5 ms·

As someone who grew up in Texas and is generally in favor of these sorts of "use of deadly force" prosecution defenses, I think I can at least articulate the mo

As someone who grew up in Texas and is generally in favor of these sorts of "use of deadly force" prosecution defenses, I think I can at least articulate the motivations in a way that makes more sense, even if it's not convincing. Many Texans conceptualize government and state uses of force (ie prosecution that can lead to imprisonment) as restrictions on their rights. This "negative rights" conceptualization is pretty common in the US, but especially common in Texas. In the specific case of using deadly force to prevent somebody from stealing your property at night, the idea is something like the following. Absent any government intervention, you have a "property right" which allows you to prevent the thief from taking the property. In some cases, the balance of public policy concerns should lean in favor of government restrictions on this property right, to protect potentially innocent people or to prevent nonviolent criminals from dying, or to sustain an orderly justice system without vigilantes. However, many Texans believe that the government should not intervene in this case because the restriction on an individual's right to protect his/her property is more important than the other policy goals. Like I said, this is just my attempt to articulate the way I'd guess many Texans feel about this. I don't necessarily agree with all of the above.

today20201014 5y ago
> Many Texans conceptualize government and state uses of force (ie prosecution that can lead to imprisonment) as restrictions on their rights. This "negative rights" conceptualization is pretty common in the US, but especially common in Texas So, the government/state has guaranteed a negative right to life, i.e. citizens are prohibited from actions that deprive someone's right to life, and in order to enforce this prohibition, citizens are deprived of their right to arbitrarily commit violence to each other, while the government/state has a monopoly. Where does our right to arbitrarily commit violence come from? Is it just a "natural right"?
- qweqwweqwe-90i 5y ago
  What's wrong with choosing rights democratically?
  - bluGill 5y ago
    Minority rights.
    - qweqwweqwe-90i 5y ago
      You either believe in a democracy or you don’t. Minority rights have been pretty well protected through democratic decisions.
      - bluGill 5y ago
        Sometimes, but not all times. It depends on what minority
        qweqwweqwe-90i 5y ago
        I disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion. And also to try and change the situation democratically.
      - lowkey_ 5y ago
        Minority rights are well-protected in America as a constitutional republic. An actual direct democracy, like Switzerland, isn't as great as protecting minority rights. There's plenty of examples of democracies trampling minority rights, and there is a legitimate fear of tyrannical majority in most democracies. America is quite unique in its system and how well it protects rights.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  > Where does our right to arbitrarily commit violence come from? Is it just a "natural right"? If you down the rabbit hole far enough, rights do not come from anywhere other than the extent to which an opposing party is able to punish you. Aka, might makes right.
- mgraczyk 5y ago
  See that's why there's a big difference in conceptualization. Texans would certainly not say you have a "right" to arbitrarily commit violence. They conceptualize rights "negatively", as things the state shouldn't take away from you. In this case, the right is the freedom to not not go to prison after protecting your property. In fact, a Texan may also believe that since you have no right to violence, it would be perfectly fine for a police officer to stop you from using deadly force, as long as that police officer doesn't use deadly force on you!
  - today20201014 5y ago
    Thanks, but I guess I just don't understand how this concept - negative rights are things that the state shouldn't take away from you - fits the concept of a "negative" right given here [0]. Following that definition, negative rights require that some actions are not allowed - the government/state (i.e, society?) takes these actions away. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
    - mgraczyk 5y ago
      The way it would fit: You have a negative right to freedom from the state: the state can't lock you up without a good reason. Also relevant, you have a negative right to your property: someone can't take your property from you. Contrast with a postive-right versions of these two things, right to due process and right to property protection by the police.
      - bollu 5y ago
        I don't grok the real difference between the positive and negative rights example. Do these lead to different policy decisions? I'd like to know.
        esyir 5y ago
        In the property case, my understanding is that people cannot take your property, this you are permitted to defend your property. In the positive rights case, the state extends property protection via the law and police, thereby implicitly granting you property rights. This is a grant, and you are not allowed to defend your own property? That's my rough reading of ops text.
ramses0 5y ago
To add: an urban and rural split. By geography, Texas is like 85%+ rural or semi-rural. In $MAJOR_CITY suburbia, you can call 911 and expect police or fire response within 5-15min. In $RURAL Texas, response times may be significantly longer which helps to explain a self-reliance culture. Property theft deterrence, prevention, and enforcement being neatly bundled in the revolver at your hip (think 1850s “old west” town) is what was codified into law in Texas. Particularly theft of horses (eg: mobility or necessary farm labor) was severely punished. Different challenges often call for different responses to be most effective, and it’s helpful to try and understand the situation and expectations before passing judgement.
- redanddead 5y ago
  I think this is an overlooked part of our daily lives: the impact of things as primordial to the human experience as space and time, and how they shape our socioeconomic, political, and even romantic facet of our lives.

today20201014 5y ago

> Many Texans conceptualize government and state uses of force (ie prosecution that can lead to imprisonment) as restrictions on their rights. This "negative rights" conceptualization is pretty common in the US, but especially common in Texas So, the government/state has guaranteed a negative right to life, i.e. citizens are prohibited from actions that deprive someone's right to life, and in order to enforce this prohibition, citizens are deprived of their right to arbitrarily commit violence to each other, while the government/state has a monopoly. Where does our right to arbitrarily commit violence come from? Is it just a "natural right"?

qweqwweqwe-90i 5y ago
What's wrong with choosing rights democratically?
- bluGill 5y ago
  Minority rights.
  - qweqwweqwe-90i 5y ago
    You either believe in a democracy or you don’t. Minority rights have been pretty well protected through democratic decisions.
    - bluGill 5y ago
      Sometimes, but not all times. It depends on what minority
      - qweqwweqwe-90i 5y ago
        I disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion. And also to try and change the situation democratically.
    - lowkey_ 5y ago
      Minority rights are well-protected in America as a constitutional republic. An actual direct democracy, like Switzerland, isn't as great as protecting minority rights. There's plenty of examples of democracies trampling minority rights, and there is a legitimate fear of tyrannical majority in most democracies. America is quite unique in its system and how well it protects rights.
lotsofpulp 5y ago
> Where does our right to arbitrarily commit violence come from? Is it just a "natural right"? If you down the rabbit hole far enough, rights do not come from anywhere other than the extent to which an opposing party is able to punish you. Aka, might makes right.
mgraczyk 5y ago
See that's why there's a big difference in conceptualization. Texans would certainly not say you have a "right" to arbitrarily commit violence. They conceptualize rights "negatively", as things the state shouldn't take away from you. In this case, the right is the freedom to not not go to prison after protecting your property. In fact, a Texan may also believe that since you have no right to violence, it would be perfectly fine for a police officer to stop you from using deadly force, as long as that police officer doesn't use deadly force on you!
- today20201014 5y ago
  Thanks, but I guess I just don't understand how this concept - negative rights are things that the state shouldn't take away from you - fits the concept of a "negative" right given here [0]. Following that definition, negative rights require that some actions are not allowed - the government/state (i.e, society?) takes these actions away. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights
  - mgraczyk 5y ago
    The way it would fit: You have a negative right to freedom from the state: the state can't lock you up without a good reason. Also relevant, you have a negative right to your property: someone can't take your property from you. Contrast with a postive-right versions of these two things, right to due process and right to property protection by the police.
    - bollu 5y ago
      I don't grok the real difference between the positive and negative rights example. Do these lead to different policy decisions? I'd like to know.
      - esyir 5y ago
        In the property case, my understanding is that people cannot take your property, this you are permitted to defend your property. In the positive rights case, the state extends property protection via the law and police, thereby implicitly granting you property rights. This is a grant, and you are not allowed to defend your own property? That's my rough reading of ops text.

ramses0 5y ago

To add: an urban and rural split. By geography, Texas is like 85%+ rural or semi-rural. In $MAJOR_CITY suburbia, you can call 911 and expect police or fire response within 5-15min. In $RURAL Texas, response times may be significantly longer which helps to explain a self-reliance culture. Property theft deterrence, prevention, and enforcement being neatly bundled in the revolver at your hip (think 1850s “old west” town) is what was codified into law in Texas. Particularly theft of horses (eg: mobility or necessary farm labor) was severely punished. Different challenges often call for different responses to be most effective, and it’s helpful to try and understand the situation and expectations before passing judgement.

redanddead 5y ago
I think this is an overlooked part of our daily lives: the impact of things as primordial to the human experience as space and time, and how they shape our socioeconomic, political, and even romantic facet of our lives.