Guns, Guns Guns

PeterZ wrote:That's just sophistry. If government fails for whatever reason, individuals are left with the ultimate responsibility to set things as right as they may be set. That is true when government fails to remain within legal limits and becomes tyrannical or fails to meet its obligations either because of corruption or incompetence.

They're two very different scenarios, both in theory and in practise.

In theory: in an anarchic scenario, you do not actually have any authority over the other actors involved, nor is there any overarching authority over both of you (by definition). In such a case, possessing force of arms (even if it's not used) is a necessity as you ultimately have no other recourse if your rights are deliberately infringed. With a functioning (democratic) government, OTOH, you have recourse by means of voting, the legislature and the courts

In practise, in an anarchic scenario you may or may not have a relatively level playing field with your opponent. In a conflict with a state, unless the state is nonfunctional, or you have significant outside support or the support of a substantial part of the military, the state will inevitably possess an overwhelming advantage in force for a number of reasons.

Again, government in the US are simply agents of the sovereign citizens.

You have yet to demonstrate how the US is different in practise from any other first world country in this respect.

Look at the French reaction to their shooting. They suspended any restraint on searches. Their constitution stipulates sovereignty resides in the people as a whole not in any smaller group. Those facts are different than in the us and France is a first world country. Suspending limitations on searches is illegal and so if anyone resisted such a search even with a weapon, he would be within the law. That sort transgression can be resisted In the US but apparently not in France. Indiana's Castle law is an example.

As for anarchy, rights are defined by laws. When there are no laws, there are no rights. What privileges one has depends on what one can secure. The more people, resources and weapons one can bring to bear securing privileges, the more privileges one can expect to enjoy.

Eyal wrote:

PeterZ wrote:That's just sophistry. If government fails for whatever reason, individuals are left with the ultimate responsibility to set things as right as they may be set. That is true when government fails to remain within legal limits and becomes tyrannical or fails to meet its obligations either because of corruption or incompetence.

They're two very different scenarios, both in theory and in practise.

In theory: in an anarchic scenario, you do not actually have any authority over the other actors involved, nor is there any overarching authority over both of you (by definition). In such a case, possessing force of arms (even if it's not used) is a necessity as you ultimately have no other recourse if your rights are deliberately infringed. With a functioning (democratic) government, OTOH, you have recourse by means of voting, the legislature and the courts

In practise, in an anarchic scenario you may or may not have a relatively level playing field with your opponent. In a conflict with a state, unless the state is nonfunctional, or you have significant outside support or the support of a substantial part of the military, the state will inevitably possess an overwhelming advantage in force for a number of reasons.

Again, government in the US are simply agents of the sovereign citizens.

You have yet to demonstrate how the US is different in practise from any other first world country in this respect.

PeterZ, at some impressionable time in your life you must have been told by an authority figure whom you respected that "US citizens are unique, in that of all the developed world we are the only ones who hold individual soverignity, and it is due to our gun laws allowing all citizens to carry arms, so we can overthrow our own government if we believe it has gone wrong."

Sorry to disagree but that is just not true. I've given many examples as to why, but you don't listen.

All developed countries are similar, but the US is not only not preeminent but actually less free than some.

An article in our papers today talks about Australia having 300 sovereign citizens listed who are all considered domestic terrorists by our agencies. It goes on to say -
In the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) classifies sovereign citizen extremists as domestic terrorists.

The philosophy described seems very similar to yours.

Daryl,

I never said the US was unique in the way it views sovereignty. I simply stated most of Europe and the rest of the world did not view sovereignty in this way. Certainly Britain and France don't. France goes so far as to deny the sovereignty of their citizens unless they act as body in elections.

In another thread you stated you were a statist. You accept that the elected agents of your government are the proper people to make social and economic decisions in your country. You effectively asserted those agents are better at exercising your sovereignty for you. At that point it doesn't matter if you are legally sovereign or not. That mindset works for many people but is not one I find admirable.

Daryl wrote:PeterZ, at some impressionable time in your life you must have been told by an authority figure whom you respected that "US citizens are unique, in that of all the developed world we are the only ones who hold individual soverignity, and it is due to our gun laws allowing all citizens to carry arms, so we can overthrow our own government if we believe it has gone wrong."

Sorry to disagree but that is just not true. I've given many examples as to why, but you don't listen.

All developed countries are similar, but the US is not only not preeminent but actually less free than some.

An article in our papers today talks about Australia having 300 sovereign citizens listed who are all considered domestic terrorists by our agencies. It goes on to say -
In the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) classifies sovereign citizen extremists as domestic terrorists.

The philosophy described seems very similar to yours.

PeterZ wrote:Look at the French reaction to their shooting. They suspended any restraint on searches. Their constitution stipulates sovereignty resides in the people as a whole not in any smaller group. Those facts are different than in the us and France is a first world country. Suspending limitations on searches is illegal and so if anyone resisted such a search even with a weapon, he would be within the law. That sort transgression can be resisted In the US but apparently not in France. Indiana's Castle law is an example.

1) To take on example, the PATRIOT act contains multiple provisions which may harm civil liberties. I very much doubt the courts would show any sympathy to someone who attempted to resist them by force, though.
2) As was demonstrated upthread, the French and US constitutions essentially use the same language form on this issue.

As for anarchy, rights are defined by laws. When there are no laws, there are no rights. What privileges one has depends on what one can secure. The more people, resources and weapons one can bring to bear securing privileges, the more privileges one can expect to enjoy.

You can still have rights in a theoretical sense in an anarchy (especially if you subscribe to natural rights theory; it's just that absent force you have no way to compel others to respect them. But that's really besides the point.

Eyal wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Look at the French reaction to their shooting. They suspended any restraint on searches. Their constitution stipulates sovereignty resides in the people as a whole not in any smaller group. Those facts are different than in the us and France is a first world country. Suspending limitations on searches is illegal and so if anyone resisted such a search even with a weapon, he would be within the law. That sort transgression can be resisted In the US but apparently not in France. Indiana's Castle law is an example.

1) To take on example, the PATRIOT act contains multiple provisions which may harm civil liberties. I very much doubt the courts would show any sympathy to someone who attempted to resist them by force, though.
2) As was demonstrated upthread, the French and US constitutions essentially use the same language form on this issue.

As for anarchy, rights are defined by laws. When there are no laws, there are no rights. What privileges one has depends on what one can secure. The more people, resources and weapons one can bring to bear securing privileges, the more privileges one can expect to enjoy.

You can still have rights in a theoretical sense in an anarchy (especially if you subscribe to natural rights theory; it's just that absent force you have no way to compel others to respect them. But that's really besides the point.

1) I agree. The patriot act and FISA courts make a hash out of due process. Part of the reason Rand Paul and Ted Cruz have a following in the Presidential elections. However, if federal agents stormed into a home without announcing themselves and presenting a warrant for their search and the homeowners survived a firefight, they might just win the case in court.

2) The wording might be similar, but the context is way different. Until the 1970's no body could challenge the constitutionality of a law passed by the French Parliament. Currently only the French President, the Prime Minister or the Presidents of either house of Parliament can call for a judicial review of a law. In this context what protections against over reach is there?

Finally, laws and customs are social agreements. The individuals involved limit their behavior according to custom or law. Anarchy assumes no such pervasive mechanisms for order exist. Forging order out of anarchy requires people be persuaded peacefully to limit their behavior or they are compelled to do so. Natural rights are the easiest set of limitations to promote, but these still require promotion and to some extent defending. Until the majority of people accept those limits (as defined by natural rights or not), there is no order and no rights that cannot be extracted from each individual one deals with one interaction at a time.

I don't believe this is besides the point at all. Anarchy is the price for not accepting any limitations on one's behavior just as totalitarianism is the price for accepting every limitation on one's behavior. For many natural rights are the optimal middle ground.....of course that depends on the specific definitions of what constitutes a natural right.

To illustrate PeterZ's point. Be aware Ghostery had 15 blocks.

http://bearingarms.com/oklahoma-police- ... t-charged/

Law enforcement(government) violates a citizens rights. Citizen shoots law enforcement personnel. No charges. Seems like the system does work who'da thunk.

T2M

thinkstoomuch wrote:To illustrate PeterZ's point. Be aware Ghostery had 15 blocks.

http://bearingarms.com/oklahoma-police- ... t-charged/

Law enforcement(government) violates a citizens rights. Citizen shoots law enforcement personnel. No charges. Seems like the system does work who'da thunk.

T2M

You have an astonishingly low bar for the system "working".

"Look! Somebody got shot but the guy isn't getting arrested cause it kinda wasn't his fault! Go system!"

Sane citizens of other countries would set the bar slightly higher. Like, nobody getting shot in the first place perhaps.


And law enforcement was responding to a bomb threat, not "violating a citizen's rights". The right in question is to be protected against UNLAWFUL search and seizure. This search was 100% lawful.


(I'm also a little curious about what the follow up is on the *actual explosive device* they reported they found in the home. I suppose there may be legitimate lawful reasons someone would be bomb-making in their house, I'd be curious what those were...)

The authorities did not adequately state their identity or that their search was legal. That made the search suspect. I agree that the presence of the explosive device means the individual should have been investigated. It does not mean that police can conduct searches any way the please. They have their own limits on their behavior. That no charges were filed suggests they acknowledge their failure to act within those limits.

If you are comfortable letting armed intruders who break down your front door and haven't provided adequate identification and justification for breaking down that door threaten your wife and family, have at it. That's your choice. Had those guys been criminals, you and your family could have been toast. Sort of like the pregnant woman raped and murdered during a home invasion. Armed people break down a door with no warning, it is wise to assume the worst and deal with it as such. If police don't provide that adequate warning, they cannot be distinguished from criminal intruders.


http://www.inquisitr.com/2585784/amanda-blackburn-three-arrested-for-rape-and-murder-of-pastors-wife/

gcomeau wrote:

thinkstoomuch wrote:To illustrate PeterZ's point. Be aware Ghostery had 15 blocks.

http://bearingarms.com/oklahoma-police- ... t-charged/

Law enforcement(government) violates a citizens rights. Citizen shoots law enforcement personnel. No charges. Seems like the system does work who'da thunk.

T2M

You have an astonishingly low bar for the system "working".

"Look! Somebody got shot but the guy isn't getting arrested cause it kinda wasn't his fault! Go system!"

Sane citizens of other countries would set the bar slightly higher. Like, nobody getting shot in the first place perhaps.


And law enforcement was responding to a bomb threat, not "violating a citizen's rights". The right in question is to be protected against UNLAWFUL search and seizure. This search was 100% lawful.


(I'm also a little curious about what the follow up is on the *actual explosive device* they reported they found in the home. I suppose there may be legitimate lawful reasons someone would be bomb-making in their house, I'd be curious what those were...)

PeterZ wrote:The authorities did not adequately state their identity or that their search was legal. That made the search suspect. I agree that the presence of the explosive device means the individual should have been investigated. It does not mean that police can conduct searches any way the please. They have their own limits on their behavior. That no charges were filed suggests they acknowledge their failure to act within those limits.

And this is an example of the system working?

Also, I did not read that they failed to announce their identity. The article said that "Facts surrounding the case lead agents to believe Horton was unaware it was officers who made entry." It did not say what those "facts" were. He didn't hear their announcement because he was in the basement concentrating really hard on the explosive device he was working on? Who knows.

If the reason in question actually was that they didn't announce themselves adequately then of course that would be a problem... but that still is an extremely odd example to use to claim how the system is "working" since it clearly didn't and someone got shot as a result.