6 ms·

The First and Second Amendments don’t grant you the right to free speech and to bear arms. Being born a human being is where those rights come from. The amendme

The First and Second Amendments don’t grant you the right to free speech and to bear arms. Being born a human being is where those rights come from. The amendments simply proscribe the government from infringement upon them. Not a hundred SCOTUS judges, not a thousand, not a million of them will change that.

exporectomy 5y ago
What's the general principle you use to determine that a right comes from being born a human?
- bjt2n3904 5y ago
  "We hold these truths to be self evident..." Either you see them, or you don't. If you don't see them, explaining why is an exercise in futility.
  - krapp 5y ago
    The Declaration of Independence doesn't claim rights are derived from human nature, but that "certain inalienable rights" are "Endowed by [a] Creator." So I guess that solves it. We can have all the guns we want because God said so.
    - rainbowzootsuit 5y ago
      The Declaration of Independence isn't part of the U.S. Constitution. The words "god" or "creator" don't appear in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that I'm aware of. It seems quite secular. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/
      - yeetawayhn 5y ago
        The Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document either.
        rainbowzootsuit 5y ago
        Thanks, that's what I was getting at if I was unclear. It predates the Constitution by more than a decade, with an abandoned Articles of Confederation in the middle. It's historically important, but not legally meaningful when talking about the later US Constitution of 1789.
    - atat7024 5y ago
      Honestly? Those words seem like they could be interpreted as being intended as timeless placeholders.
- haram_masala 5y ago
  It is perhaps the single most fundamental aspect of American culture. Though of course, certain people want to subvert that principle in order to aggregate power for themselves and their interest groups. I hope they eventually see the light and embrace America, or meet the same end as the redcoats.
  - exporectomy 5y ago
    American culture is a lot more narrow than being born human. Perhaps you should have said being born an American?
majormajor 5y ago
Billions of people have been born human and never been able to exercise such rights without facing repercussions, so ... claiming inalienability yet not accounting for the effective and de facto removal of them for the majority of the human experience seems like nothing more than an exercise in empty rhetorical tricks.
- chroem- 5y ago
  You honestly believe the concept of human rights is a "rhetorical trick"?
  - majormajor 5y ago
    I believe that the idea that they are something anyone is naturally entitled to by God or nature is a rhetorical trick. Specifically, one employed to discount the value of a strong, functional government. I believe that the state of nature outside of that exposes the shallowness of "inalienability." I believe they are something you have to continually fight for, and that can only be secured by a functional government (which itself is something that requires constant maintenance), vs something you can truly secure for yourself. And in the particular case of the second amendment, I believe we are in a situation where a "right" granted by our constitution impairs on a right to live freely, free from interference and harm from others, that I personally consider more basic and more essential. The Constitution doesn't have an amendment discussing a right to not get shot, but I don't think that makes it less important.
    - nradov 5y ago
      There is no positive right to be free from harm. Such a right has never existed.
      - majormajor 5y ago
        So why not? Why don't I have a right to not be killed by my fellow man? Why is it MORE IMPORTANT that my fellow man have a right to possess and carry weapons that could end my life? How is the latter "inalienable" and the former is just wishful thinking? The only answer I can find is "because some people in the 18th century wrote one of them down, but not the other."
dctoedt 5y ago
> Being born a human being is where those rights [free speech, bear arms] come from. How does your theory account for the empirical observation that those rights are largely absent in much of the world?
- haram_masala 5y ago
  It’s not a theory, it’s an axiomatic principle. Oppression does exist, and it’s an affront to that principle.
bitwize 5y ago
"Human rights" are a fiction, like money. The libertarian idea is that we collectively pretend human rights are real because doing so leads to empirically better outcomes in terms of human happiness, lack of suffering, etc. So here's a question: has the absolutist interpretation of free speech and gun rights currently applied in the USA led to better outcomes than a more restricted interpretation? Well, let's see. We can compare the USA to other liberal democracies which do not acknowledge a near-absolute right to free speech, and have very strict gun laws -- like Germany, Canada, and New Zealand just to pick three. And if we do we find the USA is a dumpster fire compared to those countries, a place where white supremacism has run amok and schools must have active-shooter drills because of the ease with which nuts can get their hands on firearms. So yeah, I'd say the more restrictive interpretation of human rights has, empirically, won out.
- haram_masala 5y ago
  > “Human rights” are a fiction, like money. There are countless dictators and tyrants who agree with you on that.

exporectomy 5y ago

What's the general principle you use to determine that a right comes from being born a human?

bjt2n3904 5y ago
"We hold these truths to be self evident..." Either you see them, or you don't. If you don't see them, explaining why is an exercise in futility.
- krapp 5y ago
  The Declaration of Independence doesn't claim rights are derived from human nature, but that "certain inalienable rights" are "Endowed by [a] Creator." So I guess that solves it. We can have all the guns we want because God said so.
  - rainbowzootsuit 5y ago
    The Declaration of Independence isn't part of the U.S. Constitution. The words "god" or "creator" don't appear in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that I'm aware of. It seems quite secular. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/
    - yeetawayhn 5y ago
      The Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document either.
      - rainbowzootsuit 5y ago
        Thanks, that's what I was getting at if I was unclear. It predates the Constitution by more than a decade, with an abandoned Articles of Confederation in the middle. It's historically important, but not legally meaningful when talking about the later US Constitution of 1789.
  - atat7024 5y ago
    Honestly? Those words seem like they could be interpreted as being intended as timeless placeholders.
haram_masala 5y ago
It is perhaps the single most fundamental aspect of American culture. Though of course, certain people want to subvert that principle in order to aggregate power for themselves and their interest groups. I hope they eventually see the light and embrace America, or meet the same end as the redcoats.
- exporectomy 5y ago
  American culture is a lot more narrow than being born human. Perhaps you should have said being born an American?

majormajor 5y ago

Billions of people have been born human and never been able to exercise such rights without facing repercussions, so ... claiming inalienability yet not accounting for the effective and de facto removal of them for the majority of the human experience seems like nothing more than an exercise in empty rhetorical tricks.

chroem- 5y ago
You honestly believe the concept of human rights is a "rhetorical trick"?
- majormajor 5y ago
  I believe that the idea that they are something anyone is naturally entitled to by God or nature is a rhetorical trick. Specifically, one employed to discount the value of a strong, functional government. I believe that the state of nature outside of that exposes the shallowness of "inalienability." I believe they are something you have to continually fight for, and that can only be secured by a functional government (which itself is something that requires constant maintenance), vs something you can truly secure for yourself. And in the particular case of the second amendment, I believe we are in a situation where a "right" granted by our constitution impairs on a right to live freely, free from interference and harm from others, that I personally consider more basic and more essential. The Constitution doesn't have an amendment discussing a right to not get shot, but I don't think that makes it less important.
  - nradov 5y ago
    There is no positive right to be free from harm. Such a right has never existed.
    - majormajor 5y ago
      So why not? Why don't I have a right to not be killed by my fellow man? Why is it MORE IMPORTANT that my fellow man have a right to possess and carry weapons that could end my life? How is the latter "inalienable" and the former is just wishful thinking? The only answer I can find is "because some people in the 18th century wrote one of them down, but not the other."

dctoedt 5y ago

> Being born a human being is where those rights [free speech, bear arms] come from. How does your theory account for the empirical observation that those rights are largely absent in much of the world?

haram_masala 5y ago
It’s not a theory, it’s an axiomatic principle. Oppression does exist, and it’s an affront to that principle.

bitwize 5y ago

"Human rights" are a fiction, like money. The libertarian idea is that we collectively pretend human rights are real because doing so leads to empirically better outcomes in terms of human happiness, lack of suffering, etc. So here's a question: has the absolutist interpretation of free speech and gun rights currently applied in the USA led to better outcomes than a more restricted interpretation? Well, let's see. We can compare the USA to other liberal democracies which do not acknowledge a near-absolute right to free speech, and have very strict gun laws -- like Germany, Canada, and New Zealand just to pick three. And if we do we find the USA is a dumpster fire compared to those countries, a place where white supremacism has run amok and schools must have active-shooter drills because of the ease with which nuts can get their hands on firearms. So yeah, I'd say the more restrictive interpretation of human rights has, empirically, won out.

haram_masala 5y ago
> “Human rights” are a fiction, like money. There are countless dictators and tyrants who agree with you on that.