3 ms·

Yeah that’s not how human rights are supposed to work

by eli 3y ago

rpmisms 3y ago
I don't have a right to self-defense in several states, either, so I left those states. It's pretty simple.
- mindslight 3y ago
  Where is this state where you have the right to self defense? From what I can gather, the police can generally execute and otherwise harm commonfolk with impunity nation wide. Some states let you buy more equipment to go out in a blaze of glory with, but that's a pretty poor consolation prize.
  - rpmisms 3y ago
    Mine. Guy got off last year on killing a cop who was trespassing. Didn't even get charged. Pretty epic.
    - vkou 3y ago
      Try killing a cop who is threatening you at a traffic stop, and see how that works out for you. You'll quickly discover that your state also has some hard limits on that right, they are just drawn at different points than the states that you mistakenly think don't have a right to 'self-defense'. You can defend yourself anywhere, you just can't always kill people in 'self-defense' when you have other options available to you. (Related question: Does your state have a right to body autonomy, or is it in blatant violation of the fourth amendment?)
      - rpmisms 3y ago
        My state extends the right to bodily autonomy to the unborn.
        mindslight 3y ago
        That sounds like a euphemism for the persecution of basic medical care based on backwards religious superstition that anything growing where a baby would is assumed to be a human baby. IMO the Democratic Party has totally screwed up with this extremist "pro choice" framing, when the reality is mainly one of non-viable fetuses and only one medically-prudent choice.
        rpmisms 3y ago
        > IMO the Democratic Party has totally screwed up with this extremist "pro choice" framing 100% correct. > backwards religious superstition that anything growing where a baby would is assumed to be a human baby This is absolute bullshit. I'm an Orthodox Christian, extremely conservative, particularly on abortion, and a priest's wife I know had an abortion for an ectopic pregnancy, because it was non-viable and would have killed her. It's simply a matter of believing that the unborn are human and then acting rationally based on this belief. I wish more people could get this—rather reasonable—viewpoint through their thick skulls.
        mindslight 3y ago
        If this is the basis, why are the laws aimed at criminalizing abortion essentially blanket bans with narrow exceptions rather than based around medical judgement that's equitable between both parties? For example Texas's only viability test is the presence of a periodic electric signal, rather than any consideration of whether the fetus even has the right number of chromosomes. Additionally, even a fetus that seemingly will be eventually viable isn't actually viable for the first few months. From a libertarian perspective, while arguments exist that the mother has consented to this responsibility for some cases, in other cases she has not (eg rape). (Also FWIW your example of an ectopic pregnancy example doesn't actually meet the criteria of "growing where a baby would")
        rpmisms 3y ago
        > why are the laws aimed at criminalizing abortion essentially blanket bans with narrow exceptions rather than based around medical judgement that's equitable between both parties Because then would-be abortants would simply find a doctor who would sign the correct paperwork. Duh. > whether the fetus even has the right number of chromosomes. So you support eugenics? > From a libertarian perspective, while arguments exist that the mother has consented to this responsibility for some cases, in other cases she has not (eg rape). Abortion, if the fetus is human, violates the non-aggression principle. From a humanist perspective, it wasn't the kid's fault.
      - mindslight 3y ago
        That's not really a good framing. If we allow that the police have a legitimate function to exercise justifiable violence on behalf of the state, then the right to self defense must obviously be limited against duly authorized and duly noticed state violence. And unfortunately in your example "threatening" isn't really litigable, making the details collapse into just a duly-authorized traffic stop. There's probably an argument to be made from a natural rights framing that the right to self defense is still applicable to unjustifiable but duly authorized state violence, like say the war on drug users. Though I don't know how this could be applied practically. Perhaps limiting the number of cops that can carry out any arrest, such that there's an actual balance of power?
        rpmisms 3y ago
        Cops do have authority to use violence, but they must not have a monopoly. If a cop encroaches on another person in an unjustified manner, they should face exactly the same consequences, up to and including death.
        mindslight 3y ago
        I've certainly said nothing supporting police having a monopoly on violence in general. However, it seems unavoidable that cops have a temporary situation-scoped monopoly on violence while carrying out duly authorized functions. What other possible alternative is there that wouldn't also lead to every traffic stop being a shoot out?
        rpmisms 3y ago
        Yeah, I agree with you. I'm a blue-sky libertarian, but libertarianism is an ideal, not a practical form of government.
    - mindslight 3y ago
      Has this happened with the converse as well? Police assault a residence, resident defends themselves, police escalate and "win", and the police are charged and convicted of second degree murder? A right to self defense implies that both outcomes should happen. Do these verdicts also happen for the least sympathetic cases, like an actual criminal defending themselves against an unknowable no-knock "warrant" ? Because if you're the basic upstanding sympathetic right-looking type, it's actually most places you will not be charged for defending yourself in your home against non-police. And has this all happened regularly enough to form a predictable pattern such that the police have actually curtailed such attacks? Affecting repeated interactions such that one doesn't need to continually dwell on the basic dynamic is the hallmark of an intact right. Because I haven't heard of any states that are shining examples of police accountability, especially states that people tend to market as promoting the right to self defense. But I'd love to be wrong!

Yeah that’s not how human rights are supposed to work

by eli 3y ago

Yeah that’s not how human rights are supposed to work

rpmisms 3y ago

I don't have a right to self-defense in several states, either, so I left those states. It's pretty simple.

mindslight 3y ago
Where is this state where you have the right to self defense? From what I can gather, the police can generally execute and otherwise harm commonfolk with impunity nation wide. Some states let you buy more equipment to go out in a blaze of glory with, but that's a pretty poor consolation prize.
- rpmisms 3y ago
  Mine. Guy got off last year on killing a cop who was trespassing. Didn't even get charged. Pretty epic.
  - vkou 3y ago
    Try killing a cop who is threatening you at a traffic stop, and see how that works out for you. You'll quickly discover that your state also has some hard limits on that right, they are just drawn at different points than the states that you mistakenly think don't have a right to 'self-defense'. You can defend yourself anywhere, you just can't always kill people in 'self-defense' when you have other options available to you. (Related question: Does your state have a right to body autonomy, or is it in blatant violation of the fourth amendment?)
    - rpmisms 3y ago
      My state extends the right to bodily autonomy to the unborn.
      - mindslight 3y ago
        That sounds like a euphemism for the persecution of basic medical care based on backwards religious superstition that anything growing where a baby would is assumed to be a human baby. IMO the Democratic Party has totally screwed up with this extremist "pro choice" framing, when the reality is mainly one of non-viable fetuses and only one medically-prudent choice.
        rpmisms 3y ago
        > IMO the Democratic Party has totally screwed up with this extremist "pro choice" framing 100% correct. > backwards religious superstition that anything growing where a baby would is assumed to be a human baby This is absolute bullshit. I'm an Orthodox Christian, extremely conservative, particularly on abortion, and a priest's wife I know had an abortion for an ectopic pregnancy, because it was non-viable and would have killed her. It's simply a matter of believing that the unborn are human and then acting rationally based on this belief. I wish more people could get this—rather reasonable—viewpoint through their thick skulls.
        mindslight 3y ago
        If this is the basis, why are the laws aimed at criminalizing abortion essentially blanket bans with narrow exceptions rather than based around medical judgement that's equitable between both parties? For example Texas's only viability test is the presence of a periodic electric signal, rather than any consideration of whether the fetus even has the right number of chromosomes. Additionally, even a fetus that seemingly will be eventually viable isn't actually viable for the first few months. From a libertarian perspective, while arguments exist that the mother has consented to this responsibility for some cases, in other cases she has not (eg rape). (Also FWIW your example of an ectopic pregnancy example doesn't actually meet the criteria of "growing where a baby would")
        rpmisms 3y ago
        > why are the laws aimed at criminalizing abortion essentially blanket bans with narrow exceptions rather than based around medical judgement that's equitable between both parties Because then would-be abortants would simply find a doctor who would sign the correct paperwork. Duh. > whether the fetus even has the right number of chromosomes. So you support eugenics? > From a libertarian perspective, while arguments exist that the mother has consented to this responsibility for some cases, in other cases she has not (eg rape). Abortion, if the fetus is human, violates the non-aggression principle. From a humanist perspective, it wasn't the kid's fault.
    - mindslight 3y ago
      That's not really a good framing. If we allow that the police have a legitimate function to exercise justifiable violence on behalf of the state, then the right to self defense must obviously be limited against duly authorized and duly noticed state violence. And unfortunately in your example "threatening" isn't really litigable, making the details collapse into just a duly-authorized traffic stop. There's probably an argument to be made from a natural rights framing that the right to self defense is still applicable to unjustifiable but duly authorized state violence, like say the war on drug users. Though I don't know how this could be applied practically. Perhaps limiting the number of cops that can carry out any arrest, such that there's an actual balance of power?
      - rpmisms 3y ago
        Cops do have authority to use violence, but they must not have a monopoly. If a cop encroaches on another person in an unjustified manner, they should face exactly the same consequences, up to and including death.
        mindslight 3y ago
        I've certainly said nothing supporting police having a monopoly on violence in general. However, it seems unavoidable that cops have a temporary situation-scoped monopoly on violence while carrying out duly authorized functions. What other possible alternative is there that wouldn't also lead to every traffic stop being a shoot out?
        rpmisms 3y ago
        Yeah, I agree with you. I'm a blue-sky libertarian, but libertarianism is an ideal, not a practical form of government.
  - mindslight 3y ago
    Has this happened with the converse as well? Police assault a residence, resident defends themselves, police escalate and "win", and the police are charged and convicted of second degree murder? A right to self defense implies that both outcomes should happen. Do these verdicts also happen for the least sympathetic cases, like an actual criminal defending themselves against an unknowable no-knock "warrant" ? Because if you're the basic upstanding sympathetic right-looking type, it's actually most places you will not be charged for defending yourself in your home against non-police. And has this all happened regularly enough to form a predictable pattern such that the police have actually curtailed such attacks? Affecting repeated interactions such that one doesn't need to continually dwell on the basic dynamic is the hallmark of an intact right. Because I haven't heard of any states that are shining examples of police accountability, especially states that people tend to market as promoting the right to self defense. But I'd love to be wrong!