For example, many Americans believe that our rights derive from God or from the very nature of being human. As Paul Ryan put it in a discussion of Obamacare this month, folks of his political persuasion don't believe that the people have the power to make up new rights; rights come from God and nature. These same Americans also generally believe that our rights are those delineated in the Declaration of Independence and the constitution, including a non-infringeable individual right to bear arms. And yet, clearly, people in most law-governed democracies other than the United States, countries like Britain, Canada, France, Israel, the Netherlands and Japan, do not have an individual right to bear arms. How, then, can the right to bear arms as enshrined in the constitution derive from God, or from the very nature of being human? Is this a special sort of right, one that can be created by the people via government if they so choose? If so, then what stops the people, through their government, from creating other sorts of new rights, like a right to education, or a right to health insurance?
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/07/gun-control?spc=scode&spv=xm&ah=9d7f7ab945510a56fa6d37c30b6f1709
Fundamental misunderstandings of rights about. I can't have a right to health care because that requires money and time and expertise - I can't have the right to the money that is yours, the time that is a doctor's, or the expertise of medical professionals.
The "right" to bear arms is quite simply an acknowledgement that the state exists to guarantee rights, and the People being armed is the primary way the People have to ensure that it does not step outside of that role. Certainly, there's no one or no state entity which is entitled to remove a thing from me which I own. The right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution because everyone who can think knows - the first step to enslaving a group is disarming them.
The "right" to education is the same as saying you have a right to someone else's money and time. The right to bear arms is the simple re-expression of the perspective that the state exists to serve the individual, not vice versa.
This, folks, should be child's play.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/07/gun-control?spc=scode&spv=xm&ah=9d7f7ab945510a56fa6d37c30b6f1709
Fundamental misunderstandings of rights about. I can't have a right to health care because that requires money and time and expertise - I can't have the right to the money that is yours, the time that is a doctor's, or the expertise of medical professionals.
The "right" to bear arms is quite simply an acknowledgement that the state exists to guarantee rights, and the People being armed is the primary way the People have to ensure that it does not step outside of that role. Certainly, there's no one or no state entity which is entitled to remove a thing from me which I own. The right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution because everyone who can think knows - the first step to enslaving a group is disarming them.
The "right" to education is the same as saying you have a right to someone else's money and time. The right to bear arms is the simple re-expression of the perspective that the state exists to serve the individual, not vice versa.
This, folks, should be child's play.
No comments:
Post a Comment