Iowa FTW

[odeon]

But seriously, owning a gun is not a universal right. You may regard it as a right granted to you in 'merica (fuck yeah) by the constitution, but it is not a universal right.

There either are universal rights or there are not. If there are no universal rights, you have no rights. No rights. In that case you must accept that the stronger is the one that is right.

Or we can postulate universal rights and don't back off on them a millimeter, like in Spooner's system. That is consistent and will guarantee you that no one infringess on your rights.

Here you also see how absurd legislation is. You are for controlling things with laws, but if you at the same time are saying that there are no universal rights you at the same time must admit that all laws are just made up and have no moral justification.

Logic fail. "No universal laws" does not equal "all laws are made up and have no moral justification".

You should know this, considering your university background, regardless of what your opinions re universal laws are.

You are thinking about false dicotomies here. That is not the case. In this case it is thus: the world above quantum level literally functions so that something either is or is not.

I said that you must either postulate universal laws or accept that there are no universal laws and subsequently accept that you have no rights at all, but you don't seem willingly to do this.

It's not about opinions, it is either so that  universal laws exist or they do not.

That is by the way what Spooner's Natural Law is about, so you either didn't read it or didn't understand it. Universal law/natural law is the same thing. It means that rights exist as an entity. I personally don't believe in that they exist as an entity, but I postulate that they do. It is necessary to postulate that natural rights exist if you believe in rights at all.

You misread. Try again, read what I wrote, up there.

As for the above quantum level bs, sorry, but no.

[odeon]

Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.

Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.

Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.

You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.

*I* am saying that there are no universal rights. There are no universal obligations either, for that matter.

Your comment re the world above quantum level is quite bizarre, btw.

OK, there are no universal rights. Then there are no rights at all. There is no right to live, no right to be healthy, no right to have an income etc etc etc.

This is pure logic, as I said. Why I mention quantum level is because on quantum level the logic doesn't have to be binary. But above that it has to.

Actually, not even close. I know structuralists argue from a binary POV but it doesn't mean they are right. Binary opposition is certainly not the only way to approach a philosophical discussion.

We might, for example, discuss modern gender theory.

[odeon]

Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.

Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.

Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.

You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.

Exactly. People don't seem to understand that their beliefs have absolutely no effect on the physical world. Reality is reality. Our governments no longer serve us, so we are in danger. End of story.

I wish you'd understand this.

I wish that everyone would understand it. Although the likeliness for that it would happen at all isn't great you are helpless against an armed burglar without a gun. And if you happen to have a gun and defend yourself successfully with it, the court might send you to prison for it, even if the gun is perfectly legal, because the cunts in court don't care about the fact that you were attacked to begin with.

That is a fact that you really can't argue against at all. You can't legally defend yourself with a gun in Sweden outside your own property, and even in your own bedroom you can't be sure that you might defend yourself and not be punished for it, because your right to defend yourself ("right" according to the law that is) isn't guaranteed even in your own home. In some peculiar way the Swedish legislators think that a criminal's life should be as sacred as yours, even when he attacks you in your own bedroom in the middle of the night. And it is ridiculously hard to legally get a gun to start with, except a rifle.

Is this the way you think it should be?

You keep presenting your opinions and beliefs as if they were facts. This is going nowhere.

[odeon]

Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.

Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.

Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.

You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.

*I* am saying that there are no universal rights. There are no universal obligations either, for that matter.

Your comment re the world above quantum level is quite bizarre, btw.

Yes, there are universal rights. Doesn't everyone have a right to not be enslaved? Doesn't everyone have a right to life? If not, who doesn't have these rights?

Do you believe that all people are created equal? If so, then why does this not lead to the premise that all people have certain rights by virtue of being people?

No, and no.

They probably should be, at least in the world we live in, but there are plenty of places where none of it is true, which means none of your "rights" is "universal".

You are confusing what you want with what actually is.

Note that I'm not arguing against the concept, just its current applicability. It also amuses me to think that someone would somehow put "carrying a firearm" next to "born equal". I know the former is thought to be a prerequisite for the other in the US, but that's not how the whole world sees it, thus immediately nullifying the "universal" part.

[odeon]

If he doesn't at least admit that universal rights must be postulated he paradoxically says that he doesn't have any rights himself.

It doesn't matter if you are a materialist to 100%. You must postulate universal rights or accept that you don't have any rights.

No *universal* rights.

[odeon]

I disagree with odeon about universal rights.

I don't think the right to guns is one of them though.

Universal rights imo are things like freedom of belief, freedom from slavery

Funny how different we are. People over here are more likely to see free health care as a right. And in fact, I do

I'd tend to agree with you re health care. Not as something universal, though, but that's me arguing semantics, which you probably understand (and they do not).

[odeon]

Now, Adam and odeon, be good boys and read Spooner and understand him. Then you too will be enlightened anarchists 

There's an oxymoron.

[odeon]

Oh, and btw. Piers fucking Morgan is not an argument. Just sayin'.

[TheoK]

Seriously, you don't understand. Either universal/natural laws exist or they do not exist.

Since you don't understand that binary logics just exist above quantum level

If you that they don't exist you must (to be intellectually honest anyway) also admit that you don't have any rights.

In the quoted Spooner texts he also perfectly explains this and also tells you that legislation is there to take your rights away from you, so that the oppressors can have their ways with you.

In the light of the faked "war against terror", the NSA shit etc etc etc it's incredible that you don't understand that the state doesn't protect against wrongs but creates and upholds them to keep the powerful psychopaths powerful.

I think you know this very well but can't stand the thought of it.

[TheoK]

Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.

Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.

Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.

You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.

Exactly. People don't seem to understand that their beliefs have absolutely no effect on the physical world. Reality is reality. Our governments no longer serve us, so we are in danger. End of story.

I wish you'd understand this.

I wish that everyone would understand it. Although the likeliness for that it would happen at all isn't great you are helpless against an armed burglar without a gun. And if you happen to have a gun and defend yourself successfully with it, the court might send you to prison for it, even if the gun is perfectly legal, because the cunts in court don't care about the fact that you were attacked to begin with.

That is a fact that you really can't argue against at all. You can't legally defend yourself with a gun in Sweden outside your own property, and even in your own bedroom you can't be sure that you might defend yourself and not be punished for it, because your right to defend yourself ("right" according to the law that is) isn't guaranteed even in your own home. In some peculiar way the Swedish legislators think that a criminal's life should be as sacred as yours, even when he attacks you in your own bedroom in the middle of the night. And it is ridiculously hard to legally get a gun to start with, except a rifle.

Is this the way you think it should be?

You keep presenting your opinions and beliefs as if they were facts. This is going nowhere.

Except for the last sentence that is not an opinion but a fact. That is how the Swedish gun law and law about self-defence function in practice, which you are very well aware of. The Rödeby case was exceptional in the respect that a victim who defended himself and killed one aggressor and hurt another very seriously actually didn't go to jail. Usually he would have done that.

In Texas or Colorado he wouldn't even have been prosecuted. That is also a fact.

[TheoK]

Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.

Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.

Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.

You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.

*I* am saying that there are no universal rights. There are no universal obligations either, for that matter.

Your comment re the world above quantum level is quite bizarre, btw.

Yes, there are universal rights. Doesn't everyone have a right to not be enslaved? Doesn't everyone have a right to life? If not, who doesn't have these rights?

Do you believe that all people are created equal? If so, then why does this not lead to the premise that all people have certain rights by virtue of being people?

No, and no.

They probably should be, at least in the world we live in, but there are plenty of places where none of it is true, which means none of your "rights" is "universal".

You are confusing what you want with what actually is.

Note that I'm not arguing against the concept, just its current applicability. It also amuses me to think that someone would somehow put "carrying a firearm" next to "born equal". I know the former is thought to be a prerequisite for the other in the US, but that's not how the whole world sees it, thus immediately nullifying the "universal" part.

Here is the proof that you don't understand what we are talking about. Universal rights exist independent from what anyone thinks. They are an abstraction.

Then you can say: "I don't believe in an abstraction". But then I think you should be honest enough to also admit that you don't have any rights at all. What the UN or EU or Swedish parliament writes on a paper has nothing at all to do with your rights.

The origin of the idea of natural rights, ius naturale, was a Roman concept. The Romans thought that laws that both Romans and foreigners agreed on were "natural", though this was in a concrete way. When you talk about natural rights in a modern concept we mean that the natural rights actually exist as a kind of entity, like God or Providence or whatever. If you want rights but don't believe in natural rights as an entity, you must postulate them. Spooner actually never says that natural rights exist, but he reasons as if they did: "If justice be not a natural principle, it is no principle at all. If it be not a natural principle, there is no such thing as justice."

[Semicolon]

Universal rights aren't the only kind of rights.

Yes, they are. This is what both you and odeon fail to understand. This is pure logic. The world above quantum level works according to binary logic. It is either 0 or 1, just like a computer. There are either universal rights or no rights at all. It can't be both and it can't be anything else.

Who the hell is saying there are no universal rights?
There you go again putting words in our moths.

You are obviously saying it, since you believe in legislation. If you believe in positive gun laws you don't believe in universal rights. The paradox is that your legislation is just instrumental then and has nothing to do with justice or moral.

*I* am saying that there are no universal rights. There are no universal obligations either, for that matter.

Your comment re the world above quantum level is quite bizarre, btw.

Yes, there are universal rights. Doesn't everyone have a right to not be enslaved? Doesn't everyone have a right to life? If not, who doesn't have these rights?

Do you believe that all people are created equal? If so, then why does this not lead to the premise that all people have certain rights by virtue of being people?

No, and no.

They probably should be, at least in the world we live in, but there are plenty of places where none of it is true, which means none of your "rights" is "universal".

You are confusing what you want with what actually is.

Note that I'm not arguing against the concept, just its current applicability. It also amuses me to think that someone would somehow put "carrying a firearm" next to "born equal". I know the former is thought to be a prerequisite for the other in the US, but that's not how the whole world sees it, thus immediately nullifying the "universal" part.

Here's how I see it. People have certain rights just by virtue of being born. This doesn't depend on legislation of the whims of the local government; these rights exist regardless of them. All people are created equal; therefore, all are born with certain rights. These include the right to life and the right to liberty.

If you don't believe this, consider the case where there exists some person who doesn't have these rights. Let's say that there's no legislation to enforce the right to life. Is it then acceptable for me to murder that person? Under your system, it must be. If rights extend from legislation, and there is no legislation to protect the right to life, then why not accept murder? I say that murder is wrong, regardless of who the victim is and what local legislation says about the subject.

As far as "universal" goes, this system also doesn't change depending on anyone's opinion. You have certain rights, even if you don't acknowledge them. Among these are the right to bear arms, to protect yourself and to provide for your family. Here's a question for you. Why is "rights" in quotes? Do you not acknowledge that everyone on the planet has a right to life? Do you think that some people somewhere deserve to be enslaved? If so, who are these people?

As to whether I'm confusing what I want with what is, I could ask you the same question in regards to my position. Your last paragraph seems to point out, in your mind, the bizarre nature of the right to bear arms. As far as rights go, the fact that all people are born equal is fundamental to the right to bear arms, not the other way around. I suspect that you already know this. You've chosen to set up a straw man to point out what you see as an absurdity, instead of presenting a rational argument. I don't support the Second Amendment because of tradition, or out of religious adherence to the Constitution. I support the Second Amendment because I have examined the issue and I have concluded that legalized gun ownership is essential for the preservation of liberty. If you choose to believe something different, fine. However, it's possible for a completely rational culture to choose gun ownership.

Yes, I know that America isn't that completely rational culture.

[TheoK]

That's about what I posted. Semicolon understands the concept.

[RageBeoulve]

Oh, and btw. Piers fucking Morgan is not an argument. Just sayin'.

I wasn't making an argument in that last post. Adam asked for information and I give it to him.

[Adam]

Not got time to read this properly or reply as Im going out again in a minute.  but re free healthcare, yes, we have already discussed this. what's the point in making that "point" again?

we essentially agree on what it is, except I would still say it is "free" healthcare. you wouldnt call it free because it's funded by taxes.