3 ms·

You are missing Cerf's point. It may be a desirable but its not a human right. What you are describing is negative freedom: no one should stop me from doing X.

You are missing Cerf's point. It may be a desirable but its not a human right. What you are describing is negative freedom: no one should stop me from doing X. But this is very different from a human right: something that is inalienable and fundamental to human existence. The right to bear arms is a political right (in the US at least) as well as a negative freedom. It is not however, a human right. If it was, the nearly every other country in the world would be violating fundamental human rights by denying their citizens the opportunity to carry a weapon that kills with such ease. Access to the internet wasn't fundamental to human existence 100 years ago when it didn't exist or even 10 year ago when it did. Its still not fundamental to our existence today - its just very useful.

mindcrime 15y ago
It is not however, a human right. I, for one, disagree. If it was, the nearly every other country in the world would be violating fundamental human rights by denying their citizens the opportunity to carry a weapon that kills with such ease. Yes, yes they are. What could possibly be a more fundamental right than the right to defend oneself? And arming oneself to do so obviously follows from that, IMO. Heck, a wildly popular definition of what "government" is, is based on the idea of self-defense as the fundamental innate right (I'm referring to Bastiat and his idea of "government as the collective extension to our individual right of self-defense").
- davekinkead 15y ago
  You are missing the link between rights and duties. If you have a right to bear arms, then in the positive sense I have a duty to provide you with arms and in the negative sense, I have the duty not to stop you bearing arms. I'll assuming you refer the the negative sense. If so, what grants you the authority to impose that duty upon me? Why am I not allowed to protect myself by ensuring you don't have the means to harm me? One way to protect oneself is to ensure no one has the means to do harm to each other. Given that that option exists, then the right to bear arms can't be a fundamental human right because it is clear not fundamental to human existence. If it is a right, then it is a political right that comes from mutual agreement.
  - mindcrime 15y ago
    You are missing the link between rights and duties. I just default to the definition of "right" that's more like "something you can do without needing anyone's permission." I don't accept that anyone is ever obligated to do something (provide me with a gun, for example) because of someone else's rights. in the negative sense, I have the duty not to stop you bearing arms No, you could try if you feel justified. But at that point there's no more reasoning from first principles or anything... you just have two sovereign individuals with a dispute over something. The dispute can be settled through diplomacy, force, or whatever. I'd hope it was the former not the latter, of course. One way to protect oneself is to ensure no one has the means to do harm to each other Any living human being has the means to do harm to another, including killing them. Killing another human with your bare hands isn't terribly difficult, especially if you catch them unaware (e.g., slap on a rear-naked-choke and simply choke them to death). So by your standard, living itself can't be a fundamental right, since we all have a right to commit genocide (since that's one way to make sure no human can harm another human).

mindcrime 15y ago

It is not however, a human right. I, for one, disagree. If it was, the nearly every other country in the world would be violating fundamental human rights by denying their citizens the opportunity to carry a weapon that kills with such ease. Yes, yes they are. What could possibly be a more fundamental right than the right to defend oneself? And arming oneself to do so obviously follows from that, IMO. Heck, a wildly popular definition of what "government" is, is based on the idea of self-defense as the fundamental innate right (I'm referring to Bastiat and his idea of "government as the collective extension to our individual right of self-defense").

davekinkead 15y ago
You are missing the link between rights and duties. If you have a right to bear arms, then in the positive sense I have a duty to provide you with arms and in the negative sense, I have the duty not to stop you bearing arms. I'll assuming you refer the the negative sense. If so, what grants you the authority to impose that duty upon me? Why am I not allowed to protect myself by ensuring you don't have the means to harm me? One way to protect oneself is to ensure no one has the means to do harm to each other. Given that that option exists, then the right to bear arms can't be a fundamental human right because it is clear not fundamental to human existence. If it is a right, then it is a political right that comes from mutual agreement.
- mindcrime 15y ago
  You are missing the link between rights and duties. I just default to the definition of "right" that's more like "something you can do without needing anyone's permission." I don't accept that anyone is ever obligated to do something (provide me with a gun, for example) because of someone else's rights. in the negative sense, I have the duty not to stop you bearing arms No, you could try if you feel justified. But at that point there's no more reasoning from first principles or anything... you just have two sovereign individuals with a dispute over something. The dispute can be settled through diplomacy, force, or whatever. I'd hope it was the former not the latter, of course. One way to protect oneself is to ensure no one has the means to do harm to each other Any living human being has the means to do harm to another, including killing them. Killing another human with your bare hands isn't terribly difficult, especially if you catch them unaware (e.g., slap on a rear-naked-choke and simply choke them to death). So by your standard, living itself can't be a fundamental right, since we all have a right to commit genocide (since that's one way to make sure no human can harm another human).