7 Jan
Quote of the Day
From Joe Huffman at “The View from North Central Idaho“.
Some anti-gun people get upset and start whining about pro-gun people being “afraid of our government”. They try to portray citizens exercising their right to keep and bear arms as paranoid. In the general case this is certainly wrong.
It is not a fear of government that motivates us to acquire arms and training. It is the public servants that do not fear their citizens.
Just as children should fear their parents’ displeasure or disapproval; the government should fear the actions of the citizenry.
Posted by Jay on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
“People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.” – V
If you haven’t seen it, I suggest you watch a movie called V for Vendetta: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0434409/
It’s an excellent movie, and I believe it is very fitting for the times we are in.
Posted by Rob on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
Bob -
You are a douchebag.
Out.
RR
Posted by Bob S. on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
Rob,
Thanks for stopping by and leaving a troll comment. Guess that is the limit of your intelligence perhaps?
Not able to explain why the government shouldn’t fear the actions of the citizens? Not able to frame a comment with resorting to vulgarity?
Perhaps when you graduate high school you can come back and talk with the adults.
Posted by Linoge on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
FYI, Bob: Rob claims to be SouthernFemaleLawyer’s husband, and is making unveiled, blatant threats online, preserved below against future “cleaning up”:
It would appear as though the entire family has poor impulse control, poor mastery of the english language, an inability to debate with anyone who disagrees with them without resorting to foul language and personal attacks, and generally immature behavior.
They must be perfect for one another.
Posted by Weer'd Beard on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
Hey at least he’s more entertaining than MikeB302000.
Maybe Rob would be willing to take Mikey’s job and we can trade up in trolls!
Posted by Bob S. on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
Linoge,
Just checked back in with that thread. Isn’t it amazing how violent those who say they are liberals are?
Because I’m exercising my first amendment rights, he feels it is appropriate to respond with physical violence. How does that work again?
Posted by Linoge on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
Even better, check out her newest post:
I am so tempted to write, “Does that request apply to your husband threatening to bash people’s faces in for daring to disagree with you?”
As usual, certain individuals give significant credence to the theory that they are simply projecting their fears and shortcomings (in short, the fear that they will lose controll, and the shortcoming that they do lose control) onto other people, regardless of whether those other people have the same fears or shortcomings. Stereotype filled.
Posted by AztecRed on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
After reading SoutherFemaleLawyers comments, I have to say it’s amazing how the allegedly “educated” amongst us have the most vulgar mouths and limited vocabularies. No wonder they don’t trust anyone to carry a gun in public. Someone like her shouldn’t be trusted outside of a padded room with the furniture bolted to the floor.
It seems the vast majority of anti-gunners never matured past the level of “angry teenager”.
Posted by Weer'd Beard on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
If gun owners were as violent and aggressive as anti-rights advocates I suspect they’d be a little more warm to using statistics in their calls to disarm people.
Also gotta love the “I like guns…I’m just against people protecting themselves with them.”
Posted by Mike w on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
Why are anti-gunners so violent?….
Posted by Jay on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
Rob,
I know how to take care of myself. Bring it.
From Texas with love,
-Jay
Posted by AztecRed on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
“Also gotta love the “I like guns…I’m just against people protecting themselves with them.””
That’s the classic bigot refrain. Ranks right up there with, “I have no problem with black people. I just don’t want want them to live on my street.”
Posted by Weer'd Beard on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
Or “I’m totally fine with gay people….but they should have a little more tact and not hold hands in public, that make some people nervous!”
Oh and every person I’ve ever heard say that (or say the same thing about open carry) “Some People” simply translates to “Me”.
Posted by R. Stanton Scott on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
Which public servants, exactly, would you say do not fear citizens?
And is fear the word you’re looking for here? If so, brandishing firearms might make them afraid of you.
But if you really mean respect, then perhaps you don’t really need weapons. Political activism, voting, and frank debate based on facts should do the trick.
A lot of pro-Second Amendment rhetoric suggests a paranoid fear of government. If the shoe fits…
Posted by mike w. on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
“,A lot of pro-Second Amendment rhetoric suggests a paranoid fear of government. If the shoe fits…”
Given that we have sitting US Senators who have openly called for the registration and confiscation of privately held firearms, not to mention a President with a long history of outright contempt for the 2nd Amendment I’d say our fear of government is not at all misplaced.
It’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you.
As you said, “If the shoe fits.”
Posted by Bob S. on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
R. Stanton,
I would prefer my public servants respect me, I’ll settle for fear of my actions.
What public servants do not fear citizens? How about the Washington D.C. Detective that pulled a gun because some people threw snowballs.
How about the servants in the city of Chicago that bans firearms from the average citizen?
How about servants in the State of Illinois and Wisconsin that do not allow Concealed Carry.
How about our sitting Congress that is open and directly defying the Constitution in their attempt to pass “health care reform” that will require a citizen to purchase a commercial product.
Show me the constitutional authority for that action
But if you really mean respect, then perhaps you don’t really need weapons. Political activism, voting, and frank debate based on facts should do the trick.
HMMM, since I”m not out shooting politicians or other varmints yet, I would think that it is obvious that I agree that activism, voting and frank debate should do the trick. But it hasn’t.
The name of this blog is 3 Boxes of BS. The BS is I – Bob S — the 3 boxes ? Soapbox, Ballot and Ammo.
Posted by AntiCitizenOne on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
If those that should fear us control the terms of debate and facts…what’s next?
Posted by Bob S. on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
AC1,
We take back the debate, we take back control of the facts.
One of the main reasons i started commenting then blogging myself was to get the facts out there or at least not all the false information to go unopposed.
We kick out of office those who are elected and not being honest with the public.
We put pressure on the various administrations to fire those that are exceeding their gasp in appointed positions.
This is our government, we need to start acting like it.
Posted by hazmat on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
Bob, I read the thread in question via Uncle’s link. I found your arguments most impressive and more than valid in spite of the venom of the author. Your point by point rebuttal was, given the environment, spot on.
What I found most telling in the ensuing discussions (your comments are back if you didn’t already know) was that after Rob’s posturing and threats of violence in defense of his wife, the backpedalling began. Eventually, what you and others such as Weer’d Beard said was eventually the same thing she was supposedly getting at (Rights vs Responsibilities and ownership thereof), though for the life of me I can’t understand how she went from wanting only veteran cops and military to have CCW permits to everything’s all peachy. .
Posted by Weer'd Beard on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
“One of the main reasons i started commenting then blogging myself was to get the facts out there or at least not all the false information to go unopposed.
We kick out of office those who are elected and not being honest with the public.”
HUGE +1 Bob. My political mantra is “Think Locally, Act Locally” many of us get overburdened with changing the world.
Instead change your neighborhood, change the blogs you read. Get people to be informed and vote information, not party lines and buzz words. With an informed active electorate there is NOBODY out of our reach.
But it’s like digging the Panama canal with a shovel. Seems like a daunting task (and frankly it IS a daunting task) but if grab our shovel and start digging and while you’re at it get your buddies to bring THEIR shovels and their THEIR buddies….well eventually you got yerself a pretty spiffy canal!
Posted by R. Stanton Scott on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
I think you choose an interesting example here. The officer in question appeared to flash his weapon in something like road rage, not in any official capacity. In any event, it’s not clear why a detective pulling a gun on citizens shows that he had no fear of them. It may also not be good evidence that people should be permitted to walk around with guns everywhere they go.
It may frankly be a good thing that none of the citizens present had a weapon and felt a need to make sure that government officials fear them. The cop was certainly out of line, but escalation would have helped no one.
More generally, I would ask at what point you think armed citizens should take paramilitary action against government officials who pass “unconstitutional laws.” What if elected officials wish to restrict the ownership and use of weapons because their constituency has demanded they do so? If others think this violates their rights, a system is in place for adjudicating the legal dispute. I, for example, disagree with you on the constitutionality of requiring citizens to purchase health insurance–I think the Commerce Clause gives them this power. If you and others dispute this, the court system will see to it that you have a chance to make your case. In the absence of evidence that this system has broken down, demanding the right to arm yourself against a Congress that passes controversial legislation which you don’t like makes it sound like you want to fight for a certain result, not a democratic system. And not getting the result you want is not, in itself, evidence that the system has broken down.
Does losing your constitutional argument mean that the government is not responsive? How large does your dissident group–that is, the constituency for change–have to be to justify armed insurrection? I’m genuinely trying to sort out the parameters of the case you are making here. I can understand why people who live in certain places might feel a need to arm themselves for personal protection (though I disagree that this is the correct course to take). But I find arguments about armed citizens protecting their freedom by carrying concealed hand guns less compelling, and I’m curious about your argument for this.
Posted by Bob S. on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
R. Scott,
In any event, it’s not clear why a detective pulling a gun on citizens shows that he had no fear of them
Do you think a Detective would have pulled a gun like that in some of the rough neighborhoods of L.A. or Chicago where he knows many of the thugs are armed?
Do you think a Detective would have pulled a gun like that in a small town where the Sheriff is elected by the people?
The Detective “knew” that the majority of the people were unarmed because of the laws of D.C. – thus he had no fear of anyone being armed.
The Detective “knew” that the union and the police chief are not directly answerable to the people- thus he had no fear of anyone having enough pull to get him fired.
The Congress has written the laws to protect the incumbents and gerrymandered the districts to make it almost impossible for them to loose an election — thus they have little fear of a challenger and little fear of the public removing them from office.
The cop was certainly out of line, but escalation would have helped no one.
It isn’t about escalation- it is about parity. If rage filled cops hesitate to pull their weapons because they might have to answer immediately for their actions, that is a good thing.
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. – Robert A. Heinlein
The first part of the quote gets the most attention but the second part is the most important.
More generally, I would ask at what point you think armed citizens should take paramilitary action against government officials who pass “unconstitutional laws.”
That is a good question that I’ll only answer generally — When no other option remain is the best answer I can give you.
When we can’t vote them out of office, When the courts refuse to overturn the unconstitutional laws, when the officials are unwilling to act within the bounds of the highest law of the land – the Constitution. Don’t we have a responsibility to act at that point?
What if elected officials wish to restrict the ownership and use of weapons because their constituency has demanded they do so?
My rights are not subject to a majority vote.
Let’s try your sentence with a little word substitution and see if you would support it
What if elected officials wish to re-instate slavery because their constituency has demanded they do so?
What if elected officials wish to kick all the Jews out of the country because their constituency has demanded they do so?
What if elected officials wish to all —insert color here — from speaking in public because their constituency has demanded they do so?
Would the people have a right, a responsibility to act to restore legitimate government in those cases?
In the absence of evidence that this system has broken down, demanding the right to arm yourself against a Congress that passes controversial legislation which you don’t like makes it sound like you want to fight for a certain result, not a democratic system.
Waiting until the system has completely broken down is a little late to be arming ourselves isn’t it?
Gee, let’s wait until I no longer have the right to arm myself before I insist on my right.
Also, I’m not “insisting on the right to arm myself”. I am insisting the government —the one founded by Rebels who used their personal armaments to rebel — respect my right to keep and bear arms.
You ask some great questions in your last paragraph and I can not give you great answers. In my opinion I think the number of people to justify an armed insurrection can be as little as one.
One person who is right can make a majority. One person who sees what needs to be done and does it can be sufficient.
How did the War of Independence start? With everyone in total agreement that we were done with England? Or did a person here and there start talking about what we need to do to set things right, about how the citizens were being mistreated? Did that single person convince others to join his cause?
As far as carrying concealed and protecting freedoms – that is easier. By insisting the government respect my fundamental freedom to protect myself, I force the government to realize there is a line they should not cross.
By protecting my fundamental freedom to protect myself, I force the government to realize that rounding up those they disagree with will not be a painless exercise.
To me this is the same as protecting my right to publicly disagree with the government, if I don’t insist on that, the first step down a horrible path has been taken.
Thanks for stopping by and asking great questions.
Posted by R. Stanton Scott on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
You make a fair point about whether or not the snowball incident would have happened if the officer had suspected someone in the crowd had been armed. But I would have to be convinced that a cop with the hubris to flash his weapon because two snowballs hit his Hummer wouldn’t have done so before a potentially-armed citizen–or that this anecdote says very much about whether government officials fear the citizenry.
You also rightly point out that gerrymandering and other institutional structures protect incumbents, and make government less responsive. I would respond by asking whether you would support changing this structure if it meant the election of a more liberal government. The current system, after all, probably gives gun-rights advocates power beyond their numbers, mostly by inflating the representation of people in small, conservative states.
And I did not advocate submitting your rights–or anyone’s–to majority vote. I simply pointed out that elected officials must respond to constituent demands, and when this creates disputes about rights infringement, the system adjudicates it. To be sure, the system never performs perfectly, and I would still like to hear your view on just what degree of imperfection justifies insurrection. If you cannot define this, many will think as I do: that your position has less to do with rights or constitutionality than it does with getting a result you like.
Which brings me to a discussion of the nature of rights and an interesting question: are they absolute and unchanging? Has society at large no say in what we accept as a “right?” Beyond the obvious “your rights end where my nose begins” norm, our social concepts about the value of human beings, who qualifies as a citizen, and how we regulate our interactions do not remain static. Norms about these things change, and along with them our claims about what we have a “right” to. This is how our ideas about the right to own another human being changed, and so I would turn your question on its head: would slave owners have been justified in armed resistance to infringements on their right to property in the form of slaves?
Posted by Blogging the Second Amendment « Foggy Bottom Line on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
[...] goes beyond personal safety and crime control. He also seems to think that the population needs firearms to protect themselves against a potentially despotic government. Like many of those who hold this view, his writing proves long on romantic discussions of free [...]
Posted by Bob S. on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
R. Scott,
But I would have to be convinced that a cop with the hubris to flash his weapon because two snowballs hit his Hummer wouldn’t have done so before a potentially-armed citizen
One citizen? Probably wouldn’t have made a difference, 100? 1,000?
How about a population that hasn’t had such a fundamental right trampled for decades? When people are conditioned to believe they don’t have a right to defend themselves against a representative of the government…then we have problems. That is the nature of gun control.
It doesn’t just affect the immediate physical but changes the long term perspective of subjects instead of citizens. It conditions those in the government to view themselves as in charge instead of being servants.
I would respond by asking whether you would support changing this structure if it meant the election of a more liberal government.
I would support and do support changing the structure to make the election of a more representative government possible. I don’t care if it is liberal or conservative.
I want a smaller government not more government.
The reason I want it easier to vote out incumbents is to be able to get rid of those that do not respect our fundamental rights.
And I did not advocate submitting your rights–or anyone’s–to majority vote. I simply pointed out that elected officials must respond to constituent demands, and when this creates disputes about rights infringement, the system adjudicates it.
It shouldn’t get to the point of having to be adjudicated, that is the problem. Our elected representatives should reflect the population, yes, but they also should be people of principle that says some times “This is wrong and here is why is it wrong”. Gun Control laws — like Washington D.C.s ban, Chicago’s Ban, the Assault Weapon Ban — were wrong and the representatives shouldn’t have voted for them. If the people don’t like it they can vote them out but the new folks should say the same.
To be sure, the system never performs perfectly, and I would still like to hear your view on just what degree of imperfection justifies insurrection.
I’m not sure I can express it. There is a line – can you define your line where it stands? I will consider it and see if I can develop it to the point of a post. Acceptable?
Which brings me to a discussion of the nature of rights and an interesting question: are they absolute and unchanging?
Some rights are absolute and unchanging. Right to live, right to defend that life, etc. The right to free speech, freedom of religion, also…why would the not be absolute and unchanging?
Now, I’ll turn it around. Do you agree or disagree that some right are absolute and unchanging?
Has society at large no say in what we accept as a “right?”
Yes, of course. No “rights” develop in isolation, but some rights exist independent of society. Surely those in Communist China, Nazi Germany, under Pol Pot’s regime still had a right to life. I think HOW those rights are expressed and protected is determined by society but only to a degree.
would slave owners have been justified in armed resistance to infringements on their right to property in the form of slaves?
People can not be property. Just because some people thought — because a society believed that doesn’t make it true.
You provide the exact line that expresses what gun owners believe, think about it with word substitution and you find that you answer your own question.
would gun owners have been justified in armed resistance to infringements on their right to property in the form o f firearms?
The abolition of the right to keep and bear arms is usually one step in a line to turn free people into slaves or subjects. Which do you want to be subject or citizen?
Posted by R. Stanton Scott on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
I think that a widespread general belief that armed citizens should “defend themselves against representatives of the government” would make me uncomfortable. Without an associated broad understanding of when this is justified, I think it would contribute to a breakdown in the social order. The difficulty you have articulating where you think this line is suggests that such a broad understanding does not exist, especially given that you have clearly given this a lot of thought.
You may want to rethink your stand on making government more accountable, and easier to change through the political process. If we could vote politicians out of office more easily, you might sadly find that the ones you personally would install might be sent home first. Most people care more about comfort than liberty–and because we disagree about where to locate the balance between them, no government can be expected to pass only laws which receive consensus acceptance as to Constitutionality. We will never free ourselves of the need to adjudicate these things.
No, gun owners would not be justified in armed resistance to infringements on the right to own property in the form of firearms, if the social construction of “property” excludes weapons, as it today excludes human beings. This was not so in the past, and the fact that this changed shows that our intersubjective understanding of what we mean by “rights” remains contested–even a right to life. How society defines these things matters.
A hundred years before the Founders few would have argued that the general population possessed any individual rights. Nothing about rights has anything to do with nature, and they do not accrue to us merely as a consequence of our existence. The concept itself depends on human social construction about right, wrong, and how we should interact amongst ourselves. The men who wrote the US Constitution, to be sure, heavily influenced that construction, to the benefit of mankind. Even the idea that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights” depends more on a human interpretation of what it means to have been created in God’s image than any instructions God Himself gave.
None of this, of course, means that human beings should stand by and allow the government or anyone else to oppress or kill them. Whether or not we have a right to life, a simple desire to live justifies any effort to do so in my view, even if government moves under cover of law to enslave or destroy an individual or group. For this they would have to be armed, though it might not require routine carry of personal handguns into grocery stores.
Madison, for one, placed the onus for this on the States, and wrote in Federalist 46 “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost any other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against an enterprise of ambition.” Of the Europeans, he wrote further that “were the people to possess the advantage of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions surrounding it.” It is clear that Madison discussed armed citizens in the context of militias controlled by local governments which could organize and direct popular will, not individual armed citizens forming ad hoc groups to rebel against government.
For me this means the question becomes: where do we stand on this today? Certainly we have developed a right to live, and an attendant right to protect ourselves, which remains largely unrestricted. Even so, how we exercise that right remains a policy question, and whether or not a right to life carries with it a right to carry weapons for self-defense remains hotly contested.
Posted by Bob S. on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
R. Scott,
I think that a widespread general belief that armed citizens should “defend themselves against representatives of the government” would make me uncomfortable.
Good, it should make you and I uncomfortable. It should worry us greatly.
Then we would take steps to make sure it never go to the point where armed citizens would have to defend themselves against agent of the government, right?
Can we say that we have that point now?
The difficulty you have articulating where you think this line is suggests that such a broad understanding does not exist, especially given that you have clearly given this a lot of thought.
I notice that you do not attempt to articulate your line or even if you have a line in the sand. Why is that?
Look at the Declaration of Independence, Look at the actions approved by the people of our country and you’ll find the line. Each person’s line may vary but the national consensus exists. There are some things we will not tolerate and that is the line.
If we could vote politicians out of office more easily, you might sadly find that the ones you personally would install might be sent home first.
Absolutely don’t want to re-think my position. I want more people to see it. Let’s make it really easy to vote them out. Then it become my responsibility my neighbors responsibility, my representatives responsibility to let people know why we should keep that person in office.
It shouldn’t be difficult to do and it will help shape consensus and unity. Right now is it so difficult to get people out that the people in office don’t have to worry about explaining themselves.
Look at any campaign site and you’ll see nothing but superficial garbage and promises they don’t intend to keep once in office. See President Obama for the latest example.
No, gun owners would not be justified in armed resistance to infringements on the right to own property in the form of firearms, if the social construction of “property” excludes weapons
This where the line gets slippery and knotty at the same time. It doesn’t matter if the social construction of property excludes weapons because the highest law in the land says that my right to keep and bear arms isn’t up for negotiate or changes in the social construction.
If the social construction said that everyone named Stanton should be made slaves, would your right to freedom change?
A hundred years before the Founders few would have argued that the general population possessed any individual rights.
I think that is a gross overstatement and incredibly inaccurate. The subject of individual rights is as ancient as mankind.
Nothing about rights has anything to do with nature, and they do not accrue to us merely as a consequence of our existence.
What ??? Please explain how you reach this conclusion?
Our right to exist is natural and continue to exist accrues because I exist. It doesn’t matter if I am alone — I have a right to defend myself against nature, animals in order to exist. That is a right that I have because of my very existence.
..even if government moves under cover of law to enslave or destroy an individual or group. For this they would have to be armed, though it might not require routine carry of personal handguns into grocery stores.
This is an argument that I’ve heard and it makes absolutely no sense at all.
So I have a right to defend myself against an abusive, tyrannical government but I can only use firearms to do that home? That I have no right to routinely carry a firearm for protection?
If that is the case, why would the government ever need to arrest a person at home, to unfairly deprive a person of life and liberty by attacking them at their home? Why not wait until the leave for work, kidnap or murder them?
It is clear that Madison discussed armed citizens in the context of militias controlled by local governments which could organize and direct popular will, not individual armed citizens forming ad hoc groups to rebel against government.
And who makes up the militia except for armed individuals? How are militias formed if not ad hoc in many cases?
Going back to my Washington D.C. example — a militia formed on an ad hoc basis when the Detective threatened them with his firearm. They stood together and stood against a representative of the government. That was an ad hoc militia. New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina — another example.
The militia starts with every person being ready and capable of defending themselves. Otherwise no militia could form against the government’s opposition.
Even so, how we exercise that right remains a policy question, and whether or not a right to life carries with it a right to carry weapons for self-defense remains hotly contested.
To argue the people should be disarmed give power back to those with greater physical force or numbers. To argue that people don’t have a right to carry weapons for self defense means those with physical disabilities or limitations are not as valuable as those with better health.
It shouldn’t be hotly contested, it is ridiculous to say to a 90 pound man or woman that you must fight with hands and feet against a 200# attacker. That is inane and insane.
That was what started this whole kerfuffle at SFL; she advocated that people have a right to defend themselves in their homes and in their cars but not in public with firearms.
Please explain to me how I have a right to use a firearm in my house but if I walk out 50 feet to the street that I should loose that right?
Posted by R. Stanton Scott on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
Sir,
I frankly don’t see much sense in continuing this discussion if you intend to simply respond to what I write a sentence at a time by simply refuting my claims with assertions or asking me to elaborate. The discussion is going nowhere.
If I read you right, you worry that permitting tighter regulations on firearm possession and use would create an attitude of submission among citizens and empower government to oppress them. If so, I would like to see your empirical support for this claim. You further worry that this is no academic exercise, and the United States Government could become so oppressive that citizens would have to actually begin an armed insurrection to reestablish a democracy. But you still haven’t explained just what sort of oppression would look like in 2010, though you hint that infringement on the right to bear arms might qualify.
This is an important because it suggests that lawful regulation of firearms or amendment of the constitution to repeal the Second Amendment (or perhaps mandated purchase of health insurance?) would take the government across this line, at least for you. But if such a repeal takes place within the established constitutional framework–that is, the amendment process the Founders put in place–is it really oppression? Or just a shift in the normative understanding our society holds about rights and firearms?
No natural rights exist because every right remains contingent on the laws, customs, or beliefs of particular societies or polities. Even the right to life depends on our attitudes about each other, and did not exist until human beings decided that belief in God and our relationship to Him required us to invent it. If this right were natural, we would always have understood it, if not respected it. The subject of individual rights is quite old, but human understanding of what it means does not: Aristotle would have vociferously argued that humans have little or no value apart from society. Indeed, until the 12th Century human society quite literally shared no common understanding of what individual rights even mean.
My definition of which government actions justify insurrection make no difference, since I am not the one advocating arming the citizenry in the event it becomes necessary, But I think that if the government came to round up all the Stantons to enslave them, or Jews for concentration camps, we would be justified in fighting back. Fortunately, I believe that the chances of this happening in the US approach zero, for a variety of normative and practical reasons (shared understandings of the rule of law, division of power among the branches of government, the federalist system, and the odds that the US military would not go along, to name a few).
Thanks for giving me the forum.
Posted by Linoge on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
Given this erroneous statement:
… and how very far out into left field it really is, I think it is fair to say that the first comment of Stanton’s last comment is dead on – there really is no sense in debating with someone whose sense of reality is that far removed from… well… reality.
Posted by mike w. on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
What if elected officials wish to restrict the ownership and use of weapons because their constituency has demanded they do so?
Mr. Scott – Whether or not the constituents want it is irrelevant. My Constitutional Rights are NOT subject to nullification by mob rule / majority vote.
If a majority of residents in a particular town decided to institute laws creating separate institutions for blacks would you say “oh, that’s just peachy, since that’s what they want.” Or would you point to the Constitution and Brown v. Board of Education and say “HELL NO, that’s unconstitutional.
My rights are my rights, whether you like it or not.
Posted by Bob S. on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
R.
I’m confused as how you think that the discussion isn’t worth continuing because I don’t write the way you do or the way you want me to.
I discuss what you bring up. I Reference your points for clarity. In a long comment like you’ve posted it can be difficult to know where one point starts and stops. If you don’t like my style, you are free not to comment or continue the discussion. It is a free world.
You want empirical support for gun control increasing submissive behavior on the part of the citizens? How about the United Kingdom, Soviet Russia?
Name a country where the citizens have been forcibly disarmed and yet freedom has increased?
I can’t name a single one. Name a country that has pushed for gun control and liberty has increased. United Kingdom? Higher violent crime rate than America.
Tried doing it your way but I get lost so I’m going to quote your reply for my sake. Don’t like it, too bad. I’m trying to be nice but how I write is a personal style and if you don’t like it no one is making you comment.
But you still haven’t explained just what sort of oppression would look like in 2010,
Gee so sorry I have satisfactorily elaborated on a subject in the few hours we’ve been debating this. Partly, as I said I will work to write that down. Partly I don’t want to write it down. Why should I provide the government (as far as I know you are an agent of the government– probably not but hey why not exercise caution) with exactly where I draw the line. Go back to the government fearing the citizens points.
This is an important because it suggests that lawful regulation of firearms or amendment of the constitution to repeal the Second Amendment
We already have lawful regulation of firearms, so your point is misleading in the least and disingenious in the middle and possibly an attempt to lie at the worst.
The Second Amendment could be repealed tomorrow and it would not affect my right to keep and bear arms. Not one whit. That right, regardless of your opinion is a natural right. If I have a desire to live, then I have a desire (or right) to use tools to continue living. As long as I’m not harming others with that tool, then the social construction should have no business telling me if I can keep that tool or not.
My father suffered from COPD before his death, does the social construction have the authority to say that he could not have used an oxygen concentrator that he paid for to keep him alive?
Absolutely not!! Why is it any different for a firearm?
No natural rights exist because every right remains contingent on the laws, customs, or beliefs of particular societies or polities.
Now I will ask for citation or evidence to support your claim. Seems to be a wild statement, so let’s see some proof, eh?
Again, you didn’t refute or provide any evidence or substance to refute my statements, you simply repeated your earlier belief. Repetition does not make something true.
You also refute your own statement further along with this statement:
But I think that if the government came to round up all the Stantons to enslave them, or Jews for concentration camps, we would be justified in fighting back.
Why would you have a justification for fighting back if your rights are dependent on the social construction. The government couldn’t round up all the Stantons if the social construction approved right? If the social construction approve, then your right to fight back is not justified according to your beliefs.
So Which it is?
Posted by R. Stanton Scott on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
It’s not a question of whether I like your writing style–it’s a question of whether I can adequately respond to the points you make when you make them the way you do. I just don’t feel as if the discussion is focused enough.
And I don’t blame you for this. I believe that you don’t really understand what I mean by “social construction,” and this is probably because I have not clearly explained myself.
For example, you ask whether or not my right to fight back depends on approval by the “social construction” as if this refers to popular will in some way. But by “social construction” I mean the shared intersubjective understandings a society holds about “truth.” One we share today has to do with the concept of rights, and which ones are worth defending. If the social construction of rights changes in a way that makes most people disgusted at the idea of people owning guns (in the same way it changed to make people disgusted at the idea of people owning slaves), gun owners would be shamed, and owing one would no longer be considered a right by the larger population. If this happens (and I believe it will) only the smallest of minorities would fight to protect gun ownership–as only a very few people today believe that owning other human beings is acceptable. This is a paradigmatic shift, not an effort by the “social construction” to oppress anyone. No agency exists–that is no actor exists that seeks to ban guns to fulfill a social or political purpose.
Many of these shared understandings become so ingrained that we have difficulty thinking we could look at them any other way. But none of our ideas about life, property, rights, free speech, and the nature of human existence have remained static across human history. So I think there is value in thinking about what will happen as these understandings continue to shift.
The case of gun rights is particularly interesting here, as the disagreement on this norm is a sharp one, and both sides hold their views very closely. So as the norms shift, we can expect many people to protect their understandings very vigorously against challenges from those who work to change society. And by this I don’t mean forcing you to give up your guns–I mean socializing children and each other to believe it is no longer necessary for people to have them.
So I think this is the real battlefield for you. It is both a political and social fight, but it does not depend on violent insurrection against a government to protect the Second Amendment. It depends on normalizing the idea of “the gun” as a personal possession for recreational or self-defense use. Others will endeavor to make gun ownership seem silly, or stupid, or pathetic, or dangerous–and you see these efforts in the news and on blogs every day. People who drop their weapons in grocery stores and accidentally shoot bag boys in the hip don’t help your cause.
I think it makes sense for both of us to regroup and restart the discussion later, if you don’t mind. I have had difficulty responding to your style, and this has made my responses less than clear. I also think I need a chance to digest what you’ve said, take a look at the statistics link you sent, and give this some thought. Your demand for proof of my claim that no natural rights exist, for example, is a tough one. I don’t think there is a way to “prove” this, so if you don’t accept my logical argument as at least showing that the possibility exists, that line of discussion will take us nowhere. This should not surprise anyone–philosophers have debated this question since Man first started thinking.
Once more, thanks for a thoughtful discussion.
Posted by Bob S. on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
Stan,
I understand the “social construction” but disagree with your premise that a change in the social construction can remove a right.
If the social construction moves to the point where tall white people are no longer considered to be “people” does that mean my right to exist, to be free changes?
Absolutely not! It doesn’t matter if the majority of the people in the world feel that I should be a slave, my natural right to exist and to exist freely is not dependent upon their world view.
Another view would be rape — there are some societies — social constructions to use your term– that it is okay to rape a women who is not wearing socially acceptable clothing. Are you telling me that her right to sanctity of her body doesn’t exist?
I’m not asking you to prove your view but to support them. Provide links to others who have written on the subject, studies done validating your view.
You are right that changing the social perception is our battlefield, you are, in my opinion wrong in that a violent insurrection is needed. Mutually Assured Destruction was the watch word for the Cold War. Without that last resort, don’t you think the opponents would have been more forceful in their attempts to implement their beliefs world wide?
Changing the social perception was why I commented on SFL’s site. She stated a belief that I wanted to counter or present a differing view. Allowing that view to go unchallenged could lead to the legal restriction of our rights.
Here is where and why we fight so hard
Hertfordshire Police officers warned Miss Klass she should not have used a knife to scare off the youths because carrying an “offensive weapon” – even in her own home – was illegal.
http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=151678783
Regardless what you say about the changes in social construction — NO ONE has the authority to tell me or Miss Klass she doesn’t have a right to protect themselves.
Our efforts at ‘normalizing’ use of firearms also includes normalizing the carrying of firearms — or restoring the normalization of carrying firearms. Through out history people have carried weapons for defense and it has been acceptable.
One of the questions I have for people is why is it considered acceptable for physical violence using a person’s body to be acceptable for defense but not a tool like a firearms?
Posted by R. Stanton Scott on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
I’m saying that your “right to exist, to be free” has no meaning–it does not exist–independent of the social norms which create it. Two hundred years ago, American society broadly accepted a right to own other human beings, but today it no longer does–and anyone fighting for such a right would be laughed out of court or vigorously fought.
Two hundred years from now, if norms about gun rights shift, the fact that a few doddering old codgers still claim a right to keep and bear arms will not, in the broader society, give meaning to such a right–any more than someone making a claim to a right to own slaves in 1950 would have.
This is not a justice claim, and has nothing to do with fairness or right and wrong. It is about the way rights come to exist and then fade away as discourse changes the way human beings think about things. I would agree that society is unlikely to substantially change the general “right to exist, to be free.” But I would not be at all surprised to see the more specific related right to protect liberty using hand guns fall out of favor.
And if the broader society rejects a “right” to bear arms, such a right carries no force or meaning, whether or not some small minority still claims it. This minority might, to be sure, fight for it. But such a fight might disgust others (as our 1950s slave owner would have), and would certainly have little chance of success.
Posted by Bob S. on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
Stan,
I think I see the confusion; just because a society does not know or recognize a right does not mean that it doesn’t exist.
The reason that our society moved away from “it’s okay to own slaves” to “slavery is wrong” is because that natural right of freedom was finally universally recognized.
But it existed prior to the change. The slaves who yearned for freedom knew they had a right to freedom regardless of what they were told.
We’ve gone round and round on this and I’ve noticed one distinct lack — citations for your beliefs.
Regardless of what society in general believes, there are things that people recognize as universally right and wrong.
What I don’t understand is why you haven’t provided any references or citations for your theory. I’m trying to understand it — that is why I asked for them but you’ve not provided any, why?
I was given a great deal of grief for making statements at SFL, even when I backed them up with references. Here you are making a pretty non-standard claim and not pointing to anything that we can research.
Posted by R. Stanton Scott on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
Bob,
We have a fundamental difference of opinion here, which I doubt any source I might cite would bridge. I doubt that any empirical “proof” for my claim exists anyway, so I am reluctant to simply offer a list of people who smarter people saying the same thing. But you can start with Luckman and Berger’s The Social Construction of Reality.
I personally think that the fact that understandings about rights differ across societies and change within societies over time shows that “rights” do not exist independently of our conceptions of them, but of course I understand that this is quite a contestable claim. I would be interested in the sources you would use to support your claim that a “The slaves who yearned for freedom knew they had a right to freedom regardless of what they were told.” Many in fact did not–until they were told they did–because their own home culture accepted the concept and they had been socialized to believe that human beings can own each other under certain conditions (see Fernand Braudel, Civilization and Capitalism, 15th-18th Century, Pheonix Press, 2002).
Simply saying that because we are we have a right to be is in truth just an assertion about what ought to be. In any event, whether or not the slaves had an unrecognized right to freedom may or may not have had some moral force–again based on what ought to be–but it had little meaning within the cultural understanding of the day, until that understanding shifted.
Posted by mike w. on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
Cultural understandings can shift as much as they want. It matters not. My rights are my rights I have certain natural, inherent, inalienable rights and I retain those rights independent of whether you (or anyone else) believes I should be allowed to.
Posted by R. Stanton Scott on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
You can claim them, Mike W., but without a shared cultural understanding behind it your claim means very little.
Try claiming the right to own human beings in today’s world. This claim–so widely accepted two hundred years ago that States fought for the power to protect it–would only disgust the great majority of Americans today.
Posted by Bob S. on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
Stan,
Claiming a “right” doesn’t mean there is a right. There is a difference but let’s go with a society of 3 people- you, me and Mike W.
Are you saying that if the majority of the social construction of our little world agrees we can decide what rights there or are not?
That Mike W. and I could decide that you don’t have a right to freedom and you are now our slave?
Does that change the fact that you have a right to freedom or not?
I see lots of confusion between what is “accepted” in a society, what is “legal” in a society, and what is “moral or immoral” in a society but it doesn’t change the fact that some rights inherent in my state of being.
If I exist, then no government, no society, no agency can arbitrarily decide that I don’t have a right to exist. They have the ability to make that so, but not the authority (absent actions of mine that forfeit my right to exist )
Posted by R. Stanton Scott on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
Bob,
“Social construction” has nothing to do with majorities “deciding what rights there are or are not.” It is about inter-subjective understandings–universally (or almost so) shared beliefs about what things mean–such as liberty, rights, morality, and on and on. The very concept of “rights” itself has no meaning independent of human social construction of the idea.
So if in our three-person society we all share the belief that everyone named Stanton should be a slave, then no accepted right to freedom for me would exist. An important point here is that I myself share this belief, so I accept my slavery.
To be sure, things change, as I have pointed out. So let’s illustrate with a slightly larger polity–say 50. with five Stantons total. Everyone in this society–even the five Stantons–agrees with the general proposition that slavery for Stantons makes sense–we are, after all, just a bunch of eggheads, we’re not really human, and the socially constructed reality defines us as property.
No right to freedom for Stantons exists literally because no one has ever thought of it before. The concept itself simply does not exist.
But over time, a few of the non-Stantons (I would call them “norm entrepreneurs”) start giving this some thought–Stantons do in fact share some human characteristics. Maybe they should be set free. Norm entrepreneurs set out to change the way society thinks about Stantons, and their ideas gain traction. Decades or centuries later, attitudes have changed and a generally accepted right to freedom for Stantons exists. The social order has changed, but it’s not because a majority consciously decided to change things and forced others to accept the change–it happens because the underlying beliefs people have about things change over time. After a while, so few people–perhaps even none–are left who seriously think enslaving Stantons is a good idea that those who do never bring it up out of shame.
Without discussing whether or not I think it’s likely–I don’t, in the short to medium term–the possibility exists that the reverse could happen with gun rights. Social understandings about the need for and use of firearms could change to exclude the notion of a “right to bear arms” as a meaningful concept in human relations.
So rights do not inhere to your “state of being” independent of the human social construction of the very concept of rights themselves. If no human ever invents rights, they cannot exist.
It is important to note here that human progress appears to show a general expansion of rights. Plato, for example, referred to individuals as organs of the State, and Aristotle also privileged the communal polity over the individual citizen (though see Fred Miller, “Aristotle and the Origin of Natural Rights,” The Review of Metaphysics, Vol. 49, 1996 for an opposing view). Ancient humans of all kinds had no concept of rights, which only developed in Western Europe around 1000 AD (see Walter Ullman’s The Individual in Medieval Society or Colin Morriss’ The Discovery of the Individual, 1050-1200 for more). If this is so, and the concept of inherent rights becomes more embedded in the social construction of the reality we live in, then as a practical matter you may have little to fear.
Still, this expansion tends not to come at the expense of others. The right to own other people has not expanded, and if social norms about gun rights change to exclude them as infringing on some future “right” of others to live in a world without them, your descendants may live in a world where very few people arm themselves. They probably won’t complain, though, since they will share the understanding of guns as something regular people just aren’t supposed to have.
Posted by mike w. on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
The problem with your approach is simple. Even if cultural understandings changed and 99.99% of the population decided that there’s no RKBA you would STILL be infringing upon the rights of the remaining .01%
If 99.99% of people say they should be able to enslave you, does that mean you have no claim to a natural right to freedom? If 99.99% of people decide that Jews should all be murdered, does that change the fact that the Jews to be murdered have an inherent right to life (and thus an ancillary right to defend their own lives?) Does having a majority in agreement based on “cultural understandings” justify their actions against the minority group?
Posted by R. Stanton Scott on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
Why is a right to freedom, or even life, more “natural” or “inherent” than the right to own slaves?
Posted by Bob S. on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
Stan,
Because one infringes on liberty of the individual (slavery) and the other protects the liberty of the individual.
I see a lot of confusion about ability – yes you can enslave someone- with rights — it is your place or order to make a person into a piece of property.
How can a right to slavery be justified? How can you say that person A is property but that person B is not? What makes one less equal then the other.
Posted by mike w. on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
Why is a right to freedom, or even life, more “natural” or “inherent” than the right to own slaves?
Please tell me this isn’t a serious question…..
Posted by mike w. on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
BTW Stan – I would like to see if you can answer the questions posed in my comment.
Posted by R. Stanton Scott on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
You have no natural right to freedom, or even to life, but this has nothing to do with the opinions of 99.99% of the people. You have none because no such thing exists.
And yes, that is indeed a serious question.
Posted by Bob S. on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
Stan,
Simply stating that we have no natural rights —repeatedly — does not make it so.
We have a little community here at 3 Boxes of BS — a social construction if you well — if we all agree that you have to change your mind – do you have a right to keep your opinion?
Posted by R. Stanton Scott on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
Bob S.,
I would respond first by pointing out that both your classification of a right to slavery as an infringement on liberty, and of life as protection of it, depends on your definition–your human concept–of liberty. If you define it differently, as humans have in the past, your distinction may not hold.
More to the point here, however: How exactly does this distinction make one more “natural” or “inherent” than the other?
RSS
Posted by Bob S. on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
Stan,
An inherent right is one that derives solely from the fact of my existence. IF I exist, I have the right to the fruit of my labor — because I can not continue to exist if I don’t have that right.
The derived rights are from the fact that we have a social construction. If I’m alone, I don’t have a right to vote in the city council elections — because there is no city council. The derived right — as you point out — is due to the social construction.
People’s understanding of rights have changed throughout time – just as our understand of science has changed. Are you of the opinion until it was disproven the Earth Centric view of the universe was correct?
We don’t fully understand the properties of light — but that fact doesn’t mean that light has changed, does it?
Nice of you to avoid the question: If the community here, the social construction, has determined that you should change your opinion- do you have a right to keep your opinion?
Yes or no with explanation – According to your own belief you must change your mind.
Posted by R. Stanton Scott on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
Bob S.
Of course stating repeatedly that no natural rights exist does not make this so. But repeatedly claiming that they do doesn’t make that true, either.
Let me be clear: I agree that “rights” exist. So yes, I get to keep my opinion. But not because I have a “natural right” to it. It is protected by the conventions about rights humans–especially Western humans–developed over the course of our history and now choose to live under.
RSS
Posted by Bob S. on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
Stan,
Sorry but I don’t understand. You said repeatedly that if the view of the social construction changes that right changes.
The right to free speech has changed over time, heck the very nature of thoughts and the rights to opinions have changed haven’t they?
We choose at 3 Boxes to live under the convention of natural rights — are you saying the majority can not enforce that convention against a minority?
Posted by R. Stanton Scott on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
Bob,
The rights themselves don’t change, since they do not exist independently of our construction of them. What changes is the social reality we use to frame our concept of rights. But yes, the social reality we’ve constructed framing thought and opinion rights have changed quite a bit. Right now general social convention supports my “right” to hold a dissenting opinion. If this convention changed to limit dissent, the new social reality might not include such a right.
Remember, though, that this normally takes place very slowly, over time, so that no “enforcement” is likely necessary. It’s about socialization to accept a prevailing normative framework, and it begins at birth. Note how we shame and ostracize–and sometimes punish–those who resist socialization to respect parents and authority, or adopt prevailing relationship norms, gender roles, patriotism, and sexuality, among other constructions.
I might protest shifting norms–as some resist changing norms about the acceptability of homosexuality, for example–and even resist violently. But unless I can create continued support for my preferred norms, the “right” I claim could fade to disrepute. And others may classify my resistance not as a justified fight for my “rights” but as a radical, possibly insane, revolt against the social order–as they would a contemporary American who asserted a right to purchase and keep slaves.
To be sure, if we construct our social reality–as the 3 Boxes polity has–in a way that includes concepts of natural or inherent rights, you can claim that they exist in that sense. But they still depend on human framing, not the mere fact of our physical existence in our human form, and if this framing changes the “naturalness” of rights changes with it.
So your 3 Boxes polity can indeed construct the society to include “natural rights,” and those with opposing views might accept the new framing of social reality. Or they might leave. But your construction is man-made, not natural, whatever you call it.
RSS
Posted by Bob S. on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
Stan,
You’ve just proven my point.
The 3 Boxes polity is man made — as is every social construction as you use the definition right?
Then if the social construction changes the view of rights, then each and every member of that polity must change their view. They have no “right” to do anything else. If the right to have one opinion changes the people can not leave, they can not dissent by the very argument you’ve made.
That view point, the very right to hold that view point VANISHES when the polity decides it does.
UNLESS, there is a natural right behind it…freedom of thought.
Because I exist, I have the right to think as I want to. There are things I can not do or say because the polity has determined those actions harmful but my thoughts exist because I do.
Victor Frankel said ‘ Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.
If we have that space, then we have the absolute unbroken right to choose our response — a natural right.
So, given your world view that the polity decides rights – how can the people who oppose the polity leave unless they have a natural right to do so?
Posted by mike w. on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
An inherent right is one that derives solely from the fact of my existence.
Exactly. I exist, therefore I have an inherent, “natural” right to defend myself should someone try to take my life. This is a universal law of nature. Organisms, when attacked, protect/defend themselves so that they may continue to exist That is a basic, natural instinct aimed at self-preservation.
Society could declare that the members of subset “X” have no right to defend themselves, yet merely declaring it would not make it so. Every single individual in that subset has a natural right to defend himsellf, which is inherent in his very existence.
Self-defense is pre-programmed into us at the most basic, animalistic level. My right to defend myself from death or serious bodily harm is not dependent upon the beliefs of you, or any other member of society
Posted by R. Stanton Scott on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
The mere power to do something–think a thought or fight for survival–does not create a “right” to take that action. Self-preservation may be instinctive, but our desire and power to extend our lives does not create a claim against others that exists independently of our construction of a social reality that includes supporting a claim to such a right.
Fish can and should swim away from bears to avoid being eaten, but they have no “natural right” to do so since the animal kingdom has not constructed for them such a right.
And if you respond to this claim with the assertion that sentience gives humans a natural claim to survival not shared by fish, I would respond that this is correct: sentience gives humans the ability to construct a right to survival that fish do not have.
I don’t agree with everything in this post, and the author has no particular expertise as far as I can tell, but he offers some interesting insights on this.
Cheers,
RSS
Posted by Bob S. on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
Stan
You’ve stated several times that if the polity decided to change something that right then ceases to exist. If your right to hold a contrary position ceases to exist — then you are doing something based on that right –that shouldn’t exist– by continuing to express it
The mere power to do something–think a thought or fight for survival–does not create a “right” to take that action.
Yet you claim that if you dislike the actions of the polity you still have the right to take that action – which is to have the opinion.
You further state that you can leave the polity based solely on your ability to have a different opinion.
Now I’m confused. If you have the ability to leave –where does that come from?
If you continue to think that thought — in contradiction to the will of the polity — how is that not the equivalent of having the freedom to do as you want?
Posted by R. Stanton Scott on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
Bob,
When you use phrases like “when the polity decides to change something that right then ceases to exist,” you make me think I’m still not clear enough on what I mean by “social construction.” Polities don’t “decide to change” anything. Through discourse, the underlying concepts people use to frame social reality shifts, whether or not individuals or groups actively work toward it. So a slow shift in attitudes about, for example, homosexuality or guns takes place both because parents incrementally shift the way they socialize their children to understand right and wrong, and because events expose them to new social actors, perceptions, and concepts. These children never “decide” to change anything–they simply grow up with a slightly different attitude about society.
To be sure, no attitude or social framing receives universal acceptance. Those who reject the constructed reality may resist or leave if they have the power to do so, but this is not based on a “right” to do so. It is, of course, possible to have freedom and liberty without having a natural right to it.
And again, whether or not rights exist depend entirely on social framing and discourse about rights. If no one understands others as protected from others or from government by the idea of “rights,” they don’t exist–and even if they did, no one would know.
Posted by Bob S. on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
Stan,
I disagree with you about how things are changed.
From personal experience and talking with many of my friends. Heck, even history shows that not true, look at racism for example
These children never “decide” to change anything–they simply grow up with a slightly different attitude about society.
Many children looked at their parents attitudes about racism and decided, a conscience choice, not to believe as they did.
My blog friend Weer’d Beard talks about growing up anti-gun and deciding– based on the evidence — to change.
Those who reject the constructed reality may resist or leave if they have the power to do so, but this is not based on a “right” to do so.
I was going to ask if this is possible. If the polity has a dissenting opinion then the minority — what do you call the ability, the authority of the people to resist or leave?
If it isn’t a “right” what is it?
Posted by R. Stanton Scott on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
Bob,
I think you personalize social construction too much. Keep in mind that I’m generalizing on a theoretical level, and discussing trends, not the actions of individuals.
And again, the power to do something–leave, for example, or resist–does not create or confer a “right” to do so. Only the normative framing of the action as correct and justifiable makes it a right.
RSS
Posted by Bob S. on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
Stan,
Theorizing is all well and good but this is where the rubber meets the road. This isn’t theoretical — we have people trying to eliminate our right to defend ourselves
Mylene Klass of England found that out when she waggled a KNIFE at some hoodlums trying to break into her home and/or shed. She was simply trying to exercise her right to self defense and was warned not to interfere with criminals — how insane is that???
And it is happening in America also. The kerfuffle that started all this was over an opinion — a shaping of the social construction — about the level of training needed to exercise the right of armed defense in public.
Get off the theoretical bunk and start dealing with reality please.
I’m asking if it confers a right…I am asking how someone can leave or resist without having a right not granted by the polity. People have the right to think of African American’s as less then human — they don’t have a right to act on that. Correct? So the normative framing of an action as correct & justifiable because the ‘average’ person would not consider that though to be acceptable or justified. Yet people have a right — and it must be a natural right — to think what they will.
Posted by mike w. on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
I’m thinking that Stan has perhaps not read much of the writings of our Founders nor those of folks like Rand.
Posted by R. Stanton Scott on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
Yes, someone can resist or leave without a recognized or natural right to do so. Again, the power or ability to do something does not imply a right to take that action.
Rights are not conferred, either by nature or polities. Rights are ideas that help to make up the social framework of shared understandings we all have about the world. In this sense they exist, but only because humans developed and more-or-less universally share the framework surrounding them.
People think what they will because they can, not because they have a natural right to do so.
And Mike, I’m pretty sure I’ve read more of the Founders’ writings than you have. Indeed, I’ll bet I’ve read more of just about everything than you have, including Ayn Rand’s monotonous rantings. I’ve read, for example, Madison’s October 17, 1788 letter to Thomas Jefferson regarding the need for a Bill of Rights, where he suggests two justifications for including enumerated rights–against his better judgement:
“1. The political truths declared in that solemn manner acquire by degrees the character of fundamental maxims of fee Government, and as they become incorporated with the national sentiment, counteract the impulses of interest and passion. 2. Altho’ it be generally true as above stated that the danger of oppression lies in the interested majorities of the people rather than in usurped acts of the Government, yet there may be occasions on which the civil may spring from the latter sources; and on such, a bill of rights will be a good ground for an appeal to the sense of community.” (Emphasis mine).
This sounds like Madison thought that including a bill of rights would help change or establish particular social norms about the exercise of the power of government and of factions and then provide the framework for appeal to these norms. Whether or not he believed the creator had endowed humans with rights, he understood the need to construct a social framework–”acquire by degrees the fundamental maxims”–for protecting them.
Indeed, I’ve read enough of the Founders to know that their reasons for enumerating a right to keep and bear arms in the bill of rights probably included anti-Federalist–especially Southern anti-Federalist–fears that the national government would end slavery by regulating state militias in a way that would keep Southern states from controlling the slave population.
If you think you know more about what the Founders wrote and intended than I do, make your case. But you need more than Jefferson’s “tree of liberty, blood of tyrants” quote.
Posted by Bob S. on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
Stan,
I’m confused– You say in your last comment:
Rights are not conferred, either by nature or polities
But earlier you claimed:
No natural rights exist because every right remains contingent on the laws, customs, or beliefs of particular societies or polities.
There are some rights that exist because of the polity – the right to vote, etc. But there are others independent of the polity.
You can’t have it both ways.
By the way….if you truly want to discuss this in depth, I would suggest that you talk to Kevin Baker at The Smallest Minority. He would be an excellent person to debate.
Posted by R. Stanton Scott on 07.01.10 at 12:15 PM
Bob,
Rights are contingent on laws, customs, and beliefs, but the polities do not confer them in the sense that some decision is made to take an action of “conferring.” No action is taken, and no agent is involved. Rights exist when we believe they do, not because a polity has taken the action of agreeing to believe this.
And thanks for the tip on Mr. Baker at The Smallest Minority. I’ll look him up.
Cheers,
RSS