6 ms·

Yes, the entire Bill of Rights in fact pertains to our inalienable, universal rights. There is no difference from what one may term "fundamental" or "human" rig

by mkempe 9y ago

Yes, the entire Bill of Rights in fact pertains to our inalienable, universal rights. There is no difference from what one may term "fundamental" or "human" rights. It doesn't matter what the UN or anyone in other countries say or talk about -- just as the laws of physics are facts regardless of what some people may say or feel. If we have the right to life, we have the right to self-defense. If we have the right to overthrow tyranny, we have the right to fight it and install a new form of government.

mr_spothawk 9y ago
this is my preferred interpretation, also :)
laughingman2 9y ago
Then please petetion your senator to deregulate tanks, fighter jets, nuclear warheads, ballistic missiles, submarines etc. If you are serious about arming civilians as protection to overthrow tyranny, do a better job.
- mkempe 9y ago
  We already have the National Guard [1] --aka militias-- which provide ample check from the State level against a would-be dictatorship at the Federal level. For further self-education, one may want to read The Federalist Papers, in particular no 46 written by Madison (see [2] for a discussion of the issue). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_S... [2] http://tracinskiletter.com/2018/03/21/the-advantage-of-being-armed/ http://tracinskiletter.com/2018/03/21/the-advantage-of-being...
  - rplst8 9y ago
    The national guard is NOT the militia.
    - mkempe 9y ago
      I agree that it is not the only militia.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    The constitutional concept of the militia is universal (well, universal for adult free males, at least, but arguably the limitations their relate to limitations applicable to the concept of full citizenship at the time, not special ones for the militia); the National Guard is a subset of or overlaps with the militia (and is, as it is structured, in some ways, in conflict with the conceptualized role of the militia in securing liberty) but is not equivalent to the militia.
    - mkempe 9y ago
      I agree, militia is a wider concept and there can be many such free-formed associations. I merely wanted to mention that the National Guard are also known as militias, and they have always had very powerful weapons at their disposal.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  >Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows, and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon — so long as there is no answer to it — gives claws to the weak. George Orwell, "You and the Atom Bomb", Tribune (19 October 1945)
- acct1771 9y ago
  Please explain Vietnam.
  - rmah 9y ago
    It is a myth that the Vietnam war was mostly a war between US conventional forces against Vietnamese guerrilla forces. In point of fact, the majority of the battles the US military and ARVN engaged in were against the NVA (North Vietnamese Army). That is, conventional forces vs other conventional forces. While the VC (VietCong) were very active and played a crucial role in the eventual victory of North Vietnam over South Vietnam, they were never the primary military force deployed by the communists. Moreover, the VC were not just guys with AK's. They had the full panoply of military hardware that light infantry uses: from anti-tank rockets to mortars to light anti-air missiles. The VC even had a few tanks. The VC did not engage solely in small unit guerilla operations either. Once in a while, they would launch major offensives using coordinated assaults of 10's of thousands of soldiers. What history has shown is that while insurgencies can cause problems for established regimes, without outside logistical and financial support (i.e. supply of arms, food, money, etc) they usually cannot win.
Mediterraneo10 9y ago
> our inalienable, universal rights That school of thought dates from the 18th century when thinkers appealed to a Creator who endowed those rights (even if it was a rather aloof Deist conception of God). However, in the following century it faced strong competition from the utilitarian school that suggests that rights are only a convenient fiction that society recognizes for the common good. Plus, these days ever more people do not believe in any particular Creator who could have endowed anyone with rights. Human ethics, metaethics and politics is definitely nowhere near "laws of physics" settled and agreed on.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  The "right to life" is seen in the objection to a government killing a citizen for no reason. The argument is that, self-evidently, it's wrong for a government to do that. So there must be a right to life independent of the laws of a country or the whims of its rulers. Sure, a theist would claim that God would in particular object to capricious killing, but you don't have to be a theist to claim it's self-evidently objectionable. And I guess you can argue that some do not recognize universal rights, but it's not a compelling argument to just point out what some people think.
- mkempe 9y ago
  Not at all. The concept of natural rights merely means that by our nature we have rights. The schools of thought that led to that identification and to the foundation of the US based on the ideal of a government exclusively tasked with securing these rights goes back at least to the 15th century (Aristotle and other Greek thinkers already were inching towards the idea that there are things that are right to protect in the polis despite what others may think or the laws may impose; for example, read Antigone by Sophocles). What is it in human nature that concretely and morally entails our having rights? the faculty of reason and its crucial role in human life, as long as we are free to act according to our thoughts. No faith involved, no mysticism required. [added] The Founding Fathers did not create a theocracy. I don't see what point you are trying to make -- the concept of natural rights does not require a god, and it is irrelevant whether some person invoked deism or not. The fact is that we are all born with inalienable rights by virtue of our nature, what we are and how we ought to live together.
hpcjoe 9y ago
FWIW, and I use this example in discussions with non-scientists all the time, Newtonian Gravity, aka the "Law of Gravity", not only isn't a fact, it isn't even correct. General relativity appears to be a closer approximation to nature, as Sir Arthur Eddington demonstrated in 1919[1], and Albert Einstein put forth in 1915[2]. That writers continue to conflate the definition of legal "law" with scientific "law" is in some ways amusing, but it weakens the analogies. A physical theory (testable hypothesis making specific predictions) isn't a law. The analogies aren't merely suspect, they are often fatally flawed with appeals to authority amongst other practices which are not relevant in science. What I am saying, more simply is that "laws" of physics aren't facts. Using them as the basis for an analogy results in flawed reasoning. With regard to the original subject matter, fundamental rights mean different things to different people, countries, governments, and other entities. It would be nice if everyone adopted a single minimal definition that we all interpreted and supported in the same manner. This wish is unlikely to ever be fulfilled, as fundamental human rights often run counter to power structures of various types across the world. These rights could potentially constrain other entities rights, so they may choose to adopt some or none of them, or interpret them in as wildly different a manner as they wish. This is vastly different than how physicists interpret and test theories. We don't set h_bar == 0 because we don't want the world to have a quantum character in some locations. But entities in power can set FundamentalRight_type == 0 for a specific type (pick speech, life, liberty, pursuit of happyness) if they so choose. In this way, "fundamental" rights are really not so fundamental. They aren't like the theories of physics, the same everywhere. [1] see https://www.space.com/37018-solar-eclipse-proved-einstein-relativity-right.html https://www.space.com/37018-solar-eclipse-proved-einstein-re... though like almost all writers, they misunderstand what "proven to be correct" means in the context of a physical theory. [2] see https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters_2017_Jan_1/general_relativity_massive/index.html https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters_20...
- mkempe 9y ago
  You're muddying the water and completely missing the point: Facts are what they are, regardless of what people may say or feel about them. The laws of physics, such as Ohm's Law, can be discovered and are facts even were people to deny their validity. The same is true for all facts of nature, including the nature of humans and their rights.

by mkempe 9y ago

mr_spothawk 9y ago

this is my preferred interpretation, also :)

laughingman2 9y ago

Then please petetion your senator to deregulate tanks, fighter jets, nuclear warheads, ballistic missiles, submarines etc. If you are serious about arming civilians as protection to overthrow tyranny, do a better job.

mkempe 9y ago
We already have the National Guard [1] --aka militias-- which provide ample check from the State level against a would-be dictatorship at the Federal level. For further self-education, one may want to read The Federalist Papers, in particular no 46 written by Madison (see [2] for a discussion of the issue). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_S... [2] http://tracinskiletter.com/2018/03/21/the-advantage-of-being-armed/ http://tracinskiletter.com/2018/03/21/the-advantage-of-being...
- rplst8 9y ago
  The national guard is NOT the militia.
  - mkempe 9y ago
    I agree that it is not the only militia.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  The constitutional concept of the militia is universal (well, universal for adult free males, at least, but arguably the limitations their relate to limitations applicable to the concept of full citizenship at the time, not special ones for the militia); the National Guard is a subset of or overlaps with the militia (and is, as it is structured, in some ways, in conflict with the conceptualized role of the militia in securing liberty) but is not equivalent to the militia.
  - mkempe 9y ago
    I agree, militia is a wider concept and there can be many such free-formed associations. I merely wanted to mention that the National Guard are also known as militias, and they have always had very powerful weapons at their disposal.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
wu-ikkyu 9y ago
>Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows, and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon — so long as there is no answer to it — gives claws to the weak. George Orwell, "You and the Atom Bomb", Tribune (19 October 1945)
acct1771 9y ago
Please explain Vietnam.
- rmah 9y ago
  It is a myth that the Vietnam war was mostly a war between US conventional forces against Vietnamese guerrilla forces. In point of fact, the majority of the battles the US military and ARVN engaged in were against the NVA (North Vietnamese Army). That is, conventional forces vs other conventional forces. While the VC (VietCong) were very active and played a crucial role in the eventual victory of North Vietnam over South Vietnam, they were never the primary military force deployed by the communists. Moreover, the VC were not just guys with AK's. They had the full panoply of military hardware that light infantry uses: from anti-tank rockets to mortars to light anti-air missiles. The VC even had a few tanks. The VC did not engage solely in small unit guerilla operations either. Once in a while, they would launch major offensives using coordinated assaults of 10's of thousands of soldiers. What history has shown is that while insurgencies can cause problems for established regimes, without outside logistical and financial support (i.e. supply of arms, food, money, etc) they usually cannot win.

Mediterraneo10 9y ago

> our inalienable, universal rights That school of thought dates from the 18th century when thinkers appealed to a Creator who endowed those rights (even if it was a rather aloof Deist conception of God). However, in the following century it faced strong competition from the utilitarian school that suggests that rights are only a convenient fiction that society recognizes for the common good. Plus, these days ever more people do not believe in any particular Creator who could have endowed anyone with rights. Human ethics, metaethics and politics is definitely nowhere near "laws of physics" settled and agreed on.

humanrebar 9y ago
The "right to life" is seen in the objection to a government killing a citizen for no reason. The argument is that, self-evidently, it's wrong for a government to do that. So there must be a right to life independent of the laws of a country or the whims of its rulers. Sure, a theist would claim that God would in particular object to capricious killing, but you don't have to be a theist to claim it's self-evidently objectionable. And I guess you can argue that some do not recognize universal rights, but it's not a compelling argument to just point out what some people think.
mkempe 9y ago
Not at all. The concept of natural rights merely means that by our nature we have rights. The schools of thought that led to that identification and to the foundation of the US based on the ideal of a government exclusively tasked with securing these rights goes back at least to the 15th century (Aristotle and other Greek thinkers already were inching towards the idea that there are things that are right to protect in the polis despite what others may think or the laws may impose; for example, read Antigone by Sophocles). What is it in human nature that concretely and morally entails our having rights? the faculty of reason and its crucial role in human life, as long as we are free to act according to our thoughts. No faith involved, no mysticism required. [added] The Founding Fathers did not create a theocracy. I don't see what point you are trying to make -- the concept of natural rights does not require a god, and it is irrelevant whether some person invoked deism or not. The fact is that we are all born with inalienable rights by virtue of our nature, what we are and how we ought to live together.

hpcjoe 9y ago

FWIW, and I use this example in discussions with non-scientists all the time, Newtonian Gravity, aka the "Law of Gravity", not only isn't a fact, it isn't even correct. General relativity appears to be a closer approximation to nature, as Sir Arthur Eddington demonstrated in 1919[1], and Albert Einstein put forth in 1915[2]. That writers continue to conflate the definition of legal "law" with scientific "law" is in some ways amusing, but it weakens the analogies. A physical theory (testable hypothesis making specific predictions) isn't a law. The analogies aren't merely suspect, they are often fatally flawed with appeals to authority amongst other practices which are not relevant in science. What I am saying, more simply is that "laws" of physics aren't facts. Using them as the basis for an analogy results in flawed reasoning. With regard to the original subject matter, fundamental rights mean different things to different people, countries, governments, and other entities. It would be nice if everyone adopted a single minimal definition that we all interpreted and supported in the same manner. This wish is unlikely to ever be fulfilled, as fundamental human rights often run counter to power structures of various types across the world. These rights could potentially constrain other entities rights, so they may choose to adopt some or none of them, or interpret them in as wildly different a manner as they wish. This is vastly different than how physicists interpret and test theories. We don't set h_bar == 0 because we don't want the world to have a quantum character in some locations. But entities in power can set FundamentalRight_type == 0 for a specific type (pick speech, life, liberty, pursuit of happyness) if they so choose. In this way, "fundamental" rights are really not so fundamental. They aren't like the theories of physics, the same everywhere. [1] see https://www.space.com/37018-solar-eclipse-proved-einstein-relativity-right.html https://www.space.com/37018-solar-eclipse-proved-einstein-re... though like almost all writers, they misunderstand what "proven to be correct" means in the context of a physical theory. [2] see https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters_2017_Jan_1/general_relativity_massive/index.html https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters_20...

mkempe 9y ago
You're muddying the water and completely missing the point: Facts are what they are, regardless of what people may say or feel about them. The laws of physics, such as Ohm's Law, can be discovered and are facts even were people to deny their validity. The same is true for all facts of nature, including the nature of humans and their rights.