5 ms·

> Further what the hell does a "collective right" even look like in the first place.... I'll give a non-gun example - you buy a piece of property near the head

> Further what the hell does a "collective right" even look like in the first place.... I'll give a non-gun example - you buy a piece of property near the headway of an important river. You have an individual right to improve the property, and really use it any way you want. HOWEVER - the people who live downstream of you ALSO have a collective right to use the river, which puts a limit on your individual rights. You can't dump pollutants or trash in the river, nor can you divert the waterway. You have an individual right to use your own property, but your neighbors (depending on the issue, this may be local or global) have a collective right not to suffer damage or externalities from that use. In the context of the gun discussion, the collective rights people believe that gun ownership is intended to defend the neighborhood, not for individual self-defense.

thaumasiotes 5y ago
Do they? That would imply a model where the neighborhood watch is free (encouraged, even!) to own guns. My sense is that the collective rights people believe the police should be allowed to own guns, but certainly not local volunteers.
- himinlomax 5y ago
  A well regulated militia, perhaps? Tout bad nobody thought of that.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    The term "well regulated" in the second amendment means something like "in good working order". (Compare the sense of the word "order" as "command", which is a similar development.) This is very clear if you read the contemporaneous discussion, which often substitutes synonyms. The idea is that you can call for a force from the militia and they will show up, already possessing weapons that they already know how to use. (Another thing you'll learn immediately by reading that discussion is that one of the primary purposes of the second amendment was to prevent the United States from having a standing army...)
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      I don't think collectivists in general think that individuals shouldn't be allowed to own guns, but that ownership can be well regulated, in the sense that gun owners should be required to show some level of knowledge and such before purchasing a firearm (that is, ownership can be licensed[0], as opposed to carrying). Further, its not at all clear to me that carrying permits have anything to do with the constitutional amendment. The discussion at the time and the amendment itself refer to national defense, both from external and internal threats to the nation, not "bring a gun with me to the store" (concealed/open carry), which I think is what makes many people uncomfortable. Many other countries have regulations of this form, that you have to purchase safety equipment and the government can audit you to ensure that you are safely storing your firearms. This gets people concerned about the government seizing your guns, but I don't think those concerns are realistic (assume the gov decides to do that one day, does having a national gun registry and your gun in a safe make things look any different than the police going door to door with a swat team and searching the house)? I don't think it does. [0]: Eventually. this would take a generation or two
    - himinlomax 5y ago
      > The term "well regulated" in the second amendment means something like "in good working order". I'm sorry, but this is just laughable on the face of it. You see, I'm French (as hinted by the mis-autocorrect of "too"), and "regulated" (well, "régulé") means the same in contemporary French as in contemporary English. And the meaning comes straight from Latin (regula: rule, law), probably by way of 1066 like most legal terms. The notion that "regulate" means anything but regulate IN A LEGAL DOCUMENT of all places is thus ridiculous. Or at the very least utterly implausible. But maybe you're right; I can't fail to notice you don't provide any proof for this improbable claim. > Another thing you'll learn immediately by reading that discussion is that one of the primary purposes of the second amendment was to prevent the United States from having a standing army... Another unsubstantiated claim, and just as improbable on the face of it. In any case nothing in that wording even hints at that.
      - thaumasiotes 5y ago
        What do you think you're saying? The fact that a word has the same meaning in contemporary French that it does in contemporary English is not relevant to whether it had another meaning in the English of three hundred years ago. > I can't fail to notice you don't provide any proof for this improbable claim. > Another unsubstantiated claim, and just as improbable on the face of it. I'm not responsible for the failures of your knowledge. These claims are both quite obvious, if -- as I specified above -- you take the time to read the things that this set of people said and wrote at the time. Here's a letter from George Washington in which he contrasts an "irregular and disjointed militia" with a "well regulated militia": https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-08-02-0153 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-08-02-... > The irregular and disjointed State of the Militia of this province, makes it necessary for me to inform you, that unless a Law is passed by your Legislature to reduce them to some order, and oblige them to turn out in a different Manner from what they have hitherto done, we shall bring very few into the Feild, and even those few, will render little or no Service. > your first object should be a well regulated Militia Law. The people, put under good Officers, would behave in quite another manner, and not only render real Service as Soldiers, but would protect, instead of distressing the Inhabitants. Here's a speech by George Clinton from 1798, in which, instead of referring to a "well regulated militia", he refers to a "well organized militia": https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/evans/N25292.0001.001/1:2?rgn=div1;view=fulltext https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/evans/N25292.0001.001/1:2?rgn=d... > The means of national defence should rest in the body of the people. A well organized militia is the only safe bulwark of a free people, competent on all occasions to repel invasion and suppress insurrection. Standing armies are not only expensive but dangerous to the liberties of the state. In republics every citizen should be a soldier. Note that this is not at all an unexpected meaning for the word "regulated" to have. "Regulation" as in command is related to "rule" as in rulership. "Regulation" as in correct operation is related to "rule" as in the straight line drawn by a... "ruler".
- smsm42 5y ago
  The design purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect the people from government impositions. Do you think that people who wrote it, with that purpose in their minds, were worried that the State would ban their own State Police from carrying firearms, and that's what they should prevent? How would that even look like - the Government will issue an edict that no Government employee is allowed to carry firearms, even in law enforcement, but the Courts would come in and say - no-no-no, your police has the right to bear arms! So you must have the armed police, whether you want it or not! This sounds completely contrary to what in practice every government on Earth does. Of course the State can arm their agents, if they want to - you don't need to specially mention it as a fundamental right, as you don't need to specially mention they are allowed to breathe or eat - that's how it always happens. What doesn't always happen and needs special protection - is the right of the citizens which are not government agents, and thus the government - which always has a lot of armed people in their employ - can easily walk all over them. To mitigate it somewhat was the exact purpose of the Bill of Rights.
  - agarden 5y ago
    The overriding concern of the constitution is that the federal government not tromp all over the rights of the States. It would not be reasonable for the constitution to have provisions to secure the right of the federal government to arm its police, but it does seem reasonable to me to have provisions to ensure that the federal government does not interfere with the right of the several States to arm their police. However, multiple states specify in their constitutions who comprises their militias. In Virginia, for example, it is "composed of the body of the people." In Illinois, "The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those exempted by law." Given such constitutional provisions, it seems unreasonable to think that police were in view when speaking of a "well-regulated militia."
    - syshum 5y ago
      At the time of the constitution most policing was done by a local sheriff that was elected and did not really have a "dept", the sheriff would enlist local volunteers if there needed to be a police action that required more than him and a single deputy. For this reason the ability to local community members to be armed was required as they needed to defend themselves as well as the local community when called upon by the sheriff.
bliteben 5y ago
Riparian rights vary state by state, and can be attached to a piece of property and defended by the legacy of the property. I am no expert in water rights at all, but this seems to be a pretty clumsy example. I do get that you are trying to give an example of the "tragedy of the commons", but you are comparing civil liberties which while not ensconced as "inalienable rights", are supposed to be applied equally and non-revocable. Almost every tragedy of the commons example I can think of is subject to government just doing its job and coming up with the best compromise (once they even realize it is a problem). In many cases what seems best for everyone today may change in the future. How would you even apply this collective right to any other amendment from the Bill of Rights? Only give a fair trial if an entire community is arrested? Only stop unfair search and seizure if its for an entire town?

thaumasiotes 5y ago

Do they? That would imply a model where the neighborhood watch is free (encouraged, even!) to own guns. My sense is that the collective rights people believe the police should be allowed to own guns, but certainly not local volunteers.

himinlomax 5y ago
A well regulated militia, perhaps? Tout bad nobody thought of that.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  The term "well regulated" in the second amendment means something like "in good working order". (Compare the sense of the word "order" as "command", which is a similar development.) This is very clear if you read the contemporaneous discussion, which often substitutes synonyms. The idea is that you can call for a force from the militia and they will show up, already possessing weapons that they already know how to use. (Another thing you'll learn immediately by reading that discussion is that one of the primary purposes of the second amendment was to prevent the United States from having a standing army...)
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    I don't think collectivists in general think that individuals shouldn't be allowed to own guns, but that ownership can be well regulated, in the sense that gun owners should be required to show some level of knowledge and such before purchasing a firearm (that is, ownership can be licensed[0], as opposed to carrying). Further, its not at all clear to me that carrying permits have anything to do with the constitutional amendment. The discussion at the time and the amendment itself refer to national defense, both from external and internal threats to the nation, not "bring a gun with me to the store" (concealed/open carry), which I think is what makes many people uncomfortable. Many other countries have regulations of this form, that you have to purchase safety equipment and the government can audit you to ensure that you are safely storing your firearms. This gets people concerned about the government seizing your guns, but I don't think those concerns are realistic (assume the gov decides to do that one day, does having a national gun registry and your gun in a safe make things look any different than the police going door to door with a swat team and searching the house)? I don't think it does. [0]: Eventually. this would take a generation or two
  - himinlomax 5y ago
    > The term "well regulated" in the second amendment means something like "in good working order". I'm sorry, but this is just laughable on the face of it. You see, I'm French (as hinted by the mis-autocorrect of "too"), and "regulated" (well, "régulé") means the same in contemporary French as in contemporary English. And the meaning comes straight from Latin (regula: rule, law), probably by way of 1066 like most legal terms. The notion that "regulate" means anything but regulate IN A LEGAL DOCUMENT of all places is thus ridiculous. Or at the very least utterly implausible. But maybe you're right; I can't fail to notice you don't provide any proof for this improbable claim. > Another thing you'll learn immediately by reading that discussion is that one of the primary purposes of the second amendment was to prevent the United States from having a standing army... Another unsubstantiated claim, and just as improbable on the face of it. In any case nothing in that wording even hints at that.
    - thaumasiotes 5y ago
      What do you think you're saying? The fact that a word has the same meaning in contemporary French that it does in contemporary English is not relevant to whether it had another meaning in the English of three hundred years ago. > I can't fail to notice you don't provide any proof for this improbable claim. > Another unsubstantiated claim, and just as improbable on the face of it. I'm not responsible for the failures of your knowledge. These claims are both quite obvious, if -- as I specified above -- you take the time to read the things that this set of people said and wrote at the time. Here's a letter from George Washington in which he contrasts an "irregular and disjointed militia" with a "well regulated militia": https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-08-02-0153 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-08-02-... > The irregular and disjointed State of the Militia of this province, makes it necessary for me to inform you, that unless a Law is passed by your Legislature to reduce them to some order, and oblige them to turn out in a different Manner from what they have hitherto done, we shall bring very few into the Feild, and even those few, will render little or no Service. > your first object should be a well regulated Militia Law. The people, put under good Officers, would behave in quite another manner, and not only render real Service as Soldiers, but would protect, instead of distressing the Inhabitants. Here's a speech by George Clinton from 1798, in which, instead of referring to a "well regulated militia", he refers to a "well organized militia": https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/evans/N25292.0001.001/1:2?rgn=div1;view=fulltext https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/evans/N25292.0001.001/1:2?rgn=d... > The means of national defence should rest in the body of the people. A well organized militia is the only safe bulwark of a free people, competent on all occasions to repel invasion and suppress insurrection. Standing armies are not only expensive but dangerous to the liberties of the state. In republics every citizen should be a soldier. Note that this is not at all an unexpected meaning for the word "regulated" to have. "Regulation" as in command is related to "rule" as in rulership. "Regulation" as in correct operation is related to "rule" as in the straight line drawn by a... "ruler".
smsm42 5y ago
The design purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect the people from government impositions. Do you think that people who wrote it, with that purpose in their minds, were worried that the State would ban their own State Police from carrying firearms, and that's what they should prevent? How would that even look like - the Government will issue an edict that no Government employee is allowed to carry firearms, even in law enforcement, but the Courts would come in and say - no-no-no, your police has the right to bear arms! So you must have the armed police, whether you want it or not! This sounds completely contrary to what in practice every government on Earth does. Of course the State can arm their agents, if they want to - you don't need to specially mention it as a fundamental right, as you don't need to specially mention they are allowed to breathe or eat - that's how it always happens. What doesn't always happen and needs special protection - is the right of the citizens which are not government agents, and thus the government - which always has a lot of armed people in their employ - can easily walk all over them. To mitigate it somewhat was the exact purpose of the Bill of Rights.
- agarden 5y ago
  The overriding concern of the constitution is that the federal government not tromp all over the rights of the States. It would not be reasonable for the constitution to have provisions to secure the right of the federal government to arm its police, but it does seem reasonable to me to have provisions to ensure that the federal government does not interfere with the right of the several States to arm their police. However, multiple states specify in their constitutions who comprises their militias. In Virginia, for example, it is "composed of the body of the people." In Illinois, "The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those exempted by law." Given such constitutional provisions, it seems unreasonable to think that police were in view when speaking of a "well-regulated militia."
  - syshum 5y ago
    At the time of the constitution most policing was done by a local sheriff that was elected and did not really have a "dept", the sheriff would enlist local volunteers if there needed to be a police action that required more than him and a single deputy. For this reason the ability to local community members to be armed was required as they needed to defend themselves as well as the local community when called upon by the sheriff.

bliteben 5y ago

Riparian rights vary state by state, and can be attached to a piece of property and defended by the legacy of the property. I am no expert in water rights at all, but this seems to be a pretty clumsy example. I do get that you are trying to give an example of the "tragedy of the commons", but you are comparing civil liberties which while not ensconced as "inalienable rights", are supposed to be applied equally and non-revocable. Almost every tragedy of the commons example I can think of is subject to government just doing its job and coming up with the best compromise (once they even realize it is a problem). In many cases what seems best for everyone today may change in the future. How would you even apply this collective right to any other amendment from the Bill of Rights? Only give a fair trial if an entire community is arrested? Only stop unfair search and seizure if its for an entire town?