All human rights stem from the right to your own life.
Posted by frankjackfiamingo 10 years, 5 months ago to The Gulch: Introductions
I look forward to trading value for value with people who understand what value is.
SOURCE URL: https://www.facebook.com/groups/NJRKBA/
NJ is living proof that Ayn Rand was correct when she stated:
"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws".
All day long I have been thinking about how absolutely ridiculous it is that we have a law to stop people from warming up their cars on a cold day unless someone is in the car. It’s not a law that I have ever taken seriously on my private property.
<<<The claim that the wording of the 2nd amendment does not grant the right to bear arms is actually quite true.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” does indeed not GRANT the right, it acknowledges It’s existence!
The amendment can therefore be seen as re-enforcing an existing right by stating the need for militia being a particular reason for not infringing upon it. Other potential infringements are not addressed but they would nevertheless be just that, infringements.
“Someday, my friend, you will learn that words have exact meanings.”
Francisco, in Atlas Shrugged.>>>>>
Sometime later I came across this opinion by the Supreme Court,
"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."
Therefore, you could repeal the Amendment and that would only result in the need for a militia no longer being a reason not to infringe!
There are some who say that,” OK, you have the right to bear arms but at the time the amendment was written, there were only muskets etc. The Founding Fathers did not envision the modern weaponry of today and only were addressing the right to bear the arms that existed at that time.”
Well of course the weapons were what they were, but the Amendment was written in the context of the citizens being armed at the same level of weaponry as the Government. By that comparison, I see the Amendment as granting us the right to stockpile some tanks, a couple of F-111”s and a maybe a “Ship-of-the-Line.”
"For reference, I am the founder and past President of the New Jersey Second Amendment Society (NJ2AS). I recently became the admin for the Facebook Group NJRKBA. Most people do not realize that there is *NO* ability to exercise the right to carry a firearm in NJ. Well... you CAN exercise your right, but the three branches of NJ government promise to incarcerate you for up to 10 years as a SECOND DEGREE FELON"!
Words *DO* have exact meanings. :-) The statement regarding the militia is indeed a prefatory clause. It introduces but does not DEFINE the operative clause. I am not sure why you think we are on opposite sides of this issue. I assure you we are not. The right to self-defense, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to carry a weapon and so forth preexist the Second Amendment and the Constitution. The rights exists by virtue of our being born HUMAN. The amendment exists as a warning *TO* the government NOT to infringe upon the right.
But in your final sentence YOU use the word "grant" which as you previously noted, is an entirely false concept.
I’m saying to Amendment deniers that if you want to make an issue of what is and isn’t being “granted,” then the people have the right to armament equivalent to that of the government.
My response was like the conservative John Locke and as a lawyer I think Peikoff's idea of property rights to be primitive at best. A number of prominent objectivists disagreed with me, even though I (we - my wife and I) provided multiple Rand quotes showing that she talks about owning one's self or parts of oneself. We were accused of taking Rand out of context. She does have one quote where she says all rights derive from the right to life - without any reference to one's own life in that sentence.
Some people seemed to consider the idea of self ownership degrading and others thought it opened one up to the idea that you could be owned by another. I showed that under the philosophy of law (contracts) this made no sense.
Anyway welcome.
Without acknowledging that, it is no surprise how responsibility is getting rarer and rarer.
1) Personal Rights: If you were the only person on an island, civil/social rights would have no meaning because they require the interaction of two or more intelligent beings. The number of personal rights and the extent of each right would only be limited by the mental and physical abilities with which you have been endowed by the Creator or nature. As witnessed in the Garden oif Eden, humans have been endowed with the ability to think, to choose and to act. One can choose not to think (zombie sheep?). One can make choices and take actions that are beneficial, harmful or just plain stupid. With the action we take ( the cause), we are accountable and responsible for the result (the effect) whether good or bad. Alone on an island, it is obvious that you could not blame anyone else for a bad choice/ result or force him/her to help you out.
2) Civil/Social Rights: If there were two or more intelligent beings on the island, each individual would have the same types of rights but the extent of each right would be limited by the check and balance of equality. Because all humans have been created equal, even though an individual might have been endowed with superior strength or intelligence, no one has been endowed with superior rights. Man's history of slavery and patriarchy are a result of superior endowed might not superior endowed right. A superior right must exist for one to have the right to infringe on another's personal rights or to control a civil/social right. Because no superior personal rights have been endowed, all civil/social rights and their extent must be determined and agreed to by the mutual consent of all individuals in the group. If someone does not like something about a civil/social right, he/she can remove him/her self from that agreement or group. He/She will not have to conform to the group's control of that right but he/she will not be able to enjoy any group benefits related to the group's exercise of that right. A group has no right to force you to contribute (tax or dues) to a group project but you have no right to enjoy any benefits coming from that project.
What we call the self I believe to be a hybrid made of two parts flesh(DNA software from father and mother) and one part spirit of man from the Creator. Our body was designed in the image of proto-humans and our mind was made in the image of the Creator. Our mind has the potential to be an independent thinking apparatus that processes sensory input and memory experience, knowledge and understanding in real time in order to take pleasure in our life and to choose those actions that will optimize our survival, which can be summed up in the concept of wisdom.
Welcome Frankjack. I fully agree with you and also with db's statements. One's "own-self" is owning one's self... Is self ownership... What else could it be.
'I stand here on the summit of this mountain... I am the meaning...I need no warrant for being- I am the warrant... And the choice of my will is the only edict I must respect. ...
I am a man. This miracle of me is mine to own and keep, and mine to guard and mine to use, and mine to knell before!...
And now I see the face of god... this god whom men have sought since men came into being ... This god, this one word: "I". ' -ANTHEM by Ayn Rand
This is a declaration of "self ownership".
Could it be stated any clearer than in Rand's Anthem? I don't think so.
That’s a basic tenant of contemporary Liberalism
BTW I find dbhalling's posts to be most interesting.
Dale would you cite the sources of these multiple quotes?
"I don't live my life for infinity either."
If a real menace were to show up right now and attempt to do us harm, it just might be your life I save. Would you deny me that right as well?
“My neighbor does not believe in the second amendment. I do.”
But I also believe that the assertion of the title statement opens a door you might not want to open...
i.e., "At what EXACT POINT does one begin to Own One's Own Life"?
Obviously, that runs right into the whole Abortion "Rights" 'Discussion,' but without some foundational arguments, definitions or assertions, I'm afraid it can lead to a detour on the way to better gun ownership laws.
Better, maybe, to choose another starting point?
And no, I'm not sure what that 'better point' would be right now...
While the dead have no use for rights, the same may not be able to be said of "potential life", but as I said, that isn't a debate in which I feel competent to engage.
Montessori schools...I've heard different things... on the face I agree with it, but I'm sure the instructors are well vetted or totally understand the purpose of a free range learning (for lack of a better term). Some reports I've heard weren't good experiences. Plus there's a religious component in there somewhere.
I'm all for homeschooling...networking, for activities, field trips etc.
(I just removed myself from working in an elementary school for 10 years in Kindergarten...not only could I just not be a part of that process any longer, I couldn't stand being around teachers who won't think outside their conditioned boxes...or able to carry on a conversation about important matters of current events etc...these are supposed to be smart educated people, no? )
I will be home schooling my grandson in a couple of years.. I CAN'T WAIT! :)
Great thread. Very engaging.
My foundation... Locke, natural rights.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/quotes/497
I look forward to your future contributions.
Keep your powder dry!
Respectfully,
O.A.
which we share here;; welcome! -- j
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
This for me holds so much weight on my ideology, transcending sex, age, gender, religion, et cetera. Without holding these dear, and truly believing in these truths to be absolute fact; that my friends, that is where the governments go wayward, this is where the lazy become entitled, and this is where the sacrifice of freedom for security begins to decay the fabric of thought. It is for these ideals that the Constitution has the protections it does. Though the swiss cheese that it has become is for another topic... To hold the individual freedom to live your life as you see fit; to find your happiness wherever that may land, for each and everyone that lives, regardless of if we agree with their decision or not, is none of our concern. The only atrocity that we as people should ever take issue with, and hold violators accountable for; is when it/they/their policies infringe upon another's personal freedom to pursue their life, liberty, and their pursuit of happiness.
You said something I find very interesting earlier in your comment.
"Capitalism is built on the concept of competition in a "free" marketplace." I think this is a common misconception that equates competition with freedom/liberty. (Dbhalling will be in a debate over this concept at Freedom Fest this summer). Capitalism is based on natural rights, the most important of which are property rights. There can be competition between thieves which does not promote growth or capitalism. All property rights restrict competition in its broadest meaning. Competition, per se, is NOT what increases our standard of living. It is the increase in technology which then increases our standard of living. But, within that system of property rights, certainly competition is allowed. To focus on competition opens up this idea economists like to talk about: pure or perfect competition. Some even go so far to say that is the definition of capitalism. Which takes man's mind out of the equation, It reduces us to mindless robots and results in negative economic growth rates. It's the justification for anti-trust laws, security laws, it has done untold damage to inventions and needs to be pushed into the ash heap part of History. there, I bet that was more than you thought you'd get :)
Welcome Frank. When you come to St. Pete, come up to Tarpon Springs the sponge fishing capitol and Greek enclave. Visit the sponge docks and the best Greek food outside of Athens.
We walked around that area on New Year's eve this year. The museum was closed for the holiday. We walked north from downtown, one block east of the main road, and we found this great bakery. In some ways walking on that side road reminded me of the east side of Madison. We went to the sponge store. The kids watched a video on sponges, and we bought them a bunch of sponges and books.That random day was our favorite part of our trip to the Tampa Bay area.
I already see much more heat than light in this thread, and I expect it only to get worse.
"to have something that legally belongs to you: He has owned the business since 1995. The group owns assets worth $620 million. This gave many people the opportunity to own their own home for the first time.
› to accept responsibility for something such as an idea: For the reorganization to work, employees need to own the idea of change."
What definition are you using? Would it differ from that one above? Does you definition include and imply contract? If so, with whom?
Process of elimination demonstrates that no one can possess another human without their consent. Even when subjected to the initiation of force, the "victim" can choose death over slavery. Upon death, the slave owner owns nothing. The "slave" takes his (or her) life to the grave with them.
You have to start here, else discussion of rights is futile.
If you are created, then the Creator gives you the rights, so hopeful that Creator has communicated them to you somehow.
I tell people Jesus is the door to God. Well, BOO!
Please excuse that persecution.
God is love.
But kill the terrorists first.
I have rights because I, and Ayn Rand, are unique. There is no other snowflake like me, in spite of govt's attempt to make me a con formal citizen. I am my own man, created by the Father of the Son of Man, and until/unless I forget that, I am perfect in His eyes, my Creator.
My imperfections are caused by a lack of focus. That lack of focus, like me, are unique. But I constantly endeavour to correct my failures by using what my Creator gave me.
Namely, my right as a creation. Communicated to me by merely looking into a brilliant moonless sky, feeling deep inside that all those stars didn't just happen.
In addition, Ayn Rand stated that Jesus was significant because he was one of the first to say that the individual has value. http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/jesus... And there are clear parallels between the stories of Jesus and Galt, suggesting that the latter was based on the former. http://www.christianpost.com/news/ayn-ra...
If I did believe in God I would be seeking his overthrow.
Welcome to the gulch...!!! I'm enjoying your comments.
Atheism
Every argument for God and every attribute ascribed to Him rests on a false metaphysical premise. None can survive for a moment on a correct metaphysics . . . .
Existence exists, and only existence exists. Existence is a primary: it is uncreated, indestructible, eternal. So if you are to postulate something beyond existence—some supernatural realm—you must do it by openly denying reason, dispensing with definitions, proofs, arguments, and saying flatly, “To Hell with argument, I have faith.” That, of course, is a willful rejection of reason.
Objectivism advocates reason as man’s sole means of knowledge, and therefore, for the reasons I have already given, it is atheist. It denies any supernatural dimension presented as a contradiction of nature, of existence. This applies not only to God, but also to every variant of the supernatural ever advocated or to be advocated. In other words, we accept reality, and that’s all.
I have followed that blueprint. I have managed to create my own Gulch, totally independent of onerous govt regulations and submissions, using technology and the heretofore mentioned blueprint that most of you on this forum can only dream of.
And I did it as a creation of a power far superior than the enemy of Galts Gulch.
As an example, I am fixing to set down to supper after a dip in a hot tub, having a glass of home made wine on a deck covered with snow, and have free range beef on my table lighted by off grid power.
Personally, that give's me value, that I owe to my Creator.
Once we agree on that, then we can dive into specifics, else, we are just chemicals waiting to be unfit for survival right?
But above all that, I see you are unable to refute my own success, delivered to me by my Creator. Instead, you choose to ignore my comments and post your own preconceived belief.
So, how about we get past all this. As a member of the Gulch, welcome. I hope someday you can post results similar to mine, and give credit where credit is due.
But in answer to your post, I guess you win, I cannot "measure up", as I am....
A female Pharmacist.
was just having fun with you folks. I let her handle
my light work when it comes to biblical scripture
and dealing with pompous asses.
Yes, bravo Frank.When a man is a light weight
regarding his big head and is loosing, he usually
grabs his groin searching for his little head. So I
suppose you truly do believe you always win. ;-)
too soon, as it left my insecure Galt friends
panties all bunched up. Friend, my wife
and I are one in the same. We are equally
yoked, and the epitomy of a partnership.
When I speak, she has every right to agree
or disagree, and under our corporate agreement,
to speak in my name. Unfortunately there
are those not as secure.
Get over yourself, admit your limitations,
and endeavor to not act like a high school
testorone laden fool. I am almost 60
years old, and I grow weary of nonsense
and insecure jocks.
And no, not for a minute do I think your
real name is frankjackfliamingo.
Tis 4:50 AM here, 3/5/15. I have work
to do so that I can earn my pay and
continue to set up my Gulch back in
the US in one of few remaining possiblities
in what was once the UNITED States of
America.
Grandma assured me that I
would live just as long and
die just as happy.