100 years ago today

[GenSeneca]

That's what I'm getting at. I wondered if you would assert that our shooter was not violating anyone's rights.

In each of your examples I've asked that you specify which rights were being violated, you declined to answer...

Did you believe I was unclear in stating that, the use of force to violate rights constitutes a crime? Was I not also clear in saying, actions which do not violate rights should not be punished as crimes?

If your target shooter example was meant to agree with both my statements, then job well done. Otherwise, it's a bad example.

The government can protect us from the insane as well.

People who have no regard for the rights of others, such as those in your examples, do not strike me as the "law abiding" type. In such cases, your laws offer no more protection than mine, so I do not see such an example as being to your benefit.

See above. Not everyone is sane.

Yet everyone should be accorded the same rights....

Let's clarify your position as well:

Regardless of how insanely dangerous an individual's actions may be, he hasn't violated anyone's rights until he actually inflicts injury/death or destroys property. It isn't a matter of degree, it doesn't matter how reckless the individual may be, simply jeopardizing other people is perfectly fine so long as there is no actual injury.

Really???!!

There must be some misunderstanding about the use of force, or the right of self defense, for you to make such statements. In what circumstances would you, as an individual, be legally justified in the use of force in self defense?

When you're thinking of a new example, start from there and look for some "gray" area that you think might help your cause. Perhaps one that attempts to show how someone who is not using force, or fraud, and is not violating anyone's rights, should be punished for their actions.

 

[PLC1]

In each of your examples I've asked that you specify which rights were being violated, you declined to answer...

OK, let me make it clear: Jeopardizing life and property is a violation of rights. You say it isn't. I say it is. I'm right, of course, but you're still entitled to your opinion.

Did you believe I was unclear in stating that, the use of force to violate rights constitutes a crime? Was I not also clear in saying, actions which do not violate rights should not be punished as crimes?

Oh, yes, you were quite clear about that. As I said, you're entitled to your opinion.

If your target shooter example was meant to agree with both my statements, then job well done. Otherwise, it's a bad example.


People who have no regard for the rights of others, such as those in your examples, do not strike me as the "law abiding" type. In such cases, your laws offer no more protection than mine, so I do not see such an example as being to your benefit.


Yet everyone should be accorded the same rights....

Correct. Everyone should be accorded the same rights. I don't have a right to jeopardize your life and property, and you don't have a right to jeopardize mine.

There must be some misunderstanding about the use of force, or the right of self defense, for you to make such statements. In what circumstances would you, as an individual, be legally justified in the use of force in self defense?

That has nothing at all to do with anything I've said. Of course, you and I have a right to defend ourselves.

Moreover, the government, the one that is supposed to protect our rights, also has the power, given it by the consent of the governed, to employ force to keep a nutter from jeopardizing the rest of us. I think maybe that's where your opinion and mine differ.

When you're thinking of a new example, start from there and look for some "gray" area that you think might help your cause. Perhaps one that attempts to show how someone who is not using force, or fraud, and is not violating anyone's rights, should be punished for their actions.

I've already used up the most extreme examples I could think of, and you seem to think that none of them are a violation of anyone's rights. So, then, it isn't a gray area at all according to your philosophy. Anyone who wants to conduct whatever outrageous behavior at all is perfectly within his rights so long as he doesn't actually kill or injure someone else. According to that outlook, laws against drunk driving, setting fires, firing weapons in crowded places, all should be repealed.

As I said, you're entitled to your opinion. I don't think you'll get much support for that position, but you're welcome to contact your representative in Washington and in the state where you live and start a campaign to end such restrictive laws as those.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

OK, let me make it clear: Jeopardizing life and property is a violation of rights. You say it isn't. I say it is. I'm right, of course, but you're still entitled to your opinion.



Oh, yes, you were quite clear about that. As I said, you're entitled to your opinion.



Correct. Everyone should be accorded the same rights. I don't have a right to jeopardize your life and property, and you don't have a right to jeopardize mine.



That has nothing at all to do with anything I've said. Of course, you and I have a right to defend ourselves.

Moreover, the government, the one that is supposed to protect our rights, also has the power, given it by the consent of the governed, to employ force to keep a nutter from jeopardizing the rest of us. I think maybe that's where your opinion and mine differ.



I've already used up the most extreme examples I could think of, and you seem to think that none of them are a violation of anyone's rights. So, then, it isn't a gray area at all according to your philosophy. Anyone who wants to conduct whatever outrageous behavior at all is perfectly within his rights so long as he doesn't actually kill or injure someone else. According to that outlook, laws against drunk driving, setting fires, firing weapons in crowded places, all should be repealed.

As I said, you're entitled to your opinion. I don't think you'll get much support for that position, but you're welcome to contact your representative in Washington and in the state where you live and start a campaign to end such restrictive laws as those.

seems in Gens world, I can shoot at him all i want...unless I actuly hit him I have committed no crime...he could be walking down the street..I could take a pot shot at him right in front of a cop..and the cop should do nothing...unless I actually hit him. after all if I did not hit him...I did not effect his rights.

and one wounders why you can't debate logically with him.

 

[GenSeneca]

seems in Gens world, I can shoot at him all i want...unless I actuly hit him I have committed no crime...he could be walking down the street..I could take a pot shot at him right in front of a cop..and the cop should do nothing...unless I actually hit him. after all if I did not hit him...I did not effect his rights.

and one wounders why you can't debate logically with him.

Feel free to participate pocket... Please don't run and hide from my questions.

Under what conditions are you legally allowed to employ force as a means of self defense?

Would the scenario you just described not fall under that category?

Perhaps you should actually try to "debate logically" for a change, rather than taking "pot shots" with the usual fallacies:

Appeal to Ridicule: This is a rhetorical tactic that mocks an opponent's argument, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience and to highlight the counter-intuitive aspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense. This is typically done by demonstrating the argument's logic in an extremely absurd way or by presenting the argument in an overly simplified way, and often involves an appeal to consequences.​

It would seem to me that if one would want to "debate logically", then one would want to avoid using logical fallacies... In "Gens world" anyway.

 

[GenSeneca]

I don't have a right to jeopardize your life and property, and you don't have a right to jeopardize mine.

Where does your right to use preemptive force come from?

Of course, you and I have a right to defend ourselves.

Do you see the power of government as an extension of your own rights?

Moreover, the government, the one that is supposed to protect our rights, also has the power, given it by the consent of the governed, to employ force to keep a nutter from jeopardizing the rest of us. I think maybe that's where your opinion and mine differ.

Clearly it is where we differ and yet you dance around it using absurd examples.

I've already used up the most extreme examples I could think of, and you seem to think that none of them are a violation of anyone's rights. So, then, it isn't a gray area at all according to your philosophy. Anyone who wants to conduct whatever outrageous behavior at all is perfectly within his rights so long as he doesn't actually kill or injure someone else. According to that outlook, laws against drunk driving, setting fires, firing weapons in crowded places, all should be repealed.

As I said, you're entitled to your opinion. I don't think you'll get much support for that position, but you're welcome to contact your representative in Washington and in the state where you live and start a campaign to end such restrictive laws as those.

You don't say...

Appeal to Ridicule: This is a rhetorical tactic that mocks an opponent's argument, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience and to highlight the counter-intuitive aspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense. This is typically done by demonstrating the argument's logic in an extremely absurd way or by presenting the argument in an overly simplified way, and often involves an appeal to consequences.​

 

[PLC1]

Where does your right to use preemptive force come from?

From my creator, of course, just like all of our rights.

Do you see the power of government as an extension of your own rights?

I see the purpose of government as protecting my rights.

Clearly it is where we differ and yet you dance around it using absurd examples.

Clearly it is, yet no matter how extreme the examples of reckless endangerment, you insist that no rights have been violated.

You don't say...

I do say.

 

[GenSeneca]

From my creator, of course, just like all of our rights.

Cut through some of this gray area here... Are you saying our rights come from God? If not, then please be specific as to the creator you're talking about.

I see the purpose of government as protecting my rights.

I do as well... Lets focus on where we disagree about that: Government derives the power to use force in the protection of the public as an extension of each individual's right of self defense. Or do you agree with that?

Clearly it is, yet no matter how extreme the examples of reckless endangerment, you insist that no rights have been violated.

Clearly, you are in error:

They don't have to use "force" in order to jeopardize my liberty and yours.

How would you feel about the example of the guy doing target practice on the sidewalk?

So I asked questions that cut through all the gray smoke and revealed that force was being used, and rights were being violated. I even specified who was using the force, what kind of force he was using, and who's rights that use of force was violating. Again, if you were trying to support my argument, then job well done.

If you were trying to buttress your own statements by offering an example of where someone didn't "have to use force in order to jeopardize" the rights of others, then perhaps you should try again.

Lets see... An example where someone is not using force, not violating anyone's rights, yet is considered to be committing a crime... Example,

A guy fights with his wife, leaves the house, and walks to the bar down the street where he gets hammered. Upon returning home later that night, the man finds that his angry wife has locked him out of the house. He goes out to his car, which is parked in his driveway, unlocks the door, gets in, and passes out. He wakes up to cops dragging him out of the car, under arrest for DUI.

I'm being painted as the unreasonable one here so perhaps you, or Pocket, would like to explain how this man is jeopardizing the rights of others and why he deserves to be punished.

 

[PLC1]

Cut through some of this gray area here... Are you saying our rights come from God? If not, then please be specific as to the creator you're talking about.

Whatever creator you believe in. The Declaration of Independence states clearly that our rights come from our creator (not from the government.)

I do as well... Lets focus on where we disagree about that: Government derives the power to use force in the protection of the public as an extension of each individual's right of self defense. Or do you agree with that?

Government derives its power from the consent of the governed, just as any other power of government. The governed think that they should be protected from reckless endangerment, or we would not have laws against the sorts of behaviors I've been describing. The police have the authority to use force to stop people from endangering the public. I suppose you could call that an extension of the right to self defense. I can defend myself, or, if the cops are handy, they can do it.

Clearly, you are in error:

Oh, then you do believe that endangering lives and property is a violation of rights. Your previous posts would lead us to believe the opposite.

So I asked questions that cut through all the gray smoke and revealed that force was being used, and rights were being violated. I even specified who was using the force, what kind of force he was using, and who's rights that use of force was violating. Again, if you were trying to support my argument, then job well done.

If you were trying to buttress your own statements by offering an example of where someone didn't "have to use force in order to jeopardize" the rights of others, then perhaps you should try again.

Lets see... An example where someone is not using force, not violating anyone's rights, yet is considered to be committing a crime... Example,

A guy fights with his wife, leaves the house, and walks to the bar down the street where he gets hammered. Upon returning home later that night, the man finds that his angry wife has locked him out of the house. He goes out to his car, which is parked in his driveway, unlocks the door, gets in, and passes out. He wakes up to cops dragging him out of the car, under arrest for DUI.

I'm being painted as the unreasonable one here so perhaps you, or Pocket, would like to explain how this man is jeopardizing the rights of others and why he deserves to be punished.

The man in your example was not driving drunk. If it is illegal to be in a vehicle under the influence, then that is not a law that protects our rights, but simply makes it easier to arrest drunks on the highway.

It is unlikely in the extreme that anyone would be arrested for being in their own car in their own driveway, drunk or not. The man in your example was jeopardizing no one, and would most likely be found innocent in court.

Your question about use of force is not clear.

If someone is firing a weapon in a crowded place, for example, is he the one using force, or are you referring to the arresting officers using force to stop him?

 

[GenSeneca]

Whatever creator you believe in.

Should I take that as meaning you have no other explanation for the existence of your rights?

The Declaration of Independence states clearly that our rights come from our creator (not from the government.)

Haven't you pointed out before that the Constitution, and not the Declaration, is the law of the land?

There were rational arguments behind every statement in both documents. Phrases like, "endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights", actually had a rational argument to explain why the conclusion of that argument should be self-evident. Do you know what those arguments were or are you merely pointing to words on paper?

Government derives its power from the consent of the governed, just as any other power of government.

Consent for the power to do what? Only those specific items outlined in article one section eight of the constitution , or everything that's been piled on top of it?

The governed think that they should be protected from reckless endangerment, or we would not have laws against the sorts of behaviors I've been describing.

So far you have yet to offer an example of someone who is not using force, is not violating the rights of anyone, but deserves to be punished for committing a crime.

Using the very vague term of "reckless endangerment" and then offering unrealistic examples of why such laws should exist, ignoring requests to offer an example that could meet the parameters laid out, and pointing to words on paper while not offering any of the substance behind those words... is that winning?

The police have the authority to use force to stop people from endangering the public.

I agree, but only to the extent that any individual would also be allowed to intervene. Allowing any authority the legal right to violate the rights of people who are not using force, and are not violating the rights of others, is unacceptable.

I suppose you could call that an extension of the right to self defense.

Allowing any authority the legal right to violate the rights of people who are not using force, and are not violating the rights of others, sounds more like a mutation, rather than extension, of the individual right of self defense.

I can defend myself, or, if the cops are handy, they can do it.

According to the laws you support, the man in the example I gave was using no force, was not violating the rights of anyone, and yet was still found guilty of a committing a crime. So where in your right of self defense are you authorized to violate the rights of others? Is there a "just in case" clause? Is there a "better safe than sorry" clause?

Your perceived "right" to violate the rights of others must have come from somewhere... After all, government's power is merely an extension of your own individual rights, or is it?

Oh, then you do believe that endangering lives and property is a violation of rights. Your previous posts would lead us to believe the opposite.

You must be joking... Rights can only be violated through the use of force or fraud and, so far, you have not offered a single example of someone who is not using force, and not violating the rights of anyone, but someone you still believe poses an imminent threat.

The man in your example was not driving drunk. If it is illegal to be in a vehicle under the influence, then that is not a law that protects our rights, but simply makes it easier to arrest drunks on the highway.

So that makes it OK? ...It's better that we violate this mans rights before he has a chance to violate the rights of others...I mean, "just in case", "better safe than sorry", can't be "too" careful when the safety of the public is at stake, right?

It is unlikely in the extreme that anyone would be arrested for being in their own car in their own driveway, drunk or not. The man in your example was jeopardizing no one, and would most likely be found innocent in court.

My example is based on a true story, he was found guilty.

Your question about use of force is not clear.

What is unclear about it? You claimed an individual did not have to use force in order to violate the rights of others... He was not using force, he was not violating the rights of anyone, and yet was found guilty of a crime.

If someone is firing a weapon in a crowded place, for example, is he the one using force, or are you referring to the arresting officers using force to stop him?

The man in your example was not on his property, if he did not have permission from the owner of that property to be there and engage in such activity, then he was trespassing and violating the rights of the owner.

Have you never fired a 30.06? Even if the bullet didn't strike any people or property, anyone within 10-15 yards, without proper ear protection, would have their rights violated with the very first shot... and then there are the people in front of the muzzle, in the path of the bullet, he was violating their rights as well.

In such an example, the police should arrest the man for trespassing before he fires. If they arrest him after he fires, then he has violated the rights of many more people and should be held accountable.

 

[PLC1]

Should I take that as meaning you have no other explanation for the existence of your rights?

There is no other explanation. Our rights are given us by our creator. Where did you think rights came from? The government?

Haven't you pointed out before that the Constitution, and not the Declaration, is the law of the land?

There were rational arguments behind every statement in both documents. Phrases like, "endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights", actually had a rational argument to explain why the conclusion of that argument should be self-evident. Do you know what those arguments were or are you merely pointing to words on paper?

No, I hold those truths self evident as well. Do you believe that we don't have inalienable rights? I wouldn't have thought so from your posts.

Consent for the power to do what? Only those specific items outlined in article one section eight of the constitution , or everything that's been piled on top of it?

Consent for the power to protect our rights, not consent for the power to protect us from ourselves. Not the power to govern our actions that don't affect those around us, no. The government is too big, too powerful, and a danger to the very rights that they are supposed to be protecting.

So far you have yet to offer an example of someone who is not using force, is not violating the rights of anyone, but deserves to be punished for committing a crime.

Because someone who isn't using force, and isn't violating the rights of anyone, isn't committing a crime. Violating others' rights does not necessarily involve the use of force.

In the example you gave of the drunk asleep in his car in his own driveway, he was not violating anyone's rights. The kid smoking pot on the corner is violating no one's rights. Those are examples of actions that should not be crimes.

Driving drunk on a public highway, or firing a weapon in a crowded place, or lighting fires where it is not safe to have fires are examples of illegal actions. The perpetrators are not using force on anyone, but are certainly violating our rights.

Using the very vague term of "reckless endangerment" and then offering unrealistic examples of why such laws should exist, ignoring requests to offer an example that could meet the parameters laid out, and pointing to words on paper while not offering any of the substance behind those words... is that winning?

Winning what? Did you think you would get a prize if someone were to declare you a winner of an unjudged debate?

I agree, but only to the extent that any individual would also be allowed to intervene. Allowing any authority the legal right to violate the rights of people who are not using force, and are not violating the rights of others, is unacceptable.

Does that mean you're against DUI laws?

Or that an individual can intervene and use force to make a drunk get off of the road? How would an individual do so?

Allowing any authority the legal right to violate the rights of people who are not using force, and are not violating the rights of others, sounds more like a mutation, rather than extension, of the individual right of self defense.

Correct, which is why such actions that don't violate the rights of others should not be illegal.

According to the laws you support, the man in the example I gave was using no force, was not violating the rights of anyone, and yet was still found guilty of a committing a crime. So where in your right of self defense are you authorized to violate the rights of others? Is there a "just in case" clause? Is there a "better safe than sorry" clause?

The example you gave of the guy asleep in his own car in his driveway should not have been guilty of a crime. That was a miscarriage of justice.

Your perceived "right" to violate the rights of others must have come from somewhere... After all, government's power is merely an extension of your own individual rights, or is it?

When have I claimed the right to violate the rights of others? I've consistently argued that you have the right to do whatever you want, so long as it doesn't violate the rights of others.

You must be joking... Rights can only be violated through the use of force or fraud and, so far, you have not offered a single example of someone who is not using force, and not violating the rights of anyone, but someone you still believe poses an imminent threat.

I think that's where we disagree. Rights can be violated without the use of force. The drunk on the highway is violating the rights of anyone with whom he shares the road. The guy setting fires is violating rights without using force. Where does the Constitution or any other document say that anything that doesn't involve force is not violating rights?

So that makes it OK? ...It's better that we violate this mans rights before he has a chance to violate the rights of others...I mean, "just in case", "better safe than sorry", can't be "too" careful when the safety of the public is at stake, right?

Endangering others is a violation of rights. That is where we seem to disagree. That is where it is a gray area, a matter of degree. Practically anything we do involves some risk. That's why I gave the extreme examples to see if you would agree that they were a violation of rights.

Have you never fired a 30.06? Even if the bullet didn't strike any people or property, anyone within 10-15 yards, without proper ear protection, would have their rights violated with the very first shot... and then there are the people in front of the muzzle, in the path of the bullet, he was violating their rights as well.

and yet, the person firing the rifle is not forcing anyone to do anything.

Yes, I've fired high powered rifles, and handguns as well. You're correct that firing such a weapon is a violation of rights, and of eardrums as well. How is it a use of force?

 

[GenSeneca]

Sorry for the delay... Had a nice long post here on my work comp but it got wiped overnight... So here is the truncated version:

There is no other explanation.

Yes, there is.

I've consistently argued that you have the right to do whatever you want, so long as it doesn't violate the rights of others.

Unless of course someones actions make you feel the slightest bit uncomfortable, then you're all for violating their rights? ...better safe than sorry.

Rights can be violated without the use of force.

I have asked repeatedly for an example of how rights can be violated without the use of force (or fraud). Do you have one?

Endangering others is a violation of rights.

Then make a rational case for your argument. So far, you've offered emotional appeals (appeals to ridicule, appeal to consequences, etc.) and little else.

...the person firing the rifle is not forcing anyone to do anything...You're correct that firing such a weapon is a violation of rights, and of eardrums as well. How is it a use of force?

You don't understand the use of force, and it's relation to the violation of rights, or you would not ask such questions.

The people standing right next to the shooter when he fired, were they forced to hear the deafening sound of his gunshots or not? If they indeed were not forced, which can only be the case with willing participants, then their rights were not violated by the shooter.

 

[PLC1]

Sorry for the delay... Had a nice long post here on my work comp but it got wiped overnight... So here is the truncated version:

Yes, there is.


Unless of course someones actions make you feel the slightest bit uncomfortable, then you're all for violating their rights? ...better safe than sorry.


I have asked repeatedly for an example of how rights can be violated without the use of force (or fraud). Do you have one?


Then make a rational case for your argument. So far, you've offered emotional appeals (appeals to ridicule, appeal to consequences, etc.) and little else.


You don't understand the use of force, and it's relation to the violation of rights, or you would not ask such questions.

The people standing right next to the shooter when he fired, were they forced to hear the deafening sound of his gunshots or not? If they indeed were not forced, which can only be the case with willing participants, then their rights were not violated by the shooter.

Unless they have some way to close off their ears, of course they're forced to hear a deafening sound.

And the person who happens to get in front of the shooter is forced to take a bullet, and the guy who gets in front of the drunk when he runs a red light is forced to get T boned by another vehicle, and the owner and the property owner in the path of the fire lit where no fires should have been lit is forced to either fight it or lose his property.

All of the examples I've given involve a violation of rights. Saying that someone firing a weapon in a crowded place goes a little bit beyond making the rest of us "feel the slightest bit uncomfortable". That's just silly.

 

[Hobo1]

Some people value Liberty and want minimalist government.

Other people think government can protect you from all life's problems, so they are willing to give up their liberty and take away the liberty of others.

100 years ago, our American forefathers had liberty. Since that time, the American people seem to be willing to give it up in the hopes that the government will keep them safe and secure.

<center>

</center>

As for me, give me liberty or give me death.

 

[PLC1]

Some people value Liberty and want minimalist government.

Other people think government can protect you from all life's problems, so they are willing to give up their liberty and take away the liberty of others.

100 years ago, our American forefathers had liberty. Since that time, the American people seem to be willing to give it up in the hopes that the government will keep them safe and secure.

<center>

</center>

As for me, give me liberty or give me death.

True, but does that include the liberty to infringe on the liberty of others?

 

[Hobo1]

True, but does that include the liberty to infringe on the liberty of others?

If you feel I am infringing upon your "liberty", that is covered by tort law. Take me to court and let the justice system determine if I have wronged you by meeting the tests of "intent, act, result, and causation".

That way, I can have the liberty to use fireworks or carry a loaded gun in my car without the police arresting me.