. The use of a vehicle on public roads to accomplish that travel, however, is not a natural right.

 

[Crittersdad]

I went back and reread the Constitution did not see a right to safety any where in it.

 

[jamil]

Travel from one place to another is a natural right. The use of a vehicle on public roads to accomplish that travel, however, is not a natural right.

Right. The whole concept of public roads falls into the positive right category. So there is utility. It's an individual right to travel, but it's a societal privilege to drive on public roads which facilitate better transportation, notwithstanding potholes.

But just not at the expense of the personal liberty to travel. I don't have a natural right to travel to work on I-64. I have a positive right to do it, just not a natural right. And having I-64 does not prevent me from traveling to work otherwise. But damn, it'd be a PIA to walk 30 miles to work, crossing the Ohio river each day.

 

[chipbennett]

Right. The whole concept of public roads falls into the positive right category. So there is utility. It's an individual right to travel, but it's a societal privilege to drive on public roads which facilitate better transportation, notwithstanding potholes.

But just not at the expense of the personal liberty to travel. I don't have a natural right to travel to work on I-64. I have a positive right to do it, just not a natural right. And having I-64 does not prevent me from traveling to work otherwise. But damn, it'd be a PIA to walk 30 miles to work, crossing the Ohio river each day.

I disagree. Public roads and other public infrastructure are part of our social compact; they are not rights, positive or otherwise.

 

[jamil]

I disagree. Public roads and other public infrastructure are part of our social compact; they are not rights, positive or otherwise.

If it's provided by government it's a form of positive right. It compels "the people" to provide the thing, on behalf of "the people".

 

[chipbennett]

If it's provided by government it's a form of positive right. It compels "the people" to provide the thing, on behalf of "the people".

I suppose my disagreement is my underlying contention with the very concept of a "positive right". Something that compels others to act in order to achieve is not a "right", in any sense. Infrastructure is not a "right". It is a social compact, carried out by the people, funded using taxes levied upon the people. If the people don't want infrastructure, or don't want to fund infrastructure, the people, through their elected officials, act accordingly.

Indyucky (or you; you live down that way, right?), for example, cannot say, "I have a right to a bridge across the Ohio River, extending from this road near my house." Why not? Because public infrastructure is not a right - "positive right" or otherwise.

Not even providing for national defense, explicitly provided for by the constitution, is not a "right". Rather, it is a responsibility given to the federal government, to be carried out through specific authority enumerated in the constitution for that purpose.

 

[AtTheMurph]

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.

Yeah, not quite.

The idea of Natural Rights was well established in the Colonies and much of the western world for centuries.

The Bill of Rights was not written to delineate 10 natural rights but to get the Constitution enough vote to be passed.

There had been much arguing over the inclusion of a Bill of Rights but Madison thought it was a poor idea since the entire point of the Constitution was to enumerate the very limited powers of the Federal Government. His belief was that adding such things as the 2nd Amendment would be the opening for the government to restrict those Natural Rights retained by the individual.

I guess he was right based on what has happened over the 230 years since. People believe the Constitution gives the rights administered by the government. The entire theory of our self governance has been turned upside down.

 

[jamil]

I suppose my disagreement is my underlying contention with the very concept of a "positive right". Something that compels others to act in order to achieve is not a "right", in any sense. Infrastructure is not a "right". It is a social compact, carried out by the people, funded using taxes levied upon the people. If the people don't want infrastructure, or don't want to fund infrastructure, the people, through their elected officials, act accordingly.

Indyucky (or you; you live down that way, right?), for example, cannot say, "I have a right to a bridge across the Ohio River, extending from this road near my house." Why not? Because public infrastructure is not a right - "positive right" or otherwise.

Not even providing for national defense, explicitly provided for by the constitution, is not a "right". Rather, it is a responsibility given to the federal government, to be carried out through specific authority enumerated in the constitution for that purpose.

I agree with the semantics. I think I've written elsewhere something to the effect that "positive rights" are really more related to government authority than what people traditionally think of as a right. But I'm just using the language of the philosophers who've defined such things. I'd rather think of a right as an action or activity you're entitled to do. Governments can confer rights as privileges, I guess. Or, we could say that natural rights are conferred to humans as sovereign individuals. (don't confuse that with the nonsense that is Sovereign Citizens).

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Back in my NRA Board days I was also a member of the NRA Speakers Bureau, so if there was a request for a speaker from the Association in my area I'd be sent.

There was a teacher at at a local high school each year who would get me and a speaker from an anti-gun group to address his civics class (on separate days).

Quite often I would get the but-if-gun-control-saves-just-one-life question from a student.

"Ok," I'd respond. "Let's use the saving of one life as our standard of social conduct. How many people came to school today in a car (hands would go up)?

"Every one of you could have been killed coming into school today. Every year people in this country are killed by traveling in automobiles, by swimming, by skydiving, by mountain climbing, by skiing, playing football, and even by walking down the street. By a show of hands, how many of you would ban each one of the activities I have just named, and dozens of others, if it would save just one life?"

Of course no hands would be raised. But light bulbs would start to come on.

"Safety and freedom are mutually exclusive concepts. If you are completely safe you are not free. And if you are completely free you are not safe. It is utterly impossible to have both at once. Life consists of striking a balance between the two."

Occasionally kids from these classes would see me in a restaurant or something, approach me and thank me for addressing their class. And more often than not they would remark that the anti-gunner who was my counterpart had advanced arguments that made no sense.

Kid's brains function pretty well if you just input the right data.

 

[jamil]

Yeah, not quite.

The idea of Natural Rights was well established in the Colonies and much of the western world for centuries.

The Bill of Rights was not written to delineate 10 natural rights but to get the Constitution enough vote to be passed.

There had been much arguing over the inclusion of a Bill of Rights but Madison thought it was a poor idea since the entire point of the Constitution was to enumerate the very limited powers of the Federal Government. His belief was that adding such things as the 2nd Amendment would be the opening for the government to restrict those Natural Rights retained by the individual.

I guess he was right based on what has happened over the 230 years since. People believe the Constitution gives the rights administered by the government. The entire theory of our self governance has been turned upside down.

But just think how quickly the enumerated rights would have dissolved by governments and courts. If there weren't a 2A, I doubt we'd still have the rights we have now. He was right. But they needed stronger language.

So for example, it needed to say, looky here, *****es. These are the powers the government has. No more than that. If you *****es want more power than what's listed here. No using the courts to make the constitution "say" what you wish it said. You gotta change this here document to spell it out precisely, using that there process. And we're making it kinda ****ing hard to change. Because we know how you power hungry *****es like to make the people yer *****es. So. We're saying here and now that everyone gets to do everything that this document doesn't say you get to regulate.

 

[BugI02]

I think you used to have a right to safety, even if you exercised your right to a de-cocker (at least that was true on my 85FS). More recent firearms have tended to make the right to safety exclusive from the right to a de-cocker

 

[Leadeye]

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

I think the concept of "rights" has become adulterated over time. A "right" was something like the original "Bill of Rights" in the past, a concept often paid for in blood like Tombs said. It's difficult for me to resolve those concepts with the "right" to free health care, absolute security, and making someone bake you a cake when they don't want to. These sort of "rights" while providing for the benefactors are also enriching third parties. law firms, big business, government etc.

I've seen a lot over my many years of life and in that time the reality was that "might makes right" is the case most of the time. You can substitute money for might in this case.

 

[Tombs]

I think the concept of "rights" has become adulterated over time. A "right" was something like the original "Bill of Rights" in the past, a concept often paid for in blood like Tombs said. It's difficult for me to resolve those concepts with the "right" to free health care, absolute security, and making someone bake you a cake when they don't want to. These sort of "rights" while providing for the benefactors are also enriching third parties. law firms, big business, government etc.

I've seen a lot over my many years of life and in that time the reality was that "might makes right" is the case most of the time. You can substitute money for might in this case.

The key difference is that rights are not something granted by anyone, they're something that is taken by the people, and made clear to governments that they are not allowed to interfere with.

Privileges are something governments grant you, such as benefit programs, healthcare, etc. They can be taken away by government because they are granted by government.

Rights can not be taken away by government without compliance, and that compliance is effectively consent to have those rights suppressed.
People don't like to talk about that because it involves 2 taboo concepts, personal responsibility and risk of upsetting their relatively safe and easy life.