The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

the Hitler Youth avatar

isn't that a boy scout pic, from the old days?

Post 81

Tuesday, July 15, 2008 - 5:39pm

From Wikipedia on Baden-Powell, the founder of Scouting:

Jeal argues that Baden-Powell's distrust of communism led to his implicit support, through naïveté, of fascism. In 1939 Baden-Powell noted in his diary: "Lay up all day. Read Mein Kampf. A wonderful book, with good ideas on education, health, propaganda, organization etc.—and ideals which Hitler does not practise himself."

He also admired Mussolini, and some early Scouting badges had a swastika symbol on them. According to his biographer Rosenthal, Baden-Powell used the swastika because he was a Nazi sympathizer. Jeal, however, argues that Baden-Powell was naïve of the symbol's growing association with fascism and maintained that his use of the symbol related to its earlier, original meaning of "good luck" in Sanskrit, for which purpose the symbol had been used for centuries prior to the rise of fascism. Despite these early sympathies, Baden-Powell was a target of the Nazi regime in the Black Book, which listed individuals which were to be arrested during and after an invasion of Great Britain as part of Operation Sealion. Scouting was regarded as a dangerous spy organization by the Nazis.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 7/15, 5:42pm)

Post 82

Tuesday, July 15, 2008 - 7:58pm

While recognizing that we no longer can even sniff the trail of the orginal thread from here... (which I'm okay with). I'll launch into personal confession of having been a cub scout - which didn't seem very Nazi, just fun and different. We laughed a lot and did little projects. In a vague sort of way I think it promoted some virtues I still agree with (e.g., honesty, integrity, learning) but I was too young to be working from a position of intellectual awareness in that area.

I went on to join the Boy Scouts. I had the same attitude - just fun and different and I was up for learning what it was about. But by this time I was older, and one day, when experimenting with cigarettes for almost the first time, the scout leader spotted me and I was promptly booted out. I think I'd only been in for two weeks.

I never know what to do with Ted's avatar or John Howards, if you know what I mean. Is the Boy Scout salute more of a sign of youthful dedication to an ideal - that which with maturity grows into real integrity? Or child-like acceptance of rituals put forth by others - that grow in cult-like processing of ideals - be they rational or otherwise. Or both?

With Ted's avatar, well, it's just the incongruity - baby with soooo cool shades - baby writing what is often such eloquent - and occasionally biting - prose.

Post 83

Tuesday, July 15, 2008 - 9:19pm

Steve, for my avatar, click on my name and read my profile.

As for the Scouts, I was a Life Scout and (in violation of the rules) I repeated the canoeing merit badge three times, since canoeing is so much fun. (I also refused to say the pledge, as I became an atheist.) I just found JH's avatar suspicious given the other factors; his CAPITAL NAME, his lack of profile, so forth. I am sure Bill will embarrass me by saying, yes, this is a picture of JH. So I'll hold my tongue.

Post 84

Tuesday, July 15, 2008 - 11:23pm

Ted, I seem to remember a discussion we had some time ago on your avatar choices, maybe it was in an email exchange.

I was only making a whimsical expression of my reaction and not any call for action or expression of disagreement. In your avatar, there is kind of intentness and focus, maybe from the angle of the head, that makes it a very unusual child's picture... and the shades are cool.

Post 85

Tuesday, July 15, 2008 - 11:52pm

Ted,

Not to embarrass you, but, yes, it is indeed a picture of a younger John. Even though I knew him when he was in his early 20's, there is a clear and unmistakable resemblance. Knowing John's strong opposition to authoritarianism, this picture is evidently intended as a tongue-in-cheek mockery of authority and regimentation. He can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that John was drafted into the Vietnam war and didn't much care for the experience.

- Bill

Post 86

Wednesday, July 16, 2008 - 7:05am

, this picture is evidently intended as a tongue-in-cheek mockery of authority and regimentation

That certainly was the impression I had gotten ....

Post 87

Friday, July 18, 2008 - 5:42pm

Well, I'm going to be the nice one today and say that I generally agree with the original post, but there is a bit of a cart before the horse in the nature that the right to firearms is one not predicated as a natural right, but one that hinges on the fact that in a rational society one must be able to defend one's life. Be it with a gun, a sword, a knife, or words spoken/written by you. This is the power of law, too, as it isn't a restriction on one's own power to maintain that defense of one's life, but that it is the restriction against thuggery by others (especially).

Consider the fact that the Constitution is often interpreted in what the State can (or cannot) do, and not in regards to what individuals can (or cannot) do, this should be the signal or hint as to the nature of law itself. It's a contract with a third party in which the third party is the 'government' or those that are being chosen or selected to 'govern.' They have no special powers, they have no significant importance greater than the other parties, and they have no authority outside of the contract we call 'government.' When that contract is violated by the third party, then it is the right of the other parties (individuals to individuals) to dissolve it. Similarly, if the other parties violate the contract, the third party, the government, has to step in and operate per the rules it is bound to.

Now, what does this all have to do with the gun rights issue? Simply put, gun rights are rooted in the right to defend one's life, but that law is equally another form of defense. So, it's not that gun rights that are essential, but the right to defend one's life is what is essential in all engagements in one's existence. Whether it's the power to feed yourself, or whether it's the power to stop the illegal seizure of your property, it's all for the defense of your life (livelihood, career, and so on...). Because if you didn't have the right to defend your life (and to live that life), then all rights would never matter as they would all hinge on an assumption that could never be backed up with a consistent line of reasoning.

Society doesn't come into the formula, and never will, because only individuals can violate the right to one's life. It's only individuals that can pursue evil against other individuals.

-- Brede

Post 88

Friday, July 18, 2008 - 7:26pm

There is one thing here which seems not to be bothered to be considered, and another which at the time was a given..... first, the right to bear arms was written as one's right of defense AGAINST the STATE..... the second is that the right of self defense was considered a given.... [how times have change, huh, when that second is questioned as a right]

this then makes problematical the issue of just how much arms is proper for a person to bear..... the notion of only self-defense WITHIN ONE'S OWN HOME as a right has a bearing on this......

one might say that we've reached the edge of a serfdom state, and are in a situation worse than what the Founding Fathers had to deal with.....

[and a caveat - true, slaves were not considered as having rights, far less than one of self-defense... but that was because of questioning them as being full persons, not of the issue of self-defense]

Post 89

Friday, July 18, 2008 - 8:10pm

It is highly questionable to assert that one could use a nuclear weapon for personal self-defense. The weapon seems suited to waging war, not deterring criminals. Individuals do have the right of self defense, but the Constitution reserves the power to wage war to the Federal Government.

Weapons such as poison gasses, biologicals and nuclear bombs did not have a place in the thought of the founding fathers. The closest analog known in their time would have been smallpox infected blankets (hardly a weapon of self defense) and the legendary Greek Fire.

While there is obviously no grounds for a blanket ban on gun ownership, regulation of indiscriminate arms seems debatable.

Post 90

Saturday, July 19, 2008 - 4:47am

Ted, I agree only because war is literally the ending of normal operations of civilization. So, I don't see any one individual being solely responsible in defending against it. It's not just an assault on one life, but every related life for whatever reason (I've never heard of a good reason to start a war, but what the hell...). I just don't see how anyone can think otherwise. I don't, and I'm a market anarchist. :-P

-- Brede

Post 91

Sunday, July 20, 2008 - 5:36am

Responding to post 73 (John Armaos)

It is obviously not true, as John Armaos insists, that the only way to counter nuclear weapons is with nuclear weapons. Conventional weapons, conventional defensive technology and sabotage are all capable of destroying nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. John takes the bizarre position that to be without nuclear weapons is to be unarmed.

Would John recommend that Iran adopt his view since they don't have nuclear weapons, but the US and Israel do? According to John, they would be wise to obtain such weapons right away. They have said, however, that such weapons are immoral. I agree with the Iranians on that. Many Israelis agree too.

Telling me that I don't care to think is just insulting psychobabble, of course, and quite dishonest. And I said nothing about others magically carrying out my edicts. Does John build his own nuclear weapons or does he expect others to magically carry out his thuggish fantasies? I said only that defense should be conducted morally and that it is immoral to murder the innocent. John Armaos is seriously distorting my position.

His old (Oct. 2005) news report about Ahmadinejad's statement was corrected soon after it's distribution. What Ahmadinejad expressed, properly translated, was the hope that the current government of Israel would collapse ("vanish from the pages of time") and he was actually quoting someone else. He did not threaten to make it happen - just said that it would be a good thing. I agree with the Iranians on that. The sooner, the better. Many Israelis agree too. The warmongers have been lying about that quote for 2 1/2 years. John Armaos has had that long to check it out and find an accurate translation.

Defending mass murder is a very weird activity. Quite creepy. I certainly understand why it would require loads of sarcasm, insults, lies, censorship and mis-information. That's all you have to work with when you're that wrong. But in between all the chuckling contempt, snide insults and dishonest rude psychobabble, John Armaos is making claims that are clearly false and easily refuted. Chief among these is his repeated and unprovable claim that mass murder is necessary for self-preservation, obviously contradicting the principal of equal rights.

Post 92

Sunday, July 20, 2008 - 5:38am

Responding to post 77 (Steve Wolfer)

Steve Wolfer claims that I should have known from the context what he meant when he misused a word. I would argue that he should have known from the context what I meant when I didn't misuse the word. And it was I who finally did figure out what he meant and pointed out the verbal dispute, so now Mr. Wolfer makes it clear that I was still wrong for not having figured out his error sooner.

He would have less confusion if he would stick to stating his own views, rather than ascribing views to me. Quoting Mr. Wolfer:
If you have "general acceptance" and no monopoly of enforcement, you get good law, according to Mr. Howard.

I have never said such a thing. I said that general acceptance is always present for any system to exist and that a monopoly on the right to enforce rules is wrong. I haven't addressed the causes of good law, nor all of the good laws that I might defend.
Totalitarian dictatorships have general acceptance (according to Mr. Howard), so evidently their bad laws are due to a monopoly on enforcement.

I have not really addressed all the causes of bad law, but I agree that a monopoly on the use of force tends to encourage bad law, simply because power corrupts. It is hardly the only cause. It might be characterized as the first bad law.
But how do we get those correct rules, as per his theory, if it requires "general acceptance" (and no monopoly on enforcement).

That's a good question for another thread, but the fact that you raise a question that I have not yet addressed is irrelevant to the truth of what I have addressed. The subject here was the right to bear arms, which I am defending, mainly by referring to the principal of equal rights. The subject is not what is the source of all correct rules, nor how to change the minds of those who give their general acceptance to tyranny, nor the nature of all those correct rules (but those are all great subjects to discuss).
We have no monopoly of enforcement, and we have general acceptance of the current system, yet we have lots of bad law.

I disagree that we have no monopoly of enforcement. The list of things which the police can do that you cannot do is long and morally significant. If there is something which is wrong for you to do, it should be wrong for the police to do also. I do not believe in such law-mandated differences between innocent people. I think they will always result in the corruption of power, aside from the fact that they are simply immoral.

(Edited by JOHN HOWARD on 7/20, 8:08am)

Post 93

Sunday, July 20, 2008 - 5:42am

Responding to post 71 (Bill Dwyer)

Bill Dwyer asks if I am seriously suggesting that we can never know if someone is going to attack us. No, I seriously suggested that we can't use our degree of certainty about that question to justify murdering the innocent, and we can't claim murder of the innocent as the only solution to the threat. There is a moral hazard involved. Anyone can claim a degree of certainty about anything (only psychobabblers debate such unknowable things) so anyone can invent an excuse for murder with this gambit.

Bill refers to violence against the innocent as an "ounce of prevention" and states that we need to make sure that people know what they are doing if they are going to put other people's lives at risk. No we don't. We need a simple law against putting those lives at risk. No one has a right to license anyone to put lives at risk. But whether lives are at risk or not can not be known in advance (except in the most obvious cases - such as nuclear weapons or firing a gun into a crowd, or bombing a city), so the only rational law is one that says don't put the lives of innocents at risk. And then leave it up to juries to decide case by case whether the law was intentionally broken to a degree justifying punishment.

Post 94

Sunday, July 20, 2008 - 8:35am

I would advise you all to not bothering reading any further in this post. It is a long, boring, rant born of my frustration. Trust me, you can skip it.
----------------

In post #59 John Howard say,

"What is required is good, consistent, permanent law, not monopolistic enforcers with the open-ended power of legislation."

I captured that quote, and the next one, and everyone in this post with tried-and-true copy-paste, since that little boy scout is accusing me of mistating his position:

"Good law merely requires the general acceptance."

In post #61 I ask where would we get this 'general acceptance' stuff? He makes a reply addressed to me in Post #63 but it doesn't address the question.

Understand that Mr. Howard has said that good law is required, not monopolistic enforcers and he has said that good law merely requires the general acceptance (post #59 mentioned above). I just put together two sentences (they are in the same paragraph) to frame the question that I asked earlier, and that he still has not answered - I asked again in post #67:

"Well, if general acceptance were available on the shelf of a local store, or growing on the tree outside my door, why would we even be having this discussion?"

I ask because I'm still thinking, that in his mind, it is the source of good law. Wouldn't you want to know where to get some of that?

In post #70, John Howard says,

"As for my reference to "general acceptance", which Steve Wolfer doubts the existence of, I am referring only to the general acceptance that supports the present system. The most totalitarian dictatorship requires it."

So, good law merely requires the general acceptance, but most totalitarian dictatorships require general acceptance as well. Tell me this isn't frustrating! I'm trying to follow this and understand what this "general acceptance" is and not getting anywhere. And now I have to figure out how the source of good law could also be the requirement of totalitarian dictatorships and supports the present system.

In post #77, I'm still trying to get an answer, asking,

"...how do we get those correct rules, as per his theory, if it requires "general acceptence"..."

and he replies in post #92 he says,

"I said that general acceptance is always present for any system to exist..."

and

"I haven't addressed the causes of good law..."

and

"That's a good question for another thread, but the fact that you raise a question that I have not yet addressed is irrelevant to the truth of what I have addressed."

Now at this point, is anyone ready to give up on understanding how:

"Good law merely requires the general acceptance"

A statement given with no explanation of where it comes from, or how it is also required for totalitarian governments, and it is always present for any system to exist, and that it isn't relevant to the 'truth' of what he has addressed? What truth? And what do you mean saying you didn't address 'general agreement' and 'good law.' Please, don't answer these, Mr. Howard, they were merely rhetorical and I am no longer am interested.
-------------

Here is the lead paragraph from Mr. Howard in post #92:

Steve Wolfer claims that I should have known from the context what he meant when he misused a word. I would argue that he should have known from the context what I meant when I didn't misuse the word. And it was I who finally did figure out what he meant and pointed out the verbal dispute, so now Mr. Wolfer makes it clear that I was still wrong for not having figured out his error sooner.
He would have less confusion if he would stick to stating his own views, rather than ascribing views to me.

For anyone machochistic enough to still be following this boring liturgy of trivia (don't say I didn't warn you), here is what he was referring to (post #77):

Mr. Howard is correct when he says I called for a 'monopoly' in the law. I don't think I was unclear in the context, but I will agree with him to the extent that the law isn't a commonly understood referent of the term. There should have been no difficulty understanding me - I stated, in other words, just what I meant by that - Only one set of laws for a given jurisdiction. Mr. Howard himself makes use of the term "monopoly" in the very same post...

and I went on to give many examples of Mr. Howard using the term 'monopoly'. sigh...
---------------

Mr. Howard,

It should not be this difficult for two rational people, presuming some good will and basic principles in common, to have a discussion. I am not having this problem with other members. You mischaracterize my arguments and I find that your style of arguing grates on me and makes it unpleasant. So you will understand if I choose not to reply to any of your posts in the future.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 7/20, 8:47am)

Post 95

Sunday, July 20, 2008 - 7:28am

Great discussion. I hope I am not to presupposed to assume the debate is about my heirarchical position in society as a responsible owner of an inanimate chunk of slag with a hole in in that has the potential of snuffing out some ones delusion of superiority. I imagine that if it came down to the gravest extreme and I had to utilize said tool for protecting my dream of freedom and the right to be left alone, the repercussions of implementing such tool would leave me scarred for life. Thus my righs and dreams would be secondarily violated anyway.
The motto of Scotland is "nemo me impune lacessit" the motto is the Queens own property. To ways of interpreting such a statement are as a compliment or as an insult. A rational man would say it is a compliment as it means "no one provokes me with impunity".
To clarify what impunty means the American heritage dictionary has listed as its primary denotive meaning , Exemption from punishment or penalty. So the queen has the queen just stated screw with me and I wil fuck you up. Hopefully the queen has an awarenes to set a good example of ethics and morals of positive encouragement.
So how does one live with out plagiarizing the queens own property. I do not live under the crown, yet I respect others lives no matter who they are , and had to do some thinking. The best I could come up with is a rea;ity check that states ," my life is my asset, and no ones liability." I think it would be ludicrous to claim such a thought as my own personal property.
So what actually ensues when one is confronted with a matter of the gravest extreme. I suppose one could do a behavioral experiment and drop two monkeys in a jug and see if they get along. Then you can take these two monkeys and separate them and put another monkey in with each of them. inevitably a pattern will develop. My prediction is you will find there are two types of monkeys. We could add to the matrix and include and include the same number of monkeys of both sexes. This would give us a fair picture of the species. Monkeys should not have guns. "Man" should treat his gun with the same respect and dignity "he" treats "his" life.
Suppose we reflect on a quote learned in humble high school . The one that comes to mind being Patrick Henry's famous line "give me liberty or give me death" . Think about it if you are to be "given" your liberty you were never free in the first place.
The best way to resolve the controversy over "gun control" is to be taught the proper respect for others and the love of ones own life. Of course this would be to simple for those who would rather choose to alienate others with and get belligerent with their own beliefs. Too bad ,so sad.

Post 96

Sunday, July 20, 2008 - 11:26am

Bill please, John Howard is definitely a troll.

Apparently he also knows more about how to counter nuclear weapons than every military strategist in the last 50 years. He says:

It is obviously not true, as John Armaos insists, that the only way to counter nuclear weapons is with nuclear weapons. Conventional weapons, conventional defensive technology and sabotage are all capable of destroying nuclear weapons and their delivery systems.

This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard. You know absolutely nothing about nuclear and conventional weapons capabilities.

There was absolutely no way the United States through conventional weapons could've defended herself from a nuclear armed Soviet Union should the USSR have attacked through an ICBM nuclear strike. If the Soviets had initiated a nuclear strike against the US, how do you propose conventional weapons would've stopped thousands of ICBMs entering into US soil? And you accuse me of having bizarre views? Had the US stripped themselves of nuclear weapons, the Soviets would no longer have had to fear a nuclear retaliation had they initiated a nuclear strike, and the only nation on the planet that stood in their way of global communist conquest was the United States. Don't think for one second they would not have seized the opportunity if it were available to them. There was no other means of defense in that period of history other than nuclear deterrence.

Conventional defensive technologies I can only assume you mean to be the ongoing research and implementation of the US missile defense program "GMD". Well news for you, it doesn't have a 100% success rate and didn't exist 6 years ago, and has been implemented in a very limited capacity only since 2006. So far only the US has implemented this technology, and I hope perhaps one day that would mean we would never have to worry about a nuclear strike. Obviously I would favor any weapons technology that doesn't kill innocent people. But I don't delude myself into thinking technology will always accomplish this, or that in a context especially one with the absence of this technology, for instance any time before 2006 (and even to an extent today as the GMD technology has a limited capability) that this would mean innocent people arming themselves with nuclear weapons as a deterrence to attack should mean they are a bunch of sadistic murdering maniacs.

The other option that John Howard leaves is "sabotage of delivery systems". Which I can only assume means a pre-emptive strike on a nuclear armed nation? Assuming of course such a strike would be successful, and having knowledge of where those delivery systems would be which isn't always a given. It also assumes you could get to all delivery systems before the nation has any chance to respond by sending a nuclear retaliatory strike. Even if the "GMD" technology was 99% successful (which it isn't anywhere near that high), it's still not a guarantee a European city for instance wouldn't be wiped out from a nuclear missile volley from Iran. Also in the context of the cold war, if the United States were to conventionally attack the USSR, there's no way they could have prevented the USSR from retaliating with nukes. Otherwise it would have required simultaneously striking thousands of delivery systems, many of them mobile and their locations unknown to boot. And would have also required the Soviets not having any knowledge a conventional strike was imminent. All of which were an impossibility.

Would John recommend that Iran adopt his view since they don't have nuclear weapons, but the US and Israel do? According to John, they would be wise to obtain such weapons right away.

First of all, the Iranian government is an oligarchy of dictators running an Islamic police state that funds terrorists killing innocent people in Israel and Iraq. They have no legitimate right to exist in the first place so they would have no legitimate right to arm themselves with any weapons let alone nuclear ones. Second, if their goal was to fend off an attack from a superpower, what do you think their only option of survival would be? Say they do develop a nuke and a means of delivery to Europe. They may make the standing policy should any western power try to stop Iran's activities (Iranian activities which include acts of wars on other nations) they would wipe out a European city of their choosing. You don't think that would be the best deterrence from attack they could come up with? That's what makes a nuclear armed Iran so scary. They could continue to fund terrorists who kill innocent people with impunity because the alternative is millions of people dead from an Iranian nuke.

They have said, however, that such weapons are immoral. I agree with the Iranians on that.

And you are an absolute idiot for believing them.

Defending mass murder is a very weird activity. Quite creepy.

YOU are defending mass murder by providing no means of stopping it. Stripping innocent people of their ability to deter nuclear attacks from belligerent aggressive nations is pacifism. You can join Ghandi in your quest for self-destruction. Not necessarily creepy in my view, but certainly asinine.

What Ahmadinejad expressed, properly translated, was the hope that the current government of Israel would collapse ("vanish from the pages of time") and he was actually quoting someone else. He did not threaten to make it happen - just said that it would be a good thing. I agree with the Iranians on that. The sooner, the better.

So you think the Israeli government should "vanish from the pages of time" but the Iranian government should not? You "trust" them apparently to not develop nukes. But Iran through its proxy Hezbollah continues to attack Israel. And you are saying Israel should not interpret the call for the destruction of their regime as an implicit threat to their existence?

John Armaos is making claims that are clearly false and easily refuted.

I have made claims that are both true and easily verifiable. You have made ridiculous claims that under no circumstances or context are nuclear weapons necessary to counter the threat of a nuclear strike. You are a pacifist and an ignoramus.

(Edited by John Armaos on 7/20, 11:30am)

Post 97

Wednesday, August 6, 2008 - 6:37am

Robert,

Quite interesting article.

jt

Post 98

Friday, August 8, 2008 - 4:59pm

Responding to post 94 (Steve Wolfer

An off-road vehicle requires a 4-wheel transmission and good tires. An on-road vehicle merely requires the good tires.

Am I saying that an on-road vehicle does not require a transmission, a gas tank, or an engine - that it merely requires tires? Obviously not. Of the two items listed in the first sentence, I am saying that an on-road vehicle merely requires one of those two items and not the other. I am obviously not saying that it requires nothing more.

What I originally wrote was:

"A ruling class requires a monopoly on the use of force and a general acceptance of its authority. Good law merely requires the general acceptance."

Mr. Wolfer drops the context, ignoring the first sentence, and quotes only the second sentence and interprets this to mean that (according to me) good law requires nothing more than general acceptance - no enforcement, no correct philosophy, no engine, no transmission, just the tires.

It is one thing to misinterpret by ignoring the context of a sentence, but Mr. Wolfer goes on to studiously ignore every attempt I make in subsequent posts to correct his out-of-context (and highly unlikely) misinterpretation and continues (in his most recent post 94) to stubbornly insist on his initial misinterpretation of that single sentence.

Subsequent to that first quote, I wrote:

"Why, if a set of rules is good enough to enforce, would anyone (aside from power-lusters) want to limit and restrict the enforcement of those rules to a privileged ruling class?" So, I obviously believe also in enforcement.

I also wrote:

"I certainly believe in one set of correct rules being in force over a given territory and not in competing sets of rules, but I believe that every individual in that territory has the right to enforce (and the obligation to obey) those correct rules, whether for free or for pay." So, I obviously believe also in enforcement and obviously do not believe in a monopoly of the right to enforce those rules.

I also wrote:
"I have never said or implied that the rules need not be enforced and that they require general acceptance only." So, I obviously believe in enforcement and obviously do not think that general acceptance is the only requirement of good law.

I have repeatedly said that there should be a single set of good rules, which will require general acceptance, but that no one should have a monopoly on the enforcement of those rules.

So Mr Wolfer decided that I meant different sets of rules, all being enforced at once.

Then he decided that I meant a single set of good rules which are not enforced at all.

(But, "We both agree that is okay to have private forms of enforcement." said Mr Wolfer in post #77.)

Then he wondered if I meant "good" rules, sort of like Hitler or Stalin.

Now he has circled back around to re-suggesting that I meant that good rules require only general acceptance to exist, and not enforcement or good philosophy.

Mr. Wolfer sighs and feels frustrated and confused and grated upon. He occasionally wonders if other readers are in sympathy with him, poor thing, and he suggests that he might not want to respond any more.

Mr Wolfer seems to have mastered the art of quoting out of context toward the end of claiming there is a disagreement where there is none. Perhaps he just enjoys issuing correctives. Or perhaps he responds before really studying what he is responding to. In any case, he has yet to accomplish anything except to raise questions based on out-of-context quotes and his own miss-use of terms.

To make clear again: there should be a single set of good rules (and that is not what is properly referred to as a "monopoly"), which will require general acceptance, and no one should have a monopoly (the exclusive right) to enforce (or make) those good rules. And I have not, in this thread, addressed what rules are good or how to convince the world of them. Mr Wolfer keeps suggesting that I have failed to address those issues, but they are a change of subject. The subject here is the right to bear arms, aka, the right to self-defence and I have based my response on the principle of the equality of individual rights - which precludes a class of individuals enjoying a monopoly on the right to enforce the rules (a ruling class).

If Mr Wolfer cares to disagree with any of that, I invite him to do so. Otherwise, what is he up to? If it is all about resenting the photo of me as a "little boyscout", he should find the (petty and childish) courage to say so, like Ted Keer did.

Post 99

Friday, August 8, 2008 - 8:04pm