Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Self Defense - the only right you truly cannot give up

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Self Defense - the only right you truly cannot give up

    http://stthomaslawreview.org/articles/v27/1/prince.pdf

    Quoting David Hardy www.armsandthelaw.com

    Pro-gun attorneys Joshua Prince and Allen Thompson have an article on the subject in the St. Thomas Law Review.

    An alternate approach to the question was taken by Thomas Hobbes. To him, we start in a state of nature which is pretty rugged. Everyone is legally free to murder, rob, etc. their neighbor, and their neighbor is legally free to do the same to them. We give up certain of these legal impunities to form a government, the object of government being personal security. But we cannot bargain away the right of self-defense, since personal security is the object of the bargain, and the reason we gave up certain things to the government. One cannot sell a house, pocket the proceeds, and then demand the house back. To Hobbes, self-defense was the one and only inalienable right.
    From the article:

    In Section III, the Article will seek to explain that, contrary to the contention that there is a “fundamental duty to avoid conflict,”
    18 the right to defend oneself — self - preservation — is a Natural Right, not granted to the individual by the state. 19 In that vein, the state cannot abrogate the right of an individual to defend himself, which the Duty to Retreat requires. 20 Since the legal interpretation dovetails from the Natural Rights analysis, Section III will then explain when and why the Duty to Retreat entered American jurisprudence. 21 The Duty, rather than being a “fundamental principle of the law,” 22 was actually a misreading or misunderstanding of the common law, all too readily expounded upon by the Progressives in the early Twentieth Century. 23 In our conclusion, we ask whether a state Stand Your Ground statute is even required to extinguish the Duty to Retreat, given the inalienable right of the individual to defend himself. 24 Correspondingly, the question must be asked as to whether a state is even authorized to abrogate the right to self- defense and require an individual to retreat. For if the right to self - preservation is a fundamental, deeply rooted, and inalienable right, the state’s ability to infringe upon it is “off the table.” 25
    I also learned that SCOTUS decisions regarding the lack of any duty of the police to protect you go farther back than I had thought - South v. State of Maryland ex rel. Pottle, 59 U.S. 396, 403 (1855).

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150
    I disbelieve that the right to property can be surrendered as it includes proprietorship in oneself.

    Indeed, some here have argued that property is the fundamental right of all. If ownership in oneself is surrendered then what does defense of self defend but another's property.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 10-28-2015 at 12:42 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Stop resisting!! Stop resisting!!
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    17
    Indeed, some here have argued that property is the fundamental right of all.
    Property is a pretty broad term.
    If you mean right to land, I'd agree as far as a right to the use. Anyone familiar with Henry George here?


    Sent from my LG-E970 using Tapatalk

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    I disbelieve that the right to property can be surrendered as it includes proprietorship in oneself.

    Indeed, some here have argued that property is the fundamental right of all. If ownership in oneself is surrendered then what does defense of self defend but another's property.
    +1 All rights are property rights, starting with the property we have within ourselves.
    To be clear to those other posters who may not understand property rights, it isn't necessarily the ability to possess a physical article(s) it is the right to use something or the agreement of property.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #6
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Modern police state requires a monopoly on the use of force... And strong, irrational faith.

    # all lives matter
    # all rights matter
    "I'm just a no-account screed-peddler" Dave Workman http://goo.gl/CNf6pB

    "We ought to extend the [1994] assault weapons ban" George W Bush

    "The Bush Administration declared a permanent ban today on almost all foreign-made semiautomatic assault rifles." George Bush Sr, New York Times on July 8, 1989

    "I support the Brady bill and I urge the Congress to enact it without delay." Ronald Regan.

    "Guns are an abomination." Richard Nixon

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    Modern police state requires a monopoly on the use of force... And strong, irrational faith.

    # all lives matter
    # all rights matter
    That is the core of the issue. People today have somehow gotten to marginalize everything. If it helps group A, it doesn't matter what happens to groups X,Y, and Z. I don't know what happened to basic tenants of humanity, but they seem to have disappeared.

  8. #8
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    I disbelieve that the right to property can be surrendered as it includes proprietorship in oneself.
    But certainly, ownership of any individual piece of property--other than in oneself--can be surrendered. We do it all the time. Sometimes we exchange our ownership for money, sometimes we donate property for a good cause, sometimes we create property under a GNU public use license.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Indeed, some here have argued that property is the fundamental right of all. If ownership in oneself is surrendered then what does defense of self defend but another's property.
    Particles or waves; Waves or particles? Turns out there are multiple models or theories on which to build an understanding of rights. Your favored model is but one of several that might be valid and useful.

    It might just as well be argued that property rights are an extension of the right to life. How does one live without the ability to own and control the property necessary to sustain life?

    I have long been a believer that property rights, freedom of conscience, and life were co-equal, intermingled rights (life, liberty, pursuit of property). What matters to a dead man? How free or really living is a man who can't own property or peacefully exercise his conscience? What good is property if we are constrained in our moral and religious beliefs and observances?

    However, on another forum someone posited that he viewed property rights as less than natural rights… that property rights were really a construct of society because in most societies common property suffers the tragedy of the commons. He noted that several societies (some American Indian tribes, some Polynesian cultures, etc) have very little concept of or recognition for private property, yet seem to value human life rather strongly. I don't know that I agree fully about property rights being merely a social construct, but there is food for thought as one considers the practical ramifications.

    For example, it is clear that legal recognition and protection of intellectual property rights are entirely a construct of "modern" society. If you have a great idea or write a fine book, I have not deprived you of the use of your tangible property if I copy your idea or writings and use or sell the copies as my own. I have clearly infringed your intellectual property, your ability to profit from your ideas or to control their use. But the first guy to figure out how make fire did not lose any ability to actually make or use fire himself simply because someone else watched him and then copied him.

    Going further, most in society recognize the necessity and benefits of the judicious use of property taxes, building codes, and eminent domain. All can be abused. But used judiciously, all provide for a better society than would be likely without them. Most non-libertarians would say likewise when it comes to anti-discrimination laws. These all clearly infringe property rights. Do we really consider these to be on equal footing with infringing individual rights? Some do...at least when it comes to advocating against such limits on property rights. But most of us don't. I think we all agree that we'd not want to see some individual rights equivalent of eminent domain or property taxes. No matter how good it might be for society we don’t want to force a man to testify against himself, nor deny him access to counsel. Sometimes OJ gets to walk. These personal, individual rights do feel differently than if the city has a burning need to widen a road to handle increased traffic and ultimately uses eminent domain to force an unwilling property owner to sell 5 feet of his front yard. For constitutionalists, our governing document makes a clear distinction between property rights (eminent domain permissible if just compensation paid, intellectual property is protected for a season and then reverts to the public domain) and persona, individual rights (an absolute right not to testify against yourself, an absolute right to consult an attorney, congress shall make no law regarding establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed).

    Looked at another way, do we really want to devalue our self to mere ownership and property rights? In other words, does equating our freedom to proprietorship in our self serve to elevate property rights to the same level as personal freedom? Or does it instead devalue personal freedom to the same level as our interest in mere property, perhaps merely intellectual, intangible property?

    To be clear, I'm not advocating here for any of these particular models or theories of rights. What I find fascinating and useful, however, is to recognize that good men, of honest intent, who strongly advocate for personal liberty and limited government (not an entire absence of government, but limited, constitutional government) can and do approach the subject from very different perspectives. A strong and rational case can be made for each model; with each model yielding different results in terms of what social/legal/government rules/laws/limits constitute violation of fundamental rights vs which are simply practical matters for a functioning society. Some would call any and all limits a violation of natural human rights, equal to all other violations. Most would not call them such, even as they recognize that many theories/models of human rights do not yield perfectly consistent results; they leave room for honest debate at the margins.

    Good food for thought, and considering on the different models is at least as interesting as considering on the outcomes demanded by any particular model of rights.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  9. #9
    Regular Member DCKilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wet Side, WA
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by hughntx View Post
    That is the core of the issue. People today have somehow gotten to marginalize everything. If it helps group A, it doesn't matter what happens to groups X,Y, and Z. I don't know what happened to basic tenants of humanity, but they seem to have disappeared.
    I'm sick and tired of this me, myself, and I BS. It's the standard nowadays. "Ban gay marrage and secure gun rights" on the other side of the coin "Free to marry anyone and confiscate all weapons", we're digging a hole faster than liberty can fill. I say we, because I used to be in that first group.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Da Rat Bastid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by DCKilla View Post
    I'm sick and tired of this me, myself, and I BS. It's the standard nowadays. "Ban gay marrage and secure gun rights" on the other side of the coin "Free to marry anyone and confiscate all weapons", we're digging a hole faster than liberty can fill. I say we, because I used to be in that first group.
    "Free to marry any consenting adult, and secure gun rights" is the position I've always held. It's too bad, though, that people who hold the pro-freedom position on both those issues are clearly in the minority.

  11. #11
    Regular Member DCKilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wet Side, WA
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by Da Rat Bastid View Post
    "Free to marry any consenting adult, and secure gun rights" is the position I've always held. It's too bad, though, that people who hold the pro-freedom position on both those issues are clearly in the minority.
    +1, I hear you. It's hard to believe that people can't see their own demise square in the face. It's sad really. Fortunately, I came around.

  12. #12
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Quote Originally Posted by DCKilla View Post
    I'm sick and tired of this me, myself, and I BS. It's the standard nowadays. "Ban gay marrage and secure gun rights" on the other side of the coin "Free to marry anyone and confiscate all weapons", we're digging a hole faster than liberty can fill. I say we, because I used to be in that first group.
    To be clear, the side that pushed marriage benefits for homosexual couples has never supported "free to marry [any consenting adult]". Bring up plural marriages and watch the heads of 90% of supporters of homosexual "marriage" explode. A few may give it lip service, but even they are not about to put any effort into it.

    That said, yours is a self-consistent, libertarian position. I can respect it. Even as I disagree.

    That I strongly support respect for--and demand government not infringe--constitutionally enumerated rights like RKBA, freedom of religion/press/speech/assembly/petition, access to an attorney, voting for those 18 and older regardless of gender or race, etc, does not require me to support every social policy that someone can frame as "freedom" or "liberty".

    I am a constitutionalist. Our constitution created a republic, not a libertarian utopia.

    I'm a strong supporter of federalism, where the national government ought to respect a lot more diversity of laws and culture among the several States than it currently does. I believe we are too large and too diverse a nation to expect a one-size-fits-all approach to law, culture, or society to fit our nation.

    If liberal New England States or religiously motivated Bible Belt States want a strong social safety net including taxpayer supported medical care for all comers, so be it. If certain States want to legalize recreational drugs, abortion, prostitution, or euthanasia, not my concern. Rent control, historic district preservation, a host of other property issues all seem to me to be local issues rather than federal. Income tax vs property or sales or severance taxes are also local matters.

    There is a fairly short list of rights that reached sufficient level of agreement that they have been explicitly enumerated in our federal constitution. Those rights, and pretty much those alone, ought to be uniformly enforced across the nation. If NYC doesn't like me carrying a gun, tough. It is part of the union. Ditto if some small town in Texas doesn't want the Muslims or Mormons to build a house of worship. But if it isn't explicitly called out, it ought to be a State or local issue rather than forcing an entire nation to accept elective abortion on demand, or presuming to outlaw certain drugs nationwide.

    My support for RKBA does NOT require nor imply any particular position on any other issue including the proper definition of marriage, taxes, immigration, abortion, foreign policy, nor UFOs.

    Again, I can respect your position and how you arrived at it. I reject any implication that others who support RKBA are obligated to join you. Keep RKBA a single issue and we gain tremendous support and numbers. Require a libertarian litmus test, and RKBA will fall to a fractured community.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Rights are Inalienable.

    If they are an intrinsic part of being human... Like having a heart and a brain... How can any Right can be legitimately removed from a person without consent.
    Last edited by Dave_pro2a; 10-30-2015 at 10:04 PM.
    "I'm just a no-account screed-peddler" Dave Workman http://goo.gl/CNf6pB

    "We ought to extend the [1994] assault weapons ban" George W Bush

    "The Bush Administration declared a permanent ban today on almost all foreign-made semiautomatic assault rifles." George Bush Sr, New York Times on July 8, 1989

    "I support the Brady bill and I urge the Congress to enact it without delay." Ronald Regan.

    "Guns are an abomination." Richard Nixon

  14. #14
    Regular Member Da Rat Bastid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    Bring up plural marriages and watch the heads of 90% of supporters of homosexual "marriage" explode. A few may give it lip service, but even they are not about to put any effort into it.
    "Ten percenter" here. *raises hand* I, for one, have no problems with seeing plural marriage legalized. As long as everyone involved in a marriage is a consenting unrelated adult, it shouldn't matter how many there are. Hell, if people can tolerate having multiple mothers-in-law, more power to 'em. *laughs*

    The only reason I'm not currently "putting any effort into it" is that I wouldn't have standing to do so, to use the legal term. It's difficult enough to find one person with whom a long-term relationship can work out, and I'd need to find at least two (yeah, right).

    To borrow your words, the rest of your post is respectable (I see what you did there with the sarcasm quotes in the part I quoted, though. ), even though our viewpoints disagree.
    Last edited by Da Rat Bastid; 10-30-2015 at 11:31 PM. Reason: added some stuff

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •