Shoreline schools were on lockdown for reports of man with a gun

[sudden valley gunner]

And I do imagine that troll did study the Beslan School #1 hostage taking, but with what intent? Somewhere around here is an article on a cops redefinition of constitutionalist.

Seems to me they came up with that definition after getting busted.

 

[utbagpiper]

This is the fundamental mindset that's so despicable. Cops, and other agents of state violence, are absolutely convinced that it's up to them to decide what's best for people. It simply cannot enter their minds that it is every person's right to make absolutely horrible, stupid decisions, and that the results of horrible, stupid decisions are better than any outcome that may or may not be engineered by government nannies. A society not faced with the consequences of bad decisions will continue to foster people who make even worse decisions. By attempting to nanny society, government makes society weaker.

I don't care what your reasons are for (which you have provided a valid one) restricting people from their children and from moving about freely is wrong.....

Let me offer one counter-example--admittedly probably not entirely applicable to the situation that is the topic of this thread--that I think has universal applicability even under the libertarian NAP.

If I can find a situation--and I will not argue that this case is such a situation--but if I can find a situation where respecting your immediate, free access to your children and your free movement with them creates a material risk to the life or limb of other innocent parties, then I believe some limits on access/movement may be justified and necessary. My right to access my child and to move freely (like all other rights) encounters appropriate and legitimate limits when its exercise infringes the rights of others by causing them harm or creating a significantly elevated risk of harm. (Carrying a gun does not create a risk of harm to other innocent persons; shooting randomly into the air, does.)

As an imperfect analogy, even in a world where we don't care about you killing yourself, we can still rightfully take some measure to prevent you from running down the middle of the freeway. The normal, expected response for most drivers at seeing a person running down the freeway is to take avoid hitting the person. At freeway speeds, this is very likely to result in nasty car crashes injuring who knows how many innocent persons. Even if everyone is trained to do nothing more than brake and hit such errand pedestrians such that the expected response is not one of a massive pile up, hitting a full grown adult at near freeway speeds has some potential to injure those in the car, and certainly to cause some property damage to the car.

If a sane, mature adult wishes to make horribly stupid and dangerous decisions that only affect himself, government intervention is to be avoided under the NAP. If that person wishes to make such decisions that will likely cause serious injury or death to a minor, even his own child, well now government intervention is a slightly different matter seeing as how children are not exactly the chattel property of their parents. And if that person's decisions are going to create a significant risk to other members of society, that is the very definition of when government intervention may be warranted.

Obviously, the big question in this case--a question I have not addressed--is whether or not the situation was such that restricting parental access or movement was a reasonably necessary step to prevent likely harm to others.

I think this is all defensible even under a libertarian view of society.

Of course, there are plenty of gun owners who are not libertarians but are conservatives or even liberals who do not believe society should or will stand by and watch people reap the horrible consequences of bad decisions, and so some decisions need to be limited or discouraged. I think a person can support seat belt or helmet laws (I personally oppose both for adults, while supporting them for children) without being an enemy to RKBA.

I recognize the content of this discussion. But there are some fairly absolute statements being made that many among the RKBA community would not necessarily support in other contexts.

I'm opposed to the State forcing unwanted medical treatment on minors mature enough to make their own decisions. I'm also opposed to parents engaging in wanton medical neglect of their children. Do not ask me for a solution to this conundrum. I don't have it. But I recognize that absolutes are probably not part of it.

Charles

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

If that person wishes to make such decisions that will likely cause serious injury or death

Your POV seems reasonable. However the problem is the words "will likely". That is not the way things work now. It's been proven time and again the gov is allowed to take violent actions against parents not based on "will likely" but simply on "could possibly". It's gone way too far.

Here's a few instances to kinda prove the point. It's an article listing 10 "Nanny State Fails".
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lenore-skenazy/top-10-nanny-state-fails-of-2014_b_6367910.html

 

[OC for ME]

The man was first seen on the campus of an elementary school around 8 a.m., officials said.

I would like, and do not expect, confirmation from another, not classified as a "official." It is uncanny the reliance we have on the veracity of any report where the state is the official making the report...8 AM?

8 AM? I'd need more than a officials word on this matter. Brandishing a firearm, hoodie, camo? Smells like a fish market near the water, late in the day, in Seattle to me.

Color me skeptical. What if this alleged gunman is not brought up for scrutiny? What then? Is the reports now to be questioned? 8 AM?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Your POV seems reasonable. However the problem is the words "will likely". That is not the way things work now. It's been proven time and again the gov is allowed to take violent actions against parents not based on "will likely" but simply on "could possibly". It's gone way too far.

Here's a few instances to kinda prove the point. It's an article listing 10 "Nanny State Fails".
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lenore-skenazy/top-10-nanny-state-fails-of-2014_b_6367910.html

Notice his admission of a redherring right from the bat.

I can't envision a situation were access or my freedom of movement (liberty) is worth the safety of others for the state to restrict.

 

[utbagpiper]

Notice his admission of a redherring right from the bat.

It seems there is no pleasing some folks. I admitted right up front that my thoughts probably did not apply to the case at hand. But I think they do apply to your absolute statements. That is not a red herring but something for rational men to civilly discuss.

I can't envision a situation were access or my freedom of movement (liberty) is worth the safety of others for the state to restrict.

Then you either have very limited vision, or place zero regard on the rights and safety of your fellows. I know those who volunteer in the prison. It takes very little vision to see how their movement while there must be restricted for safety reasons.

My example of someone running down the freeway (or driving his car the wrong way on a freeway) is another case where movement is properly restricted.

When your conduct endangers others, the Government is fully within its proper powers--even under the most libertarian principles of good government--to limit your conduct. In the absence of government, others would enjoy a natural right to limit your conduct themselves in such cases.

To be clear, I have not argued that the subject incident of this thread is such a case. But if you truly do not see cases where your conduct (including immediate freedom of movement) is not properly limited by government so as to protect the rights/safety of others, then I believe we have such a fundamental different understanding of the proper role of government as to be unable to discuss this further at this time.

Charles

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

I can't envision a situation were access or my freedom of movement (liberty) is worth the safety of others for the state to restrict.

agree completely. The hypothetical "if access to your children would directly hurt someone else" seems reasonable on the face of it but it's so unlikely to be improbable and inconceivable. But that assertion quickly turns to "if access to your children could possibly in some convoluted way perhaps maybe hurt someone" being an excuse to do whatever they will.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

When your conduct endangers others, the Government is fully within its proper powers--even under the most libertarian principles of good government--to limit your conduct.

The problem with slavers is that "endangering others" is vaguely defined. For example suicide must be outlawed because because that dead person no longer contributes to society and therefore endangers the welfare of society.
People can't be allowed to smoke weed because they may possibly could become a burden to society.
Same for gambling and soda's bigger than 16 ounces. blah.

 

[OC for ME]

The reasonable restriction of your liberty, not being able to get your kid, is viewed as reasonable by the state and those not directly affected by not being able to get their kid. The proof evident when parents rush to the school to get their kid and the state denying them their absolute right to get their kid.

The state has been delegated the power to confine your kid in a place where their safety may be compromised. The state may very well get your kid killed because you are not permitted to protect your kid. The state owns your kid until they release your kid into your custody.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

agree completely. The hypothetical "if access to your children would directly hurt someone else" seems reasonable on the face of it but it's so unlikely to be improbable and inconceivable. But that assertion quickly turns to "if access to your children could possibly in some convoluted way perhaps maybe hurt someone" being an excuse to do whatever they will.

The problem with slavers is that "endangering others" is vaguely defined. For example suicide must be outlawed because because that dead person no longer contributes to society and therefore endangers the welfare of society.
People can't be allowed to smoke weed because they may possibly could become a burden to society.
Same for gambling and soda's bigger than 16 ounces. blah.

+1 Hypothetical slippery slope argument. Even his example doesn't work, its no correlation, even though he tries to set it up with a false dichotomy.

The reasonable restriction of your liberty, not being able to get your kid, is viewed as reasonable by the state and those not directly affected by not being able to get their kid. The proof evident when parents rush to the school to get their kid and the state denying them their absolute right to get their kid.

The state has been delegated the power to confine your kid in a place where their safety may be compromised. The state may very well get your kid killed because you are not permitted to protect your kid. The state owns your kid until they release your kid into your custody.

+1

 

[Have Gun - Will Carry]

Not to detract from the excellent arguments being raised by many in this thread, but I must correct two somewhat-unrelated points brought up by Charles:

I think a person can support seat belt or helmet laws (I personally oppose both for adults, while supporting them for children) without being an enemy to RKBA.

Sorry, but I strongly disagree. Anyone who supports these insidious "laws" meant to protect us from ourselves is not a friend of freedom and liberty, so I submit that they are an enemy of RKBA - because somewhere along the line, these same people will inevitably say "I support the Second Amendment, but..."

(Don't worry Charles, your opposition is noted - that's not the point I'm arguing here.)

I'm opposed to the State forcing unwanted medical treatment on minors mature enough to make their own decisions.

Not that I agree with or support it, but in our current society, there is no such thing - nanny-staters have ensured that as long as you're a minor, it's automatically assumed that you're not mature enough to make any of your own decisions. That ability was removed long ago; another nail in the coffin for the notion of people taking personal responsibility for their own actions.

 

[WalkingWolf]

We are supposed to trust the government because they want to coddle us. Just like they coddled the NA on the trail of tears. The way they cared for and protected the children at the Sand Creek Massacre. Or the way we stole the sovereignty from the nation of Hawaii. The same government that targets women and children today in the ME. Have we forgotten how this country really came to be, by taking land from other people and forcing them into exile. And even after years to atone for these things they still want more control, decent Muslims today are often treated as decent Japanese Americans were treated during WW II. With a clear constitution that is clearly ignored, with lack of due process or none at all.

And some whine that we will not trust this government for our well being, even though it is our responsibility in the first place.

 

[utbagpiper]

(Don't worry Charles, your opposition is noted - that's not the point I'm arguing here.)

I appreciate you noting my objection . But to be clear, what you seem to arguing is that only a strict libertarian or perhaps even anarchist can be a true defender of RKBA, that disagreement on any other issue related to the boundaries of individual rights vs the appropriate power of government makes a person an enemy to RKBA.

In my experience, that is not the way to build a workable coalition that can actually protect and advance RKBA. Even the Libertarian Party itself has long taken to saying, "We don't care if you don't want to ride our train as far as we do. If you can agree with us that some laws and rules need to be rolled back, join us for as long as you like, and then climb off the train at that point."

There are a growing number of persons in our nation who recognize the value of owning and carrying a gun for defense of self and family against criminal violence who don't want to live in a libertarian or anarchist utopia. They WANT to live in a liberal democracy, or a socially conservative republic. They might well be persuaded to join us in removing the need to have a permit to carry a gun (concealed or open), or that most off-limits locations (hospitals, bars, schools, most government buildings) do nothing to improve safety and so should not be off-limits. I think we should welcome their support in these areas with open arms regardless of where they come down on a social safety net, gambling, prostitution, abortion, border control, or virtually any other issue so long as they are peaceful and law abiding.

I believe that, as expressed, your view would not welcome such persons to the RKBA fight. I believe that is counter-productive.

Not that I agree with or support it, but in our current society, there is no such thing - nanny-staters have ensured that as long as you're a minor, it's automatically assumed that you're not mature enough to make any of your own decisions. That ability was removed long ago; another nail in the coffin for the notion of people taking personal responsibility for their own actions.

Any minor old enough to get an abortion or access birth control through school without parental consent, ought to be presumed old enough to make their own medical decisions, IMO. Any child old enough that the divorce judge is going to seek and give any credence at all to their desires for custody, ought to get at least that level of consideration when it comes to medical treatment.

I agree that things have gone way too far towards state power in the area of medical decisions for children. And it needs to come back a long way. I do recognize a need for the state to be able to step in when are cases of extreme medical neglect. I do no presume to know how to cleanly and neatly define that, but for starters, I'd require a full jury trial and a conviction for the crime of medical neglect on the part of the parent(s) before the state could assert any power to over-rule parental control.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

The problem with slavers.

And the problem with using such words without clearly defining who you are applying them to is it makes civil discussion rather difficult. One might get the impression that anyone who believes in slightly more state authority than desired by the most ardent libertarian or anarchist is being called a "slaver"...a wholly offensive term.

It seems that there is not much desire to tease out any nuances here. So I'll leave y'all to your mental circle jerk of agreeing most vigorously with yourselves that government is evil and all exercise of government power is a gross infringement of fundamental rights.

Charles

 

[sudden valley gunner]

And the problem with using such words without clearly defining who you are applying them to is it makes civil discussion rather difficult. One might get the impression that anyone who believes in slightly more state authority than desired by the most ardent libertarian or anarchist is being called a "slaver"...a wholly offensive term.

It seems that there is not much desire to tease out any nuances here. So I'll leave y'all to your mental circle jerk of agreeing most vigorously with yourselves that government is evil and all exercise of government power is a gross infringement of fundamental rights.

Charles

The founders said government was evil in many different ways.

The last part is a lie and not what anyone has talked about in this thread. What does the DOI say governments are instituted for.......? And if they are not doing that they are?

So if your arguments don't apply to the situation here. Why are you even arguing?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

We are supposed to trust the government because they want to coddle us. Just like they coddled the NA on the trail of tears. The way they cared for and protected the children at the Sand Creek Massacre. Or the way we stole the sovereignty from the nation of Hawaii. The same government that targets women and children today in the ME. Have we forgotten how this country really came to be, by taking land from other people and forcing them into exile. And even after years to atone for these things they still want more control, decent Muslims today are often treated as decent Japanese Americans were treated during WW II. With a clear constitution that is clearly ignored, with lack of due process or none at all.

And some whine that we will not trust this government for our well being, even though it is our responsibility in the first place.

+1

Jingoism and nationalism along with military worship (extended to the police) is the largest threat to freedom.

People excuse the states actions when the state do it for "safety" of course.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

And the problem with using such words without clearly defining who you are applying them to is it makes civil discussion rather difficult. One might get the impression that anyone who believes in slightly more state authority than desired by the most ardent libertarian or anarchist is being called a "slaver"...a wholly offensive term.

It seems that there is not much desire to tease out any nuances here. So I'll leave y'all to your mental circle jerk of agreeing most vigorously with yourselves that government is evil and all exercise of government power is a gross infringement of fundamental rights.

Charles

This is the way slavers argue. :banana:
"You dare condemn the most disgusting and corrupt portions of government? You hate all government!!"
"You dare hold bad corrupt cops accountable? You hate all cops and want Somalian anarchy!!"

 

[utbagpiper]

This is the way slavers argue.

It appears you have now, very deliberately and specifically called me a "slaver". I find that highly offensive and a personal insult.

Please do not repeat it.

Charles

 

[WalkingWolf]

It appears you have now, very deliberately and specifically called me a "slaver". I find that highly offensive and a personal insult.

Please do not repeat it.

Charles

He could have accused you of having a "circle jerk", you seemed having no problem throwing that out directly relating to members. Pot/Kettle?

 

[utbagpiper]

He could have accused you of having a "circle jerk", you seemed having no problem throwing that out directly relating to members. Pot/Kettle?

Rules of the forum prohibit quoting out of context. It was "mental circle jerk" which is materially different than what your out-of-context quote would suggest. Was that a deliberate rules violation?

Besides, do you actually find the term offensive as some puritanical religious nuts might?

Someone has noted that rules are really for those who can't behave themselves of their own accord. Perhaps you should stop taking every disagreement as some kind of personal offense and learn to express yourself with a little more civility. There is almost nobody on this board who is your enemy politically, socially, or otherwise. Viciously and constantly attacking someone who disagrees with you on the 10% or 20% fringes, is like calling up a circular firing squad. We need to accept 80% agreement and even 70% when that means we can advance our RKBA. Leave the attacks and browbeating for those who actually attack your RKBA, rather than for those who have some mild disagreement with you on the peripheral.

Charles