Oregon Militia storms government building, threatens violence

[StoppingTom]

Per the Washington Post:

An armed militia took over a building at a national wildlife refuge in Oregon late Saturday and vows to occupy the outpost for years to protest the federal government’s treatment of a pair of ranchers facing prison time.

The occupation of a portion of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge 30 miles southeast of Burns, Ore., followed a peaceful march for ranchers Dwight Hammond, 73, and Steven Hammond, 46, who are scheduled to report to federal prison in San Pedro, Calif., on Monday after being convicted of arson, according to the Oregonian.

Prosecutors said the father and son set the fire, which burned about 130 acres in 2001 on leased federal land, to conceal poaching, according to CNN. The Hammonds argued that they were attempting to reduce the growth of invasive plant species and ward off potential wildfires. The pair was sentenced to five years in prison.

Among the occupiers are several members of the Bundy family, whose patriarch — Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy — was involved in an armed standoff with government agents over grazing rights in 2014.

Now, protesting isn't much of a problem, right? It's protected in the Constitution. However, these occupiers are 100+ armed people, threatening violence if needed.

Ryan Bundy told the Oregonian that the group isn’t holding hostages and doesn’t want to resort to violence but will not rule it out if authorities attempt to remove the occupiers from the property. He said many of the occupiers would be willing to fight — and die — to reclaim constitutionally protected rights for local land management, according to the Associated Press.

This is terrorism. They are using fear and threats of violence in order to influence political change. What are your thoughts?

[Judean Zealot]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...

Hah!

[Kahn]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...

Hah!


http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/d2/c6/d2c62b1d414c2da01cb081aeeccba925.jpg?itok=cH01CYxz

As much as I disagree with Bundy and his supporters (a lot, I must stress), I still am skeptical of any government legislation that restricts access to an entire tier of weapons because they feel it's necessary. I find it hard to believe Madison and others who aided in the construction of the Bill of Rights didn't take into account that warfare and weaponry would quickly advance into more lethal territory. Sure, they couldn't be 100% positive what the new weaponry or methods of warfare would entail- so they made the amendment as clear cut as possible.

[Judean Zealot]

image (http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/d2/c6/d2c62b1d414c2da01cb081aeeccba925.jpg?itok=cH01CYxz)

As much as I disagree with Bundy and his supporters (a lot, I must stress), I still am skeptical of any government legislation that restricts access to an entire tier of weapons because they feel it's necessary. I find it hard to believe Madison and others who aided in the construction of the Bill of Rights didn't take into account that warfare and weaponry would quickly advance into more lethal territory. Sure, they couldn't be 100% positive what the new weaponry or methods of warfare would entail- so they made the amendment as clear cut as possible.

The thing they didn't take into account was that America would adopt a standing army, thus insuring the people's security while compromising their freedom.

[Kahn]

The thing they didn't take into account was that America would adopt a standing army, thus insuring the people's security while compromising their freedom.

The government adopted a standing army in 1791.

How does this ensure the American people's security in the event of said army's demise? Or in the event of a domestic war? Why sacrifice our rights at all, ever?

EDIT: I guess my reasoning for disagreeing with banning of a certain tier of weapons comes from the fact that I don't believe a ragtag group of citizens can win pitched battles against a professional army. We can still fight, if ever we needed to.

[Judean Zealot]

The government adopted a standing army in 1791.

Until the 20th century, armies were raised in reaction to crisis points, and were never considered 'standing'. These (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legion_of_the_United_States) fellows were a small force of volunteers who fought in Indian territory, not a formal standing army.

How does this ensure the American people's security in the event of said army's demise?

In the event of said army's demise, you're done either way. An undisciplined libertarian militia won't get you anywhere good.

Why sacrifice our rights at all, ever?

May I ask you to explain the philosophical/moral grounds of this "right"?

[Kahn]

Until the 20th century, armies were raised in reaction to crisis points, and were never considered 'standing'. These (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legion_of_the_United_States) fellows were a small force of volunteers who fought in Indian territory, not a formal standing army.[/img]

It was a standing army. They fought Native Americans in Indian territory. They were not disbanded in times of peace. They were used in the defense of these United States.

In the event of said army's demise, you're done either way. An undisciplined libertarian militia won't get you anywhere good.

Okay, the American army is toppled and you are of the opinion that we're doomed, regardless of whether or not we (being citizens of the United States) have weapons. So why infringe upon the right in the first place? If there's no hope, why take away our last resort?

May I ask you to explain the philosophical/moral grounds of this "right"?

Natural rights, based on self-evident truths. These apply to every person.

[Judean Zealot]

It was a standing army. They fought Native Americans in Indian territory. They were not disbanded in times of peace. They were used in the defense of these United States.

Per the above article, congress only allowed the legion to be formed until "the United States shall be at peace with the Indian tribes". It is clear from the Federalist Papers how much the founding fathers were suspicious of standing armies.


Okay, the American army is toppled and you are of the opinion that we're doomed, regardless of whether or not we (being citizens of the United States) have weapons. So why infringe upon the right in the first place? If there's no hope, why take away our last resort?

Because the American people have demonstrated a collective inability to properly bear arms without causing harm to their fellow citizens, and in this (admittedly rare) case, their rightful government.


Natural rights, based on self-evident truths. These apply to every person.

I know what Jefferson wrote. First of all, how is the right to bear arms a natural right, and secondly, since this is so self-evident, I'm sure you'll have no problem explaining it's basis to me. Go.

[Kahn]

Per the above article, congress only allowed the legion to be formed until "the United States shall be at peace with the Indian tribes". It is clear from the Federalist Papers how much the founding fathers were suspicious of standing armies.

I'm well aware of our Father's distrust of a federal army. Alexander Hamilton was the only major proponent of a full fledged United States army, at the time. He wanted to liberate Mexico and South America.

Because the American people have demonstrated a collective inability to properly bear arms without causing harm to their fellow citizens.

A single citizens actions, or a group of citizen's actions, does not represent the entirety of a nation.

I know what Jefferson wrote. First of all, how is the right to bear arms a natural right, and secondly, since this is so self-evident, I'm sure you'll have no problem explaining it's basis to me. Go.

We produce and manufacture the arms. Therefore, we shouldn't be limited as to what we're allowed to own, by the government that we operate. If we have the resources to acquire what we desire, then we should be able to obtain it. Not everyone (very few, I'd imagine) can afford a military grade assault rifle.

That being said, am I FOR more secure background checks and keeping the mentally ill from purchasing weapons? Yes, I am. Still, I just don't get how we can justify arming the Syrian rebels with the same weapons we want to take out of the hands of our citizens.

EDIT: Wow, I really botched that last statement, huh?

[Judean Zealot]

I'm well aware of our Father's distrust of a federal army. Alexander Hamilton was the only major proponent of a full fledged United States army, at the time. He wanted to liberate Mexico and South America.

He was a loon.


A single citizens actions, or a group of citizen's actions, does not represent the entirety of a nation.

The ridiculously high rate of school shootings are enough for me. You'll notice that I said collectively. Also, the fact that some people (generally the least educated) are hoarding firearms for the express purpose of enabling insurrection should be quite troubling to any loyal citizen.

We produce and manufacture the arms. Therefore, we shouldn't be limited as to what we're allowed to own, by the government that we operate. If we have the resources to acquire what we desire, then we should be able to obtain it. Not everyone (very few, I'd imagine) can afford a military grade assault rifle.

I'm not sure I follow. By what mechanism does the availability of something = a natural right to it's ownership, especially when that resource is used time and time again against the public welfare?

That being said, am I against more secure background checks and keeping the mentally ill from purchasing weapons? Yes, I am. Still, I just don't get how we can justify arming the Syrian rebels with the same weapons we want to take put of the hands of our citizens.

The Syrians are fighting an actual war in their neighbourhoods. You're not.

[Kahn]

He was a loon. The ridiculously high rate of school shootings are enough for me. You'll notice that I said collectively. Also, the fact that some people (generally the least educated) are hoarding firearms for the express purpose of enabling insurrection should be quite troubling to any loyal citizen.

Fair point about the school shootings.

I'm not frightened. Nor do I feel fear is a good enough reason for any legislation to pass.

m not sure I follow. By what mechanism does the availability of something = a natural right to it's ownership, especially when that resource is used time and time again against the public welfare?

We manufacture and produce the arms.

The Syrians are fighting an actual war in their neighbourhoods. You're not.

You're right, at the moment, we're not fighting an actual war in our neighborhoods. Can you guarantee me America will remain safe and secure for eternity, under the protection of the Federal army?

[Judean Zealot]

Fair point about the school shootings.

I'm not frightened. Nor do I feel fear is a good enough reason for any legislation to pass.

Why not? The American Government's primary purpose is to protect her citizens from harm; surely this falls under that category?



We manufacture and produce the arms.

So what? Should Oppenheimer have been allowed to buy his own private nuke?


You're right, at the moment, we're not fighting an actual war in our neighborhoods. Can you guarantee me America will remain safe and secure for eternity, under the protection of the Federal army?

No, every civilisation ultimately collapses. But mark my words: America will not be destroyed by a foreign force. She will be ripped apart and bloodied by her own people.

[Kahn]

Why not? The American Government's primary purpose is to protect her citizens from harm; surely this falls under that category?

That falls under the category of protecting it's citizens from known harms, not creating legislation based on hypotheticals assumptions and fearmongering.

So what? Should Oppenheimer have been allowed to buy his own private nuke?

If he had the resources to acquire the nuke, sure. Did he have the resources? He did not.

EDIT: Let me explain my thinking here, as I wasn't clear initially. Did Oppenheimer himself have the resources to create a private nuke, facilities to maintain a private nuke, and the will to hide a private nuke? No.

Also, comparing a nuclear weapon, which can level cities, to a gun used for personal safety is just... Out of this world.

No, every civilisation ultimately collapses.

This is why I'm okay with fellow citizens owning weapons. Because if, god forbid, it happen here, at least a portion of the population is armed and prepared.

But mark my words: America will not be destroyed by a foreign force. She will be ripped apart and bloodied by her own people.

We'll see, won't we?

[Judean Zealot]

That falls under the category of protecting it's citizens from known harms, not creating legislation based on hypotheticals assumptions and fearmongering.

I think arming citizens for fear of Armagedon at some unknown future date falls more under the definition of hypotheticals, assumptions, and fearmongering than the prevention of an already disturbingly prevalent phenomenon.

If he had the resources to acquire the nuke, sure. Did he have the resources? He did not.
What I don't understand is how you maintain that it is a right to, whether directly or indirectly, put your fellow citizens in danger, for the sole reason that you're able to.



This is why I'm okay with fellow citizens owning weapons. Because if, god forbid, it happen here, at least a portion of the population is armed and prepared.


Far more likely that they'll use them to steal your food and take over turf.

[Kahn]

I think arming citizens for fear of Armagedon at some unknown future date falls more under the definition of hypotheticals, assumptions, and fearmongering than the prevention of an already disturbingly prevalent phenomenon.

You're twisting my words, friend. You said civilizations collapse. I acknowledged this fact, and said that I support the 2nd amendment for this reason. It is not the only reason.

I don't support the 2nd amendment because I fear an imminent armagedon. I largely support the 2nd amendment because it has been a pillar of my nation's domestic policy since it's inception. Taking it away, in the name of safety, when it was put in place for that purpose, makes zero sense to me.


What I don't understand is how you maintain that it is a right to, whether directly or indirectly, put your fellow citizens in danger, for the sole reason that you're able to.

You're assuming these are my feelings. They are not. I maintain that it is a right to own weapons, weapons that we as a country, produce. You think that by owning a weapon, I immediately put all of my fellow citizen's in danger. However, in my opinion, it is not the weapon that is the danger, it is the individual wielding it.

Far more likely that they'll use them to steal your food and take over turf.

Maybe.

[Judean Zealot]

I don't support the 2nd amendment because I fear an imminent armagedon. I support the 2nd amendment because it has been a pillar of my nation's policy since it's inception. Taking it away, for the sake of safety, when it was put in place for that purpose, makes zero sense to me.

I'm not arguing that it isn't in the constitution, I'm saying that you should repeal it, for the simple reason that times (and the moral fibre of the nation) have changed, and there is an immediate plague of gun violence in schools and ghettos around the country. It seems kind of silly to be prepared for some unknown event at the expense of dealing with a serious and prevalent issue.



You're assuming these are my feelings. They are not. I maintain that it is a right to own weapons, weapons that we as a country, produce. You think that by owning a weapon, that immediately put all of my fellow citizen's I'm danger. However, it is not the weapon that is the danger, it is the individual wielding it.

It is the fact that there is a social acceptance of guns in civilian life which poses the danger.

[Kahn]

I'm not arguing that it isn't in the constitution, I'm saying that you should repeal it, for the simple reason that times (and the moral fibre of the nation) have changed, and there is an immediate plague of gun violence in schools and ghettos around the country. It seems kind of silly to be prepared for some unknown event at the expense of dealing with a serious and prevalent issue.

How will more secure background checks, elimination of the gun show loophole, weapon education, and focus on the welfare of the people hardest hit by these unfortunate acts of gun violence, not address these issues? Thugs will still thug. Gangs will still fight. Thiefs will still steal. Killers will still kill. Taking away one tool they use won't eliminate the problem.

It is the fact that there is a social acceptance of guns in civilian life which poses the danger.

Please elaborate.

[Microcosm]

I know what Jefferson wrote. First of all, how is the right to bear arms a natural right, and secondly, since this is so self-evident, I'm sure you'll have no problem explaining it's basis to me. Go.


The right to bear arms is partly and primarily founded on the inherent human right to defend oneself. If a criminal gets a gun in an illegal manner or even a legal one at that and uses it against me, I should be able to have a weapon of equal power to defend myself with. That's basically the idea.

The "social acceptance" is also founded on the right to defend oneself using firearms.

-

As to the Oregon militia, I think it's interesting, but it doesn't really seem necessary to rebel like their doing. I suppose the people who took their land could be considered "oppressive" or "tyrannical" from the right angle.

sbGdMKpHDDE

I feel like there is more reasonable legal action they could take rather than violence.

This guy though just seems high on the American revolution to be honest.

UPDATE: The video has been updated to include the part where he goes on about the Constitution and the American revolution and Thomas Paine and late 18th century American ideals.

[thatcountrykid]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...

Hah!

Key words "well regulated," which these guys are not.

[Uniquemind]

How will more secure background checks, elimination of the gun show loophole, weapon education, and focus on the welfare of the people hardest hit by these unfortunate acts of gun violence, not address these issues? Thugs will still thug. Gangs will still fight. Thiefs will still steal. Killers will still kill. Taking away one tool they use won't eliminate the problem.


Please elaborate.

Well very little given the saturation of supply that's out there already.

The metaphor is that any changes in law have turned off the facet on a tub that has overflowed and flooded the residence.

Plenty of water to continue the concept of defending the country and home.

Thieves will steal, why do home owners put things in safes and have home security systems in the face of the inevitable? The answer is because it does make it more difficult and more of a hassle for the bad guys.

The only difference in the logic of those analogies you made, and this particular issue is the technicality of it being legally in the constitution out of tradition. Tradition alone, not logic in the face of pragmatism, is why proponents argue so hard, it's personal to them at a selfish level.

--

These guys aren't well regulated so therefore under the constitution they have now lost their rights.

Also the concept of God given rights makes no sense, God according to a fair reading of scripture is a fickle entity. He likes some of us and then doesn't like others as they are.

Remember the constitution is basically political theory in the name of civility, no way is it fact.

--

Also let me add that the element of surprise is a bigger factor on the success of home invasion by criminals or not. Why put your gun under all the complex lock and key during a "hurry up their coming" moment right?

Again weak logic, you do so little ones don't play with it. We accept that concept as responsible gun ownership, but technically it's a disadvantage in needing it after figuring out someone is in your residence.

Let me also point out that if your home is being invaded, there's probably more than one person and your probably outmanned and outgunned meaning "you lost", and you probably pissed off the bad guys just at the gall you attempted to fight them so they definitely won't nice to your loved ones and might make your experience all the more tragic if you had just complied.

(Complying does work to a degree, there are many victims of crimes who probably got out with their lives because they endured).

[Vlerchan]

Terrorists should hang.

[Uniquemind]

Terrorists should hang.

Technically they can be treated like enemy combatants now.


There need not be a trial.

[Kahn]

Well very little given the saturation of supply that's out there already.

Which is why repealing the second ammendment, or confiscating hundreds of millions of weapons already owned by American citizens, simply will not work.

Thieves will steal, why do home owners put things in safes and have home security systems in the face of the inevitable? The answer is because it does make it more difficult and more of a hassle for the bad guys.

What? Sounds reasonable to me. I'd like to protect my valuables.

The only difference in the logic of those analogies you made, and this particular issue is the technicality of it being legally in the constitution out of tradition. Tradition alone, not logic in the face of pragmatism, is why proponents argue so hard, it's personal to them at a selfish level.

Please rephrase this paragraph so I can address it with thoughtfulness. Tradition is not the only reason I desire to keep a pillar of American law in place. If you wish to learn about the pragmistism behind the second amendment, I suggest reading federalist papers No. 29 and No. 46. I also suggest reading the entirety of the Constitution.

These guys aren't well regulated so therefore under the constitution they have now lost their rights.

The Bundy's provocation of the federal government is unwarranted. I do not agree with their armed protest.

Also the concept of God given rights makes no sense, God according to a fair reading of scripture is a fickle entity. He likes some of us and then doesn't like others as they are.

Notice how I left God out of the natural rights equation. I don't believe our rights were graced unto us by some omnipresent being. They simply are ours. Everyone's.

Remember the constitution is basically political theory in the name of civility, no way is it fact.

Okay. It is still the single most important American political document, and will continue to influence and direct policy for some time to come.

Also let me add that the element of surprise is a bigger factor on the success of home invasion by criminals or not. Why put your gun under all the complex lock and key during a "hurry up their coming" moment right?

Again weak logic, you do so little ones don't play with it. We accept that concept as responsible gun ownership, but technically it's a disadvantage in needing it after figuring out someone is in your residence.

Who proposed this? Certainly not me.

Let me also point out that if your home is being invaded, there's probably more than one person and your probably outmanned and outgunned meaning "you lost", and you probably pissed off the bad guys just at the gall you attempted to fight them so they definitely won't nice to your loved ones and might make your experience all the more tragic if you had just complied.

Hypothetical's are messy. Say, in this unrealistic break in, what if I'm wielding a rocket propelled grenade launcher and the two thieves are wielding .22 folbert rifles?

(Complying does work to a degree, there are many victims of crimes who probably got out with their lives because they endured).

Terrorists should hang.

I don't negotiate with terrorists.

http://piciandpici.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Ronald-Reagan-13.jpg

There need not be a trial.

Precedent disagrees with you. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski)

Example 1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trials_related_to_the_September_11_attacks)

[Judean Zealot]

Oakheart I hope you forgive me but I won't get to make a serious response at least until Thursday night. I just found out that an exam I'm taking on Thursday will cover significantly more ground than I previously believed, and now I'm pretty busy. But I want to respond to this:

Also the concept of God given rights makes no sense, God according to a fair reading of scripture is a fickle entity. He likes some of us and then doesn't like others as they are.

If by 'fair' you mean 'not modified by reason' then you are absolutely correct. Nonetheless, the Bible has traditionally been interpreted in light of reason and philosophy (primarily Platonic and/or Aristotelian), and in those traditions the sentence 'God is fickle' is literally self-defeating.

Not to add that the Declaration of Independence or the Declaration Universelle des Droits de l'hommes were written by Deists, who really didn't care much for the scriptural comprehension of God.

[phuckphace]

I'm totally fine with big gubmint fucking with the Don't Tread on Me krew but that said I'm still upset they won't let me buy nukes at the fireworks stand

[Sir Suomi]

I disagree with them taking the action that they did. Now, granted, it's not like they're taking hostages, lighting shit on fire, etc, but what they're doing is wrong. They could've easily have protested without needing to take over a government building. They only are hurting their cause. They should learn from the BLM movement, that doing stupid shit like this will only piss more people off at you.

However, there is that small side of me that actually likes what they're doing. But, that's for my "Return to early 19th Century America" fantasies.

[Vlerchan]

They could've easily have protested without needing to take over a government building.
It seems that these are looking to liberate the entire expanse of the refuge and give it back to the ranchers. So it was probably necessary.

I don't believe our rights were graced unto us by some omnipresent being. They simply are ours. Everyone's.
Without looking to get into a debate on gun rights, how do you believe we came to acquire these rights?

---

I also presume the basis for private-property rights exists insofar that in in manufacturing a good, some aspect of our individuality mingles with it, and thus is becomes an extension of our own inviolable being.

Least that's the common theme I've noted amongst natural rights libertarians.

[Kahn]

Without looking to get into a debate on gun rights, how do you believe we came to acquire these rights?

In the case of the United States citizens, through our victory in our revolution, and Madison's and Jefferson's efforts to establish the framework of our basic rights through the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights.

Rights aren't acquired, though. They're self-evident. I don't believe they're god-given. I acknowledge they're political in nature and are subject to change, and that they need to be agreed upon after a general consensus by the majority. This happens through controversy, and when a right needs to be explicitly outlined, or properly amended, they will be addressed in the proper manner, by a politically educated populace.

That's not what we have in America right now.

[Vlerchan]

Rights aren't acquired, though. They're self-evident, I'm sure you know what Jefferson wrote. I don't believe they're god-given. I acknowledge they're political in nature and are subject to change. This happens through controversy, and when a right needs to be explicitly outlined, or properly amended, they will be.
If rights themselves arise through politics or actualised violent force that would indicate that these aren't self-evident but rather something that need to be established and thus acquired.

They're not simply yours. They're established through a collective willingness to stand up and engage in violence with the people that oppose them.

---

I also feel that we're heading off on a tangent here that's mis-characterising your position.

To perhaps help us along I'm of the opinion that rights are constructs maintained through the threat of violent force. There's nothing inherent or self-evident about them. Though that doesn't neccisarily dilute their value.

[Kahn]

If rights themselves arise through politics or actualised violent force that would indicate that these aren't self-evident but rather something that need to be established and thus acquired.

They're not simply yours. They're established through a collective willingness to stand up and engage in violence with the people that oppose them.

And so they were established, and so they stand. I suppose they were acquired, thankfully. That statement was poor on my part.

I also feel that we're heading off on a tangent here that's mis-characterising your position.

I edited my post, which I hope lends some clarity to my position.

Feel free to elaborate.


To perhaps help us along I'm of the opinion that rights are constructs maintained through the threat of violent force. There's nothing inherent or self-evident about them. Though that doesn't neccisarily dilute their value.

I can agree with this, which kind of sounds like what Madison was saying in No. 46.

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

[Vlerchan]

I suppose they were acquired
If these rights were acquired then the original question of:

Why sacrifice our rights at all, ever?

Oakheart, pp. 1, p. 5.

Needs to be justified on it's own terms. By this I mean, why should we have these rights in the first place? The fact that we've termed them a right - as opposed to say, a burden - doesn't make them indiscriminate goods.

You have made an effort at establishing that though and I have no issues I want to raise with that argument. I just want to address the argument from natural rights.

I can agree with this, which kind of sounds like what Madison was saying in No. 46.
The understanding I have is that the Founding Fathers supported armed force to uphold the rights of the populace. These right existed irrespective of whether these were upheld in a particular moment: being inalienable. It revolves around the same formula you outlined.

Natural rights, based on self-evident truths. These apply to every person.

Oakheart, pp. 1, p. 7.

That these apply to every person, and this is stated without noted reservations, would indicate a belief that these are inalienable: that they exist irrespective of whether they are upheld or not.

It's quite different to what I have in mind. To me, when a right stops being upheld, it stops existing.

[Kahn]

By this I mean, why have these rights in the first place?

A society agreeing upon a set of political 'rights', which are put in place for the sake of the welfare and security of the people, are necessary for the development and maintainence of a healthy, educated civilisation, in my opinion.

The understanding I have is that the Founding Fathers supported armed force to uphold the rights of the populace. These right existed irrespective of whether these were upheld in a particular moment: being inalienable. It revolves around the same formula you outlined.

Natural rights, based on self-evident truths. These apply to every person.

Oakheart, pp. 1, p. 7.

That these apply to every person, and this is stated without noted reservations, would indicate a belief that these are inalienable: that they exist irrespective of whether they are upheld or not.

I do believe that there are certain rights, such as the right to (the burden of) life, the right to (the burden of) liberty, and the right to (the burden of) the pursuit of happiness, that are inalienable, and exist even if a tyrannical regime took over and successfully stripped the rights if the people.

It's quite different to what I have in mind. To me, when a right stops being upheld, it stops existing.

Understandable. However, I don't think, if a certain right that was once upheld, falls out of grace with a society, it should 'stop existing.' It can be used to learn from and perhaps may once again be relevant, during a different time.

[Vlerchan]

A society agreeing upon a set of political 'rights', which are put in place for the sake of the welfare and security of the people, are necessary for the development and maintainence of a healthy, educated civilisation, in my opinion.
You'll find that I'm not in much disagreement with this point.

I do believe that there are certain rights, such as the right to (the burden of) life, the right to (the burden of) liberty, and the right to (the burden of) the pursuit of happiness, that are inalienable.
What gives rise to these being inalienable?

Understandable. However, I don't think, if a certain right that was once upheld, falls out of grace with a society, it should 'stop existing.' It can be used to learn from and perhaps may once again be relevant, during a different time.
Oh yes. I was horribly unspecific in the last post. The rights might still exist insofar as the realm of our memories or imagination is concerned.

However insofar as these rights are applicable to the human condition, or held by human beings, they cease to exist.

[phuckphace]

However, there is that small side of me that actually likes what they're doing. But, that's for my "Return to early 19th Century America" fantasies.

oh yes, shades of 19th century America in a small band of angry goons for whom collecting guns is an obsessive pasttime not unlike Magic: The Gathering cards

when I think of 19th century America I'm picturing the Volksgemeinschaft, built around a shared history and foundation of faith. these dorks are "united" only in the loosest sense by their distrust of big gubmint and some dim dorkyass concept of the Constitution (more like the first edition ruleset amirite?) you really need to break out of the mindset of the ORIGINAL AMERICA as being a bunch of Rand Pauls in period costume

[Sir Suomi]

oh yes, shades of 19th century America in a small band of angry goons for whom collecting guns is an obsessive pasttime not unlike Magic: The Gathering cards

when I think of 19th century America I'm picturing the Volksgemeinschaft, built around a shared history and foundation of faith. these dorks are "united" only in the loosest sense by their distrust of big gubmint and some dim dorkyass concept of the Constitution (more like the first edition ruleset amirite?) you really need to break out of the mindset of the ORIGINAL AMERICA as being a bunch of Rand Pauls in period costume

Ah yes, because who wouldn't want to face no income tax, freedom to colonize the West, explore the great unknown, live a simple life, not worry about being called racist for being white, no retarded liberals, and no facists. Terrible place, I'm sure.

[Kahn]

What gives rise to these being inalienable?

After brooding over this question for a few hours I find myself unable to come up with a satisfying answer. I simply cannot say. It's just how I've always thought, which is thanks to my American education, and my particular interest in the ideas and teachings of my country's Fathers.

I'd say that these three rights that I listed are the most basic and obvious of all our rights 'given' to us during the revolutionary era.

Should man not have the right to life? Or liberty? Or to pursue happiness? A government who uses its resources to suppress these three virtues is far more likely to operate with callousness and disregard towards the majority of the populace, than to act with caution and consideration of the well being of the populace, in my opinion.

[Uniquemind]

After brooding over this question for a few hours I find myself unable to come up with a satisfying answer. I simply cannot say. It's just how I've always thought, which is thanks to my American education, and my particular interest in the ideas and teachings of my country's Fathers.

I'd say that these three rights that I listed are the most basic and obvious of all our rights 'given' to us during the revolutionary era.

Should man not have the right to life? Or liberty? Or to pursue happiness? A government who uses its resources to suppress these three virtues is far more likely to operate with callousness and disregard towards the majority of the populace, than to act with caution and consideration of the well being of the populace, in my opinion.

See I was once where you are, except I'm a bit farther along now.

The answer I reached, was nope.

Might makes right only the strong survive, people should be civil so long as it suits them to mutual benefit, and the reason almost all the worlds religions keep talking about "the next life", is because apparently this one doesn't matter as much because it's degrading both from an entropy standpoint and other reasons.

So why get upset or happy about at best, is the loss of a hobby whatever it maybe. It's a very zen kinda conclusion, and to some it would be seen as creepy or unnerving.

[Kahn]

See I was once where you are, except I'm a bit farther along now.

Farther along what, may I ask?

The answer I reached, was nope.

I doubt I'll ever be able to sufficiently answer the question "what gives rise to these (rights) being inalienable?"

Might makes right only the strong survive, people should be civil so long as it suits them to mutual benefit, and the reason almost all the worlds religions keep talking about "the next life", is because apparently this one doesn't matter as much because it's degrading both from an entropy standpoint and other reasons.

You are welcome to see the world as you do. I do not view the world in this light. There are bad men with might, who are not right.

Catchy though.

So why get upset or happy about at best, is the loss of a hobby whatever it maybe.

Vlerchan and I were taking about the rights to life, liberty, and to pursue happiness. Taking away, or encroaching upon, any of these three rights, I feel, would result in much more than "taking away a hobby."

Attempting to repeal or heavily limit our right to bear arms would have the same result.

Its a very zen kinda conclusion, and to some it would be seen as creepy or unnerving.

Zen, zen, it rhymes with pen.

[Uniquemind]

Farther along what, may I ask?



I doubt I'll ever be able to sufficiently answer the question "what gives rise to these (rights) being inalienable?"



You are welcome to see the world as you do. I do not view the world in this light. There are bad men with might, who are not right.

Catchy though.



Vlerchan and I were taking about the rights to life, liberty, and to pursue happiness. Taking away, or encroaching upon, any of these three rights, I feel, would result in much more than "taking away a hobby."

Attempting to repeal or heavily limit our right to bear arms would have the same result.



Zen, zen, it rhymes with pen.

Farther along that train of thought.

I practice a type of thought where, if the entire line of thought, results in a situation where it "dead ends", I have to scale back it's importance to how I use those principles to shape my worldview.

[Kahn]

I practice a type of thought where, if the entire line of thought, results in a situation where it "dead ends", I have to scale back it's importance to how I use those principles to shape my worldview.

Interesting.

[Porpoise101]

Farther along that train of thought.

I practice a type of thought where, if the entire line of thought, results in a situation where it "dead ends", I have to scale back it's importance to how I use those principles to shape my worldview.
I can understand this. If you don't understand the root of your guiding principles, then why give them a lot of significance in your life.

[phuckphace]

Ah yes, because who wouldn't want to face no income tax, freedom to colonize the West, explore the great unknown, live a simple life, not worry about being called racist for being white, no retarded liberals, and no facists. Terrible place, I'm sure.

he really doesn't get it, but at least I tried

[Uniquemind]

Ultimately back on the main topic.

Not much is happening except cold whether and a couple press announcements telling the folks to leave.

I think people are more concerned about enduring this massive storm and keeping the lights on and their children fed nationwide.

---

To an extent apathy is a solution to dramas like this.

In other contexts like WWII it can take the form of appeasement, so it's important to measure the degree of severity.

---

update: N.Korea claims to have tested a hydrogen bomb.

If this is true then that will have a ripple affect on the position I have on this topic.

[Judean Zealot]

Seeing the direction the discussion has taken, I think I ought to post in a new thread an unfinished essay of mine on the utility and transcendence of rights vs those of duties. Suffice to say here that I don't believe that rights exist in any meaningful form. Hopefully I'll do that later today.

[Uniquemind]

I disagree with them taking the action that they did. Now, granted, it's not like they're taking hostages, lighting shit on fire, etc, but what they're doing is wrong. They could've easily have protested without needing to take over a government building. They only are hurting their cause. They should learn from the BLM movement, that doing stupid shit like this will only piss more people off at you.

However, there is that small side of me that actually likes what they're doing. But, that's for my "Return to early 19th Century America" fantasies.

Just to throw a awkward monkey wrench into that line of thought.

I'm sure a lot of people were denied lunch at a particular diner/restaurant during the Civil Right's movement's "sit-ins". If anybody told those people "well lunch wasn't denied to you, you could've gone elsewhere" they'd probably reply with the catch all phrase "that's not the point, the point is I didn't get my ritual lunch with the atmosphere I like because of the presence of actions going on here, it's the lunch experience I want". (edit: actually such a response would not be as thoughtfully articulated, in reality they probably would've just said: that's not the point and stopped there)

Again, I assert most of humanity's drama, sometimes stems from individual custom-thought traditions, regarding where their individuality and sphere of influence ends (I use the term gravity), and where it begins for another, and within that, where one realistically has grounds to complain.

[Vlerchan]

Sorry for keeping you waiting Oakheart. I haven't been at home much the last few days.

After brooding over this question for a few hours I find myself unable to come up with a satisfying answer. I simply cannot say. It's just how I've always thought, which is thanks to my American education, and my particular interest in the ideas and teachings of my country's Fathers.
Before I continue I'll add that regardless of whether or not we choose to justify rights as I do - or you do - it returns the conclusion that violence - or at least the threat thereof - must be used to maintain them.

I hold certain reservations about handing a universalist mandate to political actors - where the war is to liberate mankind from the inhuman, the 'evil' - but setting that aside we more-or-less reach the same conclusion.

---

I also gave this some thought. The argument that came to mind is that man is born distinct from the various social relations that characterise out societies. He enters into these relations through the use of the inalienable rights he must necessarily possess [to enter these relations]. In entering these relations it is impossible that he might be relinquished of these rights because these are the things that allow him to enter and remain in these relations.

In the same manner that whilst a man might place himself in bondage this does not remove him to right to control over his own person. He necessarily requires this in order both enter and remain in bondage.

The defect in the argument I pursued is that I describe a situation where we look in at the man. It hasn't been justified as to why we don't take the position of the man and look out.

---

I have come up with one argument just there in criticism so I haven't just convinced myself.

I just imagined it'd be useful food for thought.