origin of the "right to keep and bear arms"

[Romulus]

Is RKBA a natural right? Agricola confuses "ius naturale," the rights afforded us by nature, with "ius naturae," the common laws of nature. If like his countryman Hobbes he'd make the distinction between natural right and law of nature, much of the confusion would be cleared up. There is no question that RKBA is a natural right, a linear extension of the natural right to protect oneself from an unjust aggressor...a natural right, understood as that which a man is owed by virtue of his being a man and nothing more, and which no government has a right to deny. A just goverment will not deny these rights to men even if these request, in a fit of madness, that these rights of nature be abridged. Natural transcends all positive law, to which Agricola, like a good contemporary Brit, wholeheartedly ascribes.

His last post, that a man that gives up freedom by his own free will remains in fact a free man, is about as metaphysically deep as a US highschool's brown-bag philosophy seminar...

[agricola]

blackhawk,

If it will make you feel better, I am absolutely convinced that we all will die sooner or later. That's based on faith because there's no way to know when a given person will die.

Your statement is telling - it sounds like you have accepted the FACT of death, since didnt you say "if a person will die" rather than "when a person will die" ie: "...theres no way to know if a person will die". Death is a fact, you are wrong and the decent thing to do is apologise and admit your mistake. Its not "accepting something on faith" if I never said that and I accept that death is a fact, which is what I have consistently said.

In the Hobbes context, if people do surrender a thing willingly and in the understanding that they will get something in return (which is what he means by "contract") then that is a gesture of free will, which is not the same as the state / tyrant / sovereign taking it, which is the definition of a society that is not free, as Hobbes states - but if you had read it, as opposed to thinking up your ad hominem attacks, you would know that, wouldnt you?

[Ledbetter]

It's not voluntary if the government takes away your right to self-defense against your will.

The only freedom Britons enjoy in this regard is the freedom to flee for their lives rather than risk the severe governmental consequences of defending oneself against criminal attack.

"We give up rights, because we are free to do so."
"We run away from danger, because we are brave."

I have lost track of how many times agricola has switched the argument around, but if a right is natural to mankind, how can it NOT exist in a _free_ country.

To argue that both countries are free is just to deny the truth. In Britain you are guaranteed no rights whatsoever. Like your National Health Pyramid, the only rights you have are statutory and can be taken away by the stroke of the same pen that granted them. In truth and on paper, Britain is populated by subjects, not citizens.

I enjoy constitutional freedom every day. Do you?
I am guaranteed that certain rights cannot be taken from me by the courts or the government, how about you?

[Romulus]

Even when that "thing" you give up willingly is freedom itself? Come on...

Just what are you getting in return by willingly giving up your arms? Some contracts benefit only one party. A government that enters into an unenforceable contract (unenforceable by the other party) is a tyrannical government. Where you have tyrannies you do not have free men. That's what has happened to you in England, and YOU asked for it...at best, the fact that such a contract was entered into by free will makes that contract your last act as free men.

PS...you're right about the ad hominem...my apologies

[Blackhawk]

the decent thing to do is apologise and admit your mistake.

See the top of page 8 of this thread.

[agricola]

ledbetter,

the NHS was and is a massively popular system of free healthcare which is paid for in the same way as we pay for our military, police, fire and other services.

i have not switched the argument around. the "natural" state of man has most rights since man is not constrained by anything at all, and when rights are taken away by the state against the will of the people, that is not freedom either. the fact of the matter is that the NHS was chosen by the people in the 1945 election as something that they felt willing to pay for; and its something that people here remain willing to pay for, ergo whatever you think of it it is a valid choice. the same goes for the Firearms Acts, especially those of 1997, since it cannot be said with any hope of success that there is any widespread public angst over not being armed, people do not want RKBA over here and are happy with the status quo. you may disagree with that, but the fact remains that its our country, not yours and we get to choose how we want to live.

just to point out, we do have rights guaranteed by the Human Rights Act 2000, as well as a considerable body of legislation in both the criminal and common laws which are and have been maintained by the courts, most recently in the case of those Islamic chaps detained for "public safety" reasons.

Considering how many posts there are here on the attacks upon your constitution, I would point out the fallacy of
I enjoy constitutional freedom every day. Do you?
I am guaranteed that certain rights cannot be taken from me by the courts or the government, how about you?

romulus,

IMHO true "freedom" is given up as soon as a person decides to live in a community of laws, and people who choose to live according to religious means, for instance, do so freely - is an Orthodox Jew on the Sabbath less "free" than you because he or she abstains from doing certain things? (eruvs aside ) - the answer is no, because its their choice, which is what it comes down to.

also the ad hominem bit was directed at Blackhawk, not you, sorry

[Ledbetter]

"That's what has happened to you in England, and YOU asked for it...at best, the fact that such a contract was entered into by free will makes that contract your last act as free men."

And that sums it all up.
I guess I'm a Romulan.

[agricola]

ledbetter,

does having a job where you have a contract with your employer make you a slave?

[Ledbetter]

It does if it's for life. Edited to add, or if it costs you your life.

[agricola]

ledbetter,

but thats the point - if the british public were to decide that they wanted an armed society with RKBA and CCW they would get it precisely because they would elect a government that would give them it, the same as if noone wanted the NHS it wouldnt exist, or if we wanted to have all the streets painted blue that would be done too......this is a free society, it is not your society, which is where the confusion sinks in.

ever wonder why there is no recognizable RKBA lobby in the UK?

[Zander]

the NHS was and is a massively popular system of free healthcare...

Of course it is "massively popular"...except for those folks who need, not WANT but NEED, critical care and must wait in queue for it. Please don't pretend that you don't understand exactly what I mean.

Your NHS violates a basic law of economics ref: supply and demand, where demand is thwarted by the ability of the system to supply...something readily apparent to anyone who has had
the most basic course in the subject.

And I did get a chuckle out of your contention that healthcare is "free". It is, of course, a function of government taking from those who have in order to ration a product to those who don't.

It isn't free...and you should know that it is more expensive when "provided" by government than by any other means possible. And the same can be said for every other function of government except for the most basic of provisions.

[SW9M]

if the british public were to decide that they wanted an armed society with RKBA and CCW they would get it precisely because they would elect a government that would give them it,

hence, mob rule.

That's the basic and fundamental difference between your country and ours. Majority largess or mob rule vs. representative republic.

In our country the constitutional rights of the individual out way the majority mob.

Ours is not perfect, far from it. But it beats the hell out of the alternatives.

[agricola]

zander,

please try to read what i posted:

the NHS was and is a massively popular system of free healthcare which is paid for in the same way as we pay for our military, police, fire and other services.

ie: its paid for by tax, by everyone who pays tax. what of people who NEED healthcare in the US and cannot afford it? what happens to them? also, waiting lists in the UK for operations are more to do with consultants and surgeons moonlighting in the private sector than they are about a lack of money.

perhaps you would like to explain, if government supplied services and goods are "more expensive" than private ones, why
my train fare costs far more now than when under British Rail, or why the train is slower, more crowded and dirtier?

of course, if you ever come over here on holiday, and, god forbid you have an accident, of course you wont take advantage of the free healthcare provided and will instead take yourself off to the nearest BUPA hospital.

[gburner]

That anyone would find themselves in England, for any reason much less 'holiday', boggles the mind.

In their lives there's something lacking;
What they need's a damn good whacking. Piggies...G. Harrison

[Romulus]

Agricolino mio...

I just keep wondering why the NHS keeps coming up...what "right of nature" was freely surrendered in order to get NHS in the UK?

On the one hand you say that you obtain something from government (NHS ubiquitously) by contracting away some unspecified right - as you point out, a Hobbesian notion.

On the other hand, you claim that the British see nationalized health care as a natural right the same way Americans see RKBA as a natural right...I need some clarification here...did you give up RKBA in order to get NHS? Is NHS a natural right or rather something you've obtained by relinquishing some other right by social contract? It can't be both according to your model...

Natural law, ius naturale, if not as Hobbes understood it, sees government as merely the GUARANTOR of rights already due to men through their membership in the human family. You are born with them, no matter where you're born. No government is required to discover, recognize, or grant those rights. Natural law does not recognize government as the source and distributor of rights as does positivism. That's why such rights are referred to in that glorious document, The Declaration of Independence, as being "inalienable."

PS: My daughter was born at North Staffs in Stoke-on-Trent. If that chamber of horrors is typical of a NHS hospital, I thank my lucky stars for HMOs and PPOs and whatever private insurance gives us here. And by US law, health care cannot be denied to those who cannot afford it, contrary to popular European myth.

[agricola]

romulus,

the NHS is mentioned because its an example of the people giving up something (in this case property - tax) in exchange for something (ie free healthcare) of their own free will, and because many here consider free healthcare as a "right", which it is under the idea of a "social contract". IMHO the idea of "natural rights" falls down because it assumes that, at any given time, the state of a given society is "the perfect state" and that no more rights can be achieved - leading to the state of affairs pointed out by Hobbes where the Athenians and the Romans considered all other systems as inferior to theirs.

the issue of "natural rights" is interesting because, at least in the English (and indeed the world) experience, it enables those who believe in RKBA to convienently ignore the historical development of the "right" and the fact that it was a (indeed a hated) "duty" up until the time of the English Civil War. As mentioned above, who are we to say that in a hundred years people may look down upon us and comment that we did not enjoy their "natural rights".

NHS
i can only contradict your experience at North Staffs (having never been there) with my own experiences at St. Thomas', UCH, Wrexham Maelor and Glan Clywd, all of which have been excellent despite being in some cases operating under extremely trying conditions from patients, and in one case, an administrator

[Zander]

Not denigrating anyone, ... Tamara

Other than hundreds of millions of Americans...and billions of others in the world.

To aver that our faith is based on "fairy tales" is exactly that...denigration. Not to mention the inherent arrogance and condescension implicit in your comment.

I envy your assurance...

[Zander]

the NHS was and is a massively popular system of free healthcare which is paid for in the same way as we pay for our military, police, fire and other services.[...]ie: its paid for by tax, by everyone who pays tax.

Ah...sorry. I didn't realize that one definition of 'free' in your country encompasses government disbursement from taxes. I have a copy of the OED right here on my desk as I respond and can't find an entry that supports your oxymoronic definition.

Of course, it could be that all subjects, "legal" and otherwise, in your socialistic society pay taxes.

Given your definition, [U]is[/I] that your perception?

perhaps you would like to explain, if government supplied services and goods are "more expensive" than private ones, why my train fare costs far more now than when under British Rail, or why the train is slower, more crowded and dirtier?

Certainly...your sociofascistic government sets the rates for "private" enterprise for the "good" of the public.

For reference, see my comments re: supply and demand.

As in all other countries which still cling to the historically-disproven notion that socialism is workable, there is no end to the amount of "free stuff" that subjects will refuse.

At what point will your "right" to breathe, eat or procreate be "free"?

[Romulus]

Agricola, you've unwittingly stumbled on a more Thomistic view of natural right

Rights deriving from nature are immutable, just as nature is immutable. The fact that human consciousness can recognize these rights in varying degrees at different moments in history does not change or erase the existence of these natural rights. Soviet citizens were by and large unaware of many of their natural rights. That is not to say they didn't have them, and that these rights therefore depend on one's awareness of them, as I understand you hold. These rights were witheld by a government that gave these citizens everything, from housing to healthcare to a job, as part of that murderous social contract. Even conscious and freely agreed relinquishing of these rights, as in the early bolshevik experience, does not abolish their existence in nature. Right is right when nobody's right, wrong is wrong when everybody's wrong.

[agricola]

romulus,

aside from Hobbe's definition of "natural rights" (ie: that all "rights" are extant because there are no laws limiting them), i would question that the idea of a mystical set of "natural rights" exist, since anyone's definition of "rights" is bound to be defined by their own beliefs and value-system. your own conceptions of what is your right may differ from another's - the ideological conflict between religions is the best evidence of this. of course, if the Human Genome Project decodes DNA and finds these natural rights contained within, then i apologise

of course, there are certain rights that most, if not all, people are likely to hold as essential for their own wellbeing - life, an acceptable standard of privacy, the potential for self-betterment, sufficent food and so on. i would add self-defence to this list, but i would not state that RKBA is the same as self-defence but rather an adjunct to it - in a "safe" society where a person is unlikely to be victimized in a way that RKBA would prevent, RKBA is unlikely to be in many people's definition of "a natural right".

zander,

its a service paid for at the national level by tax contributions, which is free at the point of delivery. many of those who use it arent contributing at the time they need it, but most will. if you dont like it, you can stay in your house with the little "go away" signs, but we are more than happy with it, in our inferior socialist hellhole

the following is unconnected to the topic above

British Rail was pre 1979 amongst the best railway systems in Europe, if not the world, and was a national system with an enviable safety record and was cheap, quick and far more efficent than the motor vehicle, especially in the commuter belt. During the years of the Thatcher Government the industry was alternately strangled of investment and pumped full of subsidy so that the Private Sector, who after all did such a grand job of the railway network in the first place, would be tempted into making it a sound business investment. The network was privatised, the experienced and skilled personnel that were vital to the safe and economic running of the system were dismissed and left to the whims of the contract-labour market (which ended up being more expensive than the in-house teams) and the driving concern of the management (those who remained) was now financial gain, rather than rail transport. So now you have a system that is more expensive, less safe and, and this is the most unbelievable part of it, a system which is partially in the hands of a company that would gain the most from the destruction of the rail network, which it is in the process of doing in the North. State intervention doesnt work in the small scale, but in large projects of national importance like the military, the NHS, transport infrastructure and so forth, is where IMHO it beats "private enterprise" hands down.

[Zander]

"its a service paid for at the national level by tax contributions, which is free at the point of delivery."

Exactly! Since you seem a most flexible fellow, seize the opportunity next week to tell your "useful idiot" superiors that you want to decline your "contribution" for the next year or so. All in the interest of a social experiment, of course.

"many of those who use it arent contributing at the time they need it, but most will."

To each, according to his need; from each, according to his ability.

"if you dont like it, you can stay in your house with the little "go away" signs, but we are more than happy with it, in our inferior socialist hellhole"

Which I have no interest in visiting. In my home, I won't be prosecuted for defending my life or those of my loved ones. It's my Right as an American citizen to take responsibility for my own welfare...unlike the common English subject. But, of course, that is of no concern to you...you are one of the "chosen".

"the following is unconnected to the topic above"

But, of course, it is.

"British Rail was pre 1979 amongst the best railway systems in Europe, if not the world, and was a national system with an enviable safety record and was cheap, quick and far more efficent than the motor vehicle, especially in the commuter belt."

Mussolini managed to make the trains run on time. The question is: At what cost?

"During the years of the Thatcher Government the industry was alternately strangled of investment and pumped full of subsidy so that the Private Sector, who after all did such a grand job of the railway network in the first place, would be tempted into making it a sound business investment."

Let's see...the choice was:

Private investors making a profit; or...

A socialist government, which artificially skewed demand and supply, making its "profit" [increasing those "contributions"].

Tough choice.

"The network was privatised, the experienced and skilled personnel that were vital to the safe and economic running of the system were dismissed..."

What a shame...their "tenured" positions were eliminated. We had a similar experience; we found replacements for our air-traffic controllers quite readily.

"and left to the whims of the contract-labour market (which ended up being more expensive than the in-house teams)"

Of course they were more "expensive"...they weren't subsidized by all those "contributions" from subjects like yourself.

"and the driving concern of the management (those who remained) was now financial gain, rather than rail transport."

Capitalists insist that they be rewarded for their time, effort, investment and risk. Imagine the temerity! LOL!

"So now you have a system that is more expensive, less safe and, and this is the most unbelievable part of it, a system which is partially in the hands of a company that would gain the most from the destruction of the rail network,"

Let me guess...Tony and your favorite socialists insist on setting the rates for rail travel? And the entreprerneurs who actually bear the burden of operating the system disagree. What a surprise! [research AMTRAK in these United States]

"which it is in the process of doing in the North. State intervention doesnt work in the small scale, but in large projects of national importance like the military, the NHS, transport infrastructure and so forth, is where IMHO it beats "private enterprise" hands down."

Thanks for making my point...the sociofascists who run your country define what is of "national importance".

And those like yourself who depend on the "free" income generated by the generous "contributions" of British subjects are, to be kind, disinclined to complain...no matter what your national "leaders" definition of "national importance" is or would be.

Again...when will your "right" to breathe, eat or procreate be deemed of "national importance" and thus worthy of regulation [funded by "contributions], sir?

[Byron Quick]

"the NHS was and is a massively popular system of free healthcare which is paid for in the same way as we pay for our military, police, fire and other services."-agricola

How nice but, you see, I have not been impressed by the competence and efficiency of the US military, police, fire, or other services. Classifying health care in with other government services frankly scares the crap out of me...given the record of governments in general.

"ie: its paid for by tax, by everyone who pays tax. what of people who NEED healthcare in the US and cannot afford it? what happens to them? also, waiting lists in the UK for operations are more to do with consultants and surgeons moonlighting in the private sector than they are about a lack of money."

I'm an emergency nurse. What happens to these people is they come to the emergency department for health care. All emergency departments in the US are required by law to treat everyone who comes to them without regards to ability to pay. If the emergency physician says they are to be admitted then they are admitted. Waiting lists for surgery? What is a waiting list? You're talking about being a transplant candidate and waiting for an appropriate organ to be available, right? Surely you are not talking about having to wait for a surgeon or other physician. Let me tell you something, a private hospital in the US would be shut down if they were caught doing something to an indigent such as placing them on a waiting list for surgery. Apparently, our indigents are receiving better surgical care for they are certainly not on any waiting list.

Hmmm. Why do Canadian citizens who have free health care come to the US for surgery and other health care they must pay for out of their own pocket? In effect, paying twice. Basically, because socialism is an idiotic economic system that rewards the lazy and shiftless while penalizing the studious and industrious.

Guess that's why there's an English MD practicing medicine in a small rural American town such as at my hospital in Fairfax, SC-population 3,000. A practice that most American MD's turn their nose up at due to the financial rewards seems like heaven to him but then he escaped from the socialist healthcare paradise.

"erhaps you would like to explain, if government supplied services and goods are "more expensive" than private ones, why
my train fare costs far more now than when under British Rail, or why the train is slower, more crowded and dirtier?"

Hmmm. Because the actual use of the trains by people demonstrates by what they are able to pay for (as the aggregate ridership) the immense subsidies formerly obtained from the government. The Amtrak passenger train system is underutilized and oversubsidized. Without the government subsidy, it would not have higher fares, be slower, more crowded, and dirtier. It would damn well be defunct. Exactly as it should be.

"ofcourse, if you ever come over here on holiday, and, god forbid you have an accident, of course you wont take advantage of the free healthcare provided and will instead take yourself off to the nearest BUPA hospital."

Not a chance, agricola. There are states in the Union I won't go to because their paternalistic, socialistic laws are more than I can stomach. I would no more subject myself to your laws than I would have subjected myself to the laws of the USSR. (Granted your system hasn't quite reached that point of squalor yet, but given the observed effects of socialism on human behavior, it is only a matter of time.) Such heroic footsteps to follow, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Ze Dong, Pol Pot. You're certainly standing on the shoulders of your giant predecessors in the wonderful world of socialism. Striding toward the gulag and the killing field.

[USP45]

Government Rights...

Last September i dislocated my shoulder kayaking. In 2 hours i was at an emergency room, waited about 1 more hour before i saw a doctor. I waited 3 more days before i saw a specialist, an orthopedic surgeon. I waited another week to see the physical therapist of my choice, there were dozens that could have seen me that afternoon. Our horrible private healthcare system got me back in action in 45 days.

The owners of a kayak shop a few towns away from my house are from Nottingham, UK. They've paddled for years at the Holme-Pierpont wildwater course out there. They told me that it would have been upwards of 18 months before i would have been able to see a specialist under NHS. Further, they said if i had the cash, i would have been better of going to France and simply paying to see someone there. Apparently, you cannot pay "out-of-pocket" for healthcare under NHS. You simply get in line.

As Sparticus mentioned, this is what you get when you put buracracy incharge of "rights". NHS isn't a right, its a comedy.

Its not good to relinquish your rights to the government. It may work for a few years, but it will eventually catch up with you.

~USP

[agricola]

spartacus,

How nice but, you see, I have not been impressed by the competence and efficiency of the US military, police, fire, or other services. Classifying health care in with other government services frankly scares the crap out of me...given the record of governments in general.

arent the US military the best in the world? the fire departments the best equipped? do you think a private police force would be more or less effective?

I'm an emergency nurse. What happens to these people is they come to the emergency department for health care. All emergency departments in the US are required by law to treat everyone who comes to them without regards to ability to pay. If the emergency physician says they are to be admitted then they are admitted. Waiting lists for surgery? What is a waiting list? You're talking about being a transplant candidate and waiting for an appropriate organ to be available, right? Surely you are not talking about having to wait for a surgeon or other physician. Let me tell you something, a private hospital in the US would be shut down if they were caught doing something to an indigent such as placing them on a waiting list for surgery. Apparently, our indigents are receiving better surgical care for they are certainly not on any waiting list.

waiting lists were never an issue prior to the government allowing senior medical personnel (consultants mainly) to moonlight in the private sector.

zander,

nice to see you ignore the points made. the fact is, private enterprise has ruined the rail system, just as private enterprise is trying to ruin the NHS. when british rail was in national hands, it wasnt the reciever of the massive subsidy that it is now, the profits made were reinvested in the system and the "tenured" staff (how dare the working class have job security!) made sure that incidents like those of Ladbroke Grove did not happen.

the rail network is more efficent than the car; the problem for the business community is that its not more efficent than the car is at making them money - hence it has (as Stagecoach are doing) to be destroyed as an unwelcome competitive force so that the only alternative is private transport or transport provided by the companies, which will of course be cheaper than the previous state sponsored one, wont it?

so do people in the states have to pay for being healthy or not? my understanding is that, even if they are admitted they must pay, or at least get medicaid (or whatever the system is called)

--------------------------------------------------

its nice to see that both of you have your sense of perspective in true working order. it displays better than i could your deep ignorance about the UK that you can compare the UK to the USSR and fascist Italy; but i guess the truth is something else you are yet to be acquainted with.

[rennaissancemann]

Agricola,

You began this thread to discuss the origin of the "right to keep and bear arms" and how it developed into the second amendment.

Since this has mutated into a discussion of the relative merits of Socialism vs. other forms of governance... I was wondering if you had discussed the original topic of this thread to your satisfaction?

Are we done, Sir?


Regards