# Self-Defense: The Individual Right



## Phil Elmore (Jul 29, 2004)

*Sneak Preview of Martialist Editorial: Self-Defense, The Individual Right*


----------



## Trent (Aug 3, 2004)

Outstanding article Phil.  Everyone here should read it and consider it deeply, especially those who don't agree with it.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Aug 3, 2004)

Thanks, Trent.  I'm actually surprised it has not gotten more responses, since it's a fairly strong statement of belief.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Aug 3, 2004)

:roflmao: OK, let me get this straight:


the only "correct" or "valid" social contract we have is to not mess with each other, but it is a restriction of our rights to be under social obligation to HELP one another

collective or shared property means that no-one has anything, that there is nothing

government is wrong and evil

Please tell me that you grew up in this country, that someone in your family has taken advantage of Social Security, public schools, National Parks or Monuments, city or state programs.


----------



## Baoquan (Aug 3, 2004)

Hey Phil,

you ever make it past 17th Continental philosophy? Put down Hobbes, pick up Foucault, or Eco.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Aug 3, 2004)

> When some misguided individuals appeal to "collective rights" with regard to self-defense, they are invariably making a plea for the subordination of the individual to the collective, for the infringement of rights in exchange for something they identify _incorrectly_ as a "greater good" or a "collective benefit."





> Refusing to _initiate_ force does not mean, of course, that you cannot use force morally in your defense. When force is initiated against you, there is no other recourse but to use force in response. By definition, you cannot reason with someone who has _rejected_ reason. You must therefore respond in kind. Ideally, you must respond with _superior_ force, though legally we are allowed only _parity_ of force.





> An aggressor who seeks to harm you without provocation and without justification -- he who initiates force -- is committing an immoral act, violating your sovereignty and granting you moral sanction to use force (preemptively or in retaliation) in order to eliminate the threat.


 
I don't agree with much of what phiil writes at times but I do agree with the above statements.

As a whole I find the article way beyound what most people would care to read or try to understand.  Some of it I agree with much I found unnessicary for a self defence article.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Aug 3, 2004)

> the only "correct" or "valid" social contract we have is to not mess with each other, but it is a restriction of our rights to be under social obligation to HELP one another



It is an infringement of our rights to be _forced_ to help someone.  You should, out of respect for your fellow human beings' potential _as_ human beings, feel favorably towards them and help them if you choose to do so.  To be forced to do so is not morally right, however, and there is no moral justification for it.



> collective or shared property means that no-one has anything, that there is nothing



For something to be "collectively owned" is oxymoronic, for reasons explained in the piece, yes.  When "everyone" owns something, no one does -- because ultimately access is determined by a select few in power, regardless of lip service to the contrary.



> government is wrong and evil



Did you truly read what I wrote?  I said quite explicitly that government is a _necessary evil_.  The role of government in a free society must be strictly and narrowly defined.  This is not the same as wishing for no government at all.



> Please tell me that you grew up in this country, that someone in your family has taken advantage of Social Security, public schools, National Parks or Monuments, city or state programs.



Please confine your arguments to rational, substantive points built on the points in the article, rather than fallacious attacks on the arguer.



> you ever make it past 17th Continental philosophy? Put down Hobbes, pick up Foucault, or Eco.



I'll take Locke over Hobbes any day.  I thought _Foucault's Pendulum_ was stimulating, but a little disappointing.


----------



## Baoquan (Aug 3, 2004)

Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> It is an infringement of our rights to be _forced_ to help someone.  You should, out of respect for your fellow human beings' potential _as_ human beings, feel favorably towards them and help them if you choose to do so.  To be forced to do so is not morally right, however, and there is no moral justification for it.



Hmm...yeah, that reminds me of your inimitable manimals spray, in which you recount how you watched a homeless man bother a young woman, did bugger all about it, but ran home to write a staggeringly inhumane load of @ss about how "sub-humans" are adversely affecting modern society. 

There are two kinds of evil people; those that perpetrate evil acts, and those who stand by and do nothing as evil acts are perpetrated.



			
				Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> For something to be "collectively owned" is oxymoronic, for reasons explained in the piece, yes.  When "everyone" owns something, no one does -- because ultimately access is determined by a select few in power, regardless of lip service to the contrary.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





If you put your stuff out on the web for others to read and comment on, especially a tired and overabused load like that, dont get huffy when they do. 

You failed to answer FM's questions, btw. Have you ever enjoyed the benefits of public schools and parks? Social Security? Or, adversely, how many people have you educated, or parks have you built? Are you a big philanthropist, Phil?

Its awfully easy to spout about the infringement of personal freedoms, and sometimes, its very warranted. However, throwing out the old "lip-service" and "non-thought" memes to undermine the possibility of collective good is both unconvincing and philosophically retarded.

To paraphrase, you back at yourself, if you could also limit your comments to the rational and substantive, i for one would appreciate it.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Aug 4, 2004)

> Hmm...yeah, that reminds me of your inimitable manimals spray, in which you recount how you watched a homeless man bother a young woman, did bugger all about it, but ran home to write a staggeringly inhumane load of @ss about how "sub-humans" are adversely affecting modern society.



Spoken like someone who doesn't have to interact with the homeless on a regular basis.  Such creatures _are_ adversly affecting modern society and they also pose an individual security threat -- but of course, don't let that get in the way of helping you feel all compassionate and falsely morally superior.    



> There are two kinds of evil people; those that perpetrate evil acts, and those who stand by and do nothing as evil acts are perpetrated.



There are two kinds of people in the world -- people who think there are two kinds of people, and people who don't.



> If you put your stuff out on the web for others to read and comment on, especially a tired and overabused load like that, dont get huffy when they do.



Who's huffy?  The points raised were addressed in the original piece, as I pointed out.



> You failed to answer FM's questions, btw.



That's because I don't fall for rhetorical traps designed to remove the discussion from the substantive points raised to logically fallacious territory.



> Its awfully easy to spout about the infringement of personal freedoms, and sometimes, its very warranted. However, throwing out the old "lip-service" and "non-thought" memes to undermine the possibility of collective good is both unconvincing and philosophically retarded.



That might be true -- if the piece included nothing but that.  It does not;  it is a fairly thorough (if brief, given space restraints) derivation and identification of natural rights coupled with the applications implications of them.  There is no such thing as a "collective right," and there is no "collective good."  The term is an oxymoron designed to help people feel better about taking what they have not earned in order to be generous and compassionate with _other people's_ earnings.  The concept extends to the use of the "collective good" argument in passing civilian arms prohibition legislation -- which, in effect, violates the individual's right to self-defense in the name of the non-concept of the collective.



> To paraphrase, you back at yourself, if you could also limit your comments to the rational and substantive, i for one would appreciate it.



Would you?  It does not appear so, since there is no substance to your comments -- but there is certainly much personal hostility.  If we remove from your post everything that is not an indignant personal attack, with what are we left?  Precious little, I'm afraid.

(Now _this_ is the sort of response I thought the article would get. )


----------



## Bod (Aug 4, 2004)

> There is no such thing as the collective; there are only quantities of individuals. Every group of people can be broken into individuals.


And every person can be broken into individual cells. So people don't exist either. It's pointless discussing their rights, when you should be talking about the rights of their individual cells. Or should it be the atoms withins their cells?

But a cell is not a rational being. Why not? It always behaves rationally. It doesn't do anything irrational.

So if we don't define a rational being as an entity that behaves rationally (such as a block of wood) then what is a rational being?

A being that can change it's behaviour from irrational to rational? But surely it can change back? How many smokers have you seen go back to cigarrettes after kicking the habit, and then heard them say 'I know it's wrong but I'm doing it any way.'

Humans are characterised by their irrationality!

Maybe humans have the capability to reason. What is this capability? A computer can deduce things logically. What do we do that is different. Why, we induce things, illogically! It is our irrationality that makes us human.

Does a collection of communicating human beings act more or less rationally than a single person? Can it survive without 'rights'? Can it try to survive without 'rights'?

The 'right' of an individual to try to survive is pretty meaningless if the species does not survive. People in general don't just want to survive. They know they can't in the long run. Sometimes they want procreate, so that the species survives.
People do other things for the 'right' of a collective to survive. Sometimes they go and get themselves killed. Yes, they are willing to die for their country. Go and tell a war widow that their husband died irrationally, fighting for nothing but a collectivist nonsense. That he should have thought rationally of his own 'rights'. Hmm.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Aug 4, 2004)

> And every person can be broken into individual cells. So people don't exist either. It's pointless discussing their rights, when you should be talking about the rights of their individual cells. Or should it be the atoms withins their cells?
> 
> But a cell is not a rational being. Why not? It always behaves rationally. It doesn't do anything irrational.
> 
> So if we don't define a rational being as an entity that behaves rationally (such as a block of wood) then what is a rational being?



That's a faulty analogy.  When a molecule of any given substance is broken down into its component atoms, it ceases to be that substance and ceases to possess the properties of that substance.  By the same token, a human is capable of goal-directed and volitional action.  A cell is not.



> Humans are characterised by their irrationality!



No, humans are characterized by their _volition_.  You are a creature of volitional consciousness.  You may choose to act rationally or you may allow your emotions and your instincts and your impulses to override your capacity to reason.



> Maybe humans have the capability to reason. What is this capability?



It is the ability to organize the data provided by our senses into concepts -- to integrate what we see and hear into abstracts from which we draw conceptual conclusions.



> A computer can deduce things logically. What do we do that is different.



Computers are not _conceptual_.  They do not think abstractly, at least not as we do (not yet).  (I'm no expert on the computer applications and programming involving "fuzzy logic.")  When they can do so as well as can we, artificial intelligence will have been born.



> Why, we induce things, illogically! It is our irrationality that makes us human.



An inductive argument can indeed be a logical one, provided we produce a compelling body of evidence to substantiate it.



> Does a collection of communicating human beings act more or less rationally than a single person? Can it survive without 'rights'? Can it try to survive without 'rights'?



A collective of human beings cannot take action.  A collective is a concept, not truly an entity.  Only the individual human beings comprising what we choose to identify as the collective may take action, and then they may do so only individually.  Their efforts may indeed occur in concert, but that does not change the fact that each of them acts independently.  Until you can place some sort of governing chip in humans' brains and force them to act as one according to your puppetry, they will never truly "act" as a collective -- and even then, arguably, it is _you_ who is acting, using them merely as tools.



> The 'right' of an individual to try to survive is pretty meaningless if the species does not survive.



The survival of a species is meaningless if the individual members of that species do not survive.  No "species" truly survives, for a species is a classification.  It is not an entity.  If enough representatives of a given species -- enough people who possess traits that we have chosen to identify as that species -- survive individually, we may choose to call it the survival of the species, but in fact it is the individuals who have survived and who have taken goal-directed action for their survival.



> People in general don't just want to survive. They know they can't in the long run.



I concur;  mere survival is not enough if one lives irrationally.  However, in order to do _anything_ in life over more than the short term, one must take goal-directed action and exert effort towards long-term survival.  It is this that makes all other actions possible.  The alternative is to take no action, because one has ceased existing.



> Sometimes they want procreate, so that the species survives.
> People do other things for the 'right' of a collective to survive.



Collectives do not and cannot have "rights."  This is a non-concept, as I stated already.



> Sometimes they go and get themselves killed. Yes, they are willing to die for their country. Go and tell a war widow that their husband died irrationally, fighting for nothing but a collectivist nonsense. That he should have thought rationally of his own 'rights'. Hmm.



Rational human beings may choose to die because the alternative is to live irrationally or to live in a world in which living rationally is not possible.  This is why brave men and women give their lives in war, ideally -- to preserve a world in which it is possible to live rationally (and therefore freely).


----------



## Phil Elmore (Aug 4, 2004)

For more detailed information on these concepts, go to...

*The Philosophy Page at PhilElmore.com*


----------



## Bod (Aug 4, 2004)

> The survival of a species is meaningless if the individual members of that species do not survive.


Nope, a species can survive when individual members cease to exist. And that survival will have meaning.



> No "species" truly survives, for a species is a classification. It is not an entity.


Yep, and the wind doesn't truly blow, for air is merely a collection of molecules. It is not an entity.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Aug 4, 2004)

> Nope, a species can survive when individual members cease to exist. And that survival will have meaning.



You're not grasping this.  A _species_ cannot survive unless _individual members of the classification we call a species are themselves surviving_.  It is the _individuals_ who do the surviving, not the species.

To put it another way, _no_ species can survive without individual surviving members to comprise it.



> Yep, and the wind doesn't truly blow, for air is merely a collection of molecules. It is not an entity.



Flawed analogies don't bolster your point.  The blowing of wind, the explosion of stars, the rising of tides -- these are not _mortal_ entities capable of goal-directed action.  Do you classify all inanimate objects as _entitites_ rather than as _existents_?


----------



## pete (Aug 4, 2004)

sharp phil, 

 the picture you paint is one of a very lonely existence; a perception of a world which i do not share. rather than argue this point till the dead horse is deader, i'll just leave it as the difference between you and i, and will respect your view as such.

 the analogies put forth by other posters are in fact valid and while flawed in your view, not necessarily flawed universally. specifically, one analogy to the many cells losing their individuality by becoming a human entity can be related to many humans losing their individuality by becoming part of a group... herd mentality is how i'd describe it.

 your use of the word creatures to describe the homeless is, well, a little telling of our differences.  having been born and bred new yorker, i think i've seen and interacted with my fair share of such misfortuates.  many are there because the choose to, others would rather be somewhere else.  on the whole it is quite sad, but pose little threat to others.  its not my place to decide what's best for them, and in retrospect can only feel regret of not helping them more.

 you seem to be quite literate and skilled debater, with whom i do not wish to argue, but simply state that your views are just that and not universally held even though you choose to write them as such.  but i think you understand that and get opposition as expected.

"not quite dull"  pete


----------



## Bod (Aug 4, 2004)

> You're not grasping this. A species cannot survive unless individual members of the classification we call a species are themselves surviving.


 Yes. But the species _can_ survive while individual members die. Which was the point I was arguing.

Still, feel free to assume that I'm not grasping what you're saying. It doesn't make me look stupid. Grasped that?



> Do you classify all inanimate objects as entitites rather than as existents?


 No. I classify some inanimate objects and some animate objects and many collections of both as entities. I also classify the relations between them. Existent classifying is not in my job description. I am, after all, a database programmer, and not a semantic obfuscationist.



> Flawed analogies don't bolster your point.


 Correct. I have not created any flawed analogies to bolster my point.



> a human is capable of goal-directed and volitional action. A cell is not.


 And a soccer team _is_ capable of goal-directed and volitional action. Well, some of them are.

Don't tell me that a soccer team comprises of 11 people who all, of their own separate wills, wish to kick a ball into a certain net. No. They only wish to do it because that is what the team wishes.

Irrational? Yes! Fun? Yes!

Some people experience absurd joy to see their team win.

Also, the vast majority of people will experience irrational pain when they hurt another. This is the nub of the argument. Arguing your rational 'right' to self defence is pointless, because that pain will be felt, to the point it may rule your life. If you truly are guarding your own self interest, you have to know yourself.

Do I let myself get walked all over? No!

I believe in balance. I've faced the fear of hurting others and know how far I'd go to avoid the pain of being hurt by others, the pain of fear, and the pain of seeing my loved ones get hurt.

The only reason for determining yourself to have a right to self defence is to be able to justify actions to yourself that you normally couldn't justify.

Look at it this way: If you had, logically, _no right_ to self defence would you defend yourself from harm? Of course you would! Logic be damned!

So asserting that you have a 'right' to do unquantifiable things: rationally assess a risk and preemptively strike for instance is not useful. If I know that I have neither a right to nor a prohibition against striking preemptively, then I know I'd better get it as right as I possibly can, and that means assessing potential risks ahead of time as well as I can. 

Asserting some 'inviolable right', on the basis of a bunch of pie in the sky unprovable theories, is just a way of glossing over my responsibility _to myself_ to criticise my future actions on how I am likely to feel about them after the event. That includes weighing up my attitude to myself and my compassion for loved ones and for strangers of different types.

If you can't grasp _that_ then stop spewing your rationalizations for causing the maximum pain at the earliest possible moment to the "filth", "manimals" and whatever other pejoritive names your fear-motivated, hating, splenetic rants give to the objects of your online anger.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Aug 4, 2004)

> the picture you paint is one of a very lonely existence; a perception of a world which i do not share. rather than argue this point till the dead horse is deader, i'll just leave it as the difference between you and i, and will respect your view as such.



I don't see it that way at all.  Respect for your fellow human beings -- for their rights and for their boundaries -- makes it easier to share their lives with them on a _voluntary_ basis.  It is societal compulsion -- collectivist interference with the rights of individuals -- that breeds discontent and builds walls between and among citizens.



> the analogies put forth by other posters are in fact valid and while flawed in your view, not necessarily flawed universally.



Well, no, they're not, and yes, they are.  An analogy is flawed when its components are not _analogous_ the argument against which they are directed.  For example, comparing natural physical phenomena like wind to the actions of mortal human beings simply isn't credible in the context of this discussion and with regard to the subject matter.



> Specifically, one analogy to the many cells losing their individuality by becoming a human entity can be related to many humans losing their individuality by becoming part of a group... herd mentality is how i'd describe it.



The cells of your body are do not possess your volitional consciousness.  They are not functional, independent entities and never will be.  You _could_ attempt to draw a less flawed analogy by comparing, say, sperm to human beings, and making some argument about how those sperm become a part of the "collective" that is the human body.  This still would not support an argument for the existence of oxymoronic "collective rights" because a sperm is arguably the very person it grows into (though you could score some debating points by pointing out that it is only half the resulting person).  It still has no volition;  sperm do what sperm do, always, and can no more choose to take a different route consciously than they can choose not to leave altogether when... er... called on.



> your use of the word creatures to describe the homeless is, well, a little telling of our differences. having been born and bred new yorker, i think i've seen and interacted with my fair share of such misfortuates. many are there because the choose to, others would rather be somewhere else. on the whole it is quite sad, but pose little threat to others. its not my place to decide what's best for them, and in retrospect can only feel regret of not helping them more.



I have utter contempt for the homeless, that is true.  I have watched my city's downtown become a wasteland in which no citizen can walk freely from point A to point B without being accosted by stinking, diseased, increasingly aggressive panhandlers.  I have witnessed and have personal knowledge of numerous threatening incidents.  It sickens me.  These are no longer _people_ at all, but some manner of societal predator.  At the very least they are societal parasites -- scavengers who are only too content to play the roles of predators when they see victims of suitable weakness.

As I wrote in *Martialist Affirmations Waiting for Coffee*...



> *Anyone capable of holding [views sympathetic to the homeless] has not walked the gauntlet endured by countless urban pedestrians every day.  Men and women who actually contribute to society, who in many cases are walking to jobs they'd rather not work for less pay than they deserve, must suffer further by dodging the grasping claws and barked demands of harassing, unstable, persistent panhandlers.
> 
> Why does this topic make me so angry?  I am, after all, a lone, armed white man more than capable of fending off a single panhandler.  I am not angry for myself, though.  I am angry for every woman who has ever felt disgusted and fearful listening to the catcalls and feeling the gaze of a stinking, too-close beggar looming in her path.  I am angry for every peaceful man who has had to wonder if he must use his fists simply to walk through a parking lot or down the street.  I am angry for every person who is walking with his or her children, who has a physical disability, or who just doesn't wish to be yelled at by strangers who want what they have not earned.*



The _Affirmations_ article is worth reading because it recounts yet another true story.  I ended it as follows:



> *Now, is he a harmless hobo whom society has left behind?  Is it just possible that when approached by a shaking, angry, reeking man  who is yelling obscenities and cursing you out for refusing him money  you'll recognize him for the threat he represents?
> 
> Compassion is a wonderful thing  Misplaced compassion will get you maimed or killed.  No amount of compassion will change the harsh realities of street predation.  Remember that the next time you're out.*



Okay, back to the post:



> you seem to be quite literate and skilled debater, with whom i do not wish to argue, but simply state that your views are just that and not universally held even though you choose to write them as such. but i think you understand that and get opposition as expected.



That is entirely fair. I always write confidently.  I believe in supporting my views logically.  I take it as a given that my opinion is just that -- _mine_.  Anyone wishing to dispute it is free to do so, and I will glady discuss the matter if they're capable of doing so substantively.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Aug 4, 2004)

> Yes. But the species can survive while individual members die. Which was the point I was arguing.



You're still not getting it.  There can be no survival of a species that lacks individual members who are themselves surviving -- because it is _the individuals who do the surviving_.  A species is a classification.  It cannot exist without individual members.  It is those individual members who take actions that either promote or act against their survival.  The collective takes no action;  only its individual components can do so.



> Still, feel free to assume that I'm not grasping what you're saying. It doesn't make me look stupid. Grasped that?



There is no need to get angry.  I'm simply pointing out a concept that you don't seem to understand by virtue of the way you're choosing to argue it.  Look at it another way:  you could argue that a government or a corporation can "outlive" its board of directors and its president.  This is true _on paper_, but if none of the _individuals_ who are the entities capable of goal-directed action survive, there _can be no_ corporation or government.  Collectives are conceptual fictions -- arbitrary groupings of _individuals_.  Only individuals survive (or fail to survive).



> No. I classify some inanimate objects and some animate objects and many collections of both as entities. I also classify the relations between them. Existent classifying is not in my job description. I am, after all, a database programmer, and not a semantic obfuscationist.



This is not a matter of semantics.  An entity, for purposes of this discussion, is a mortal being capable of goal-directed action.  All entities are existents.  Not all existents are entitites, however.  Even if we do not agree on the definitions of the terms used, the concepts remain the same.  You cannot compare a physical phenomenon such as weather to a mortal being in this context and expect the analogy to be anything but flawed.



> Correct. I have not created any flawed analogies to bolster my point.



We've established that you've created flawed analogies.  If this was not done to bolster your point, to what purpose was it performed?  Were you simply jeering from the stands -- a spectator rather than a participant to a reasoned discussion?  That is certainly your choice.



> And a soccer team is capable of goal-directed and volitional action. Well, some of them are.



No, it isn't.  No team, no committee, ever _does_ anything.  Only the individuals comprising them are capable of doing so.  If you hold meeting after meeting but never assign "action items" to _individuals_ who carry out those actions, your committee will never "act" -- because it cannot.



> Don't tell me that a soccer team comprises of 11 people who all, of their own separate wills, wish to kick a ball into a certain net. No. They only wish to do it because that is what the team wishes.



There is no team.  There is only a collection of _individuals_.  Individuals who work together -- who work in concert -- toward shared goals remain individuals.  There is no mystical team-being that takes over their bodies and performs tasks with them.  Only their _individual willingness_ to cooperate for mutual benefit makes it possible for them to act together -- to act as one _metaphorically_.  They are still acting separately, for only individuals can _act_.



> Also, the vast majority of people will experience irrational pain when they hurt another.



It is quite normal to experience grief, remorse, guilt, or any of a number of emotions when our actions hurt another being or beings.  This is, in a rational human being, *a recognition of and respect* for our fellow human beings' potential _as_ human beings.



> This is the nub of the argument.



No, it isn't.  This is an irrational tangent -- an attempt to argue morality using pleas to emotion.  It's also built on the flawed premise that reason and rationality are incompatible with compassion, which they *aren't*.



> Arguing your rational 'right' to self defence is pointless, because that pain will be felt, to the point it may rule your life.



I would caution you against projecting your own (or any hypothetical) emotional issues, weaknesses, or experiences on others in an attempt to make your points -- this has no credibility.  One's emotions have no bearing on one's _rights_;  emotions are not tools of cognition.  The fact that you might feel bad because you were forced to use violence to defend yourself does not alter the moral justifications for doing so in the first place.



> If you truly are guarding your own self interest, you have to know yourself.



That, at least, is true, but it proves my points rather than yours.



> Do I let myself get walked all over? No!



Did anyone imply that you, personally, did?



> I believe in balance. I've faced the fear of hurting others and know how far I'd go to avoid the pain of being hurt by others, the pain of fear, and the pain of seeing my loved ones get hurt.



I _don't_ believe in balance, unless we speak of healthy diet, a diverse stock portfolio, or a good root in delivering physical techniques.  

I don't believe there's such a thing as an acceptable level of tyranny, a tolerable amount of slavery, or an agreeable degree of theft.  I also don't believe there's any moral equivalence between the pain felt by a rapist and the pain felt by the one he rapes -- particularly when the rapist is injured, crippled, or killed by his potential victim.  I don't believe the pain of a murderer is comparable to the pain of those he murders.  I believe we must recognize this _morally_ and that is why I chose to write the article that starts this thread.



> The only reason for determining yourself to have a right to self defence is to be able to justify actions to yourself that you normally couldn't justify.



This is logically fallacious.  The reason for taking the time to derive, substantiate, and profess our inalienable right to self-defense is to provide philosophical support for those who find themselves at odds with people who seem determined to blame the victor for not being a victim and who delight in making it more difficult for free citizens to protect themselves from violence.  In our society, burglars sue homeowners for getting hurt while breaking and entering.  Muggers and rapists sue their victims for getting hurt when the victims fight back.  Crowds of people who have supported disarming the law-abiding in the mistaken belief that this will make society "safer" are, in fact, the ones trying to justify something that cannot truly be justified.

The fact that so many people do not understand morality or the true nature of rights does not mean the burden of proof falls on those who do -- but it behooves the latter to make arguments as compelling as possible in order to defeat the former on the battlefield of ideas and in the legal and governmental arenas.  Unfortunately, this is a battle between those who believe what they do  _rationally_ and those who do _not_ -- which makes it extremely difficult for those trying to defend the inalienable right to self-defense.  By definition, you cannot reason with someone who is unwilling to _see_ reason, whose pleas for action are based on emotion rather than reality.



> Look at it this way: If you had, logically, no right to self defence would you defend yourself from harm? Of course you would! Logic be damned!



I think you fail to grasp the more fundamental concept of "rights" and what these imply.  A felon who has escaped custody may very well use violence against the police officers trying to capture or kill him.  He is not engaging in "self defense" except in those most technical and literal of terms).  He has committed immoral acts and is committing further immoral acts in an attempt to evade the consequences of his actions -- which is why we punish him still further if he shoots a police officer, but we decorate the police officer who shoots _him_ (at least ideally).  There is a fundamental moral difference between the two, and that is the moral difference I am going to great pains to identify.

A great many of the people who do not understand their rights commit this sin of establishing false moral equivalency.  It would be merely unfortunate if it were not also offensive to those it equates with society's predators.



> So asserting that you have a 'right' to do unquantifiable things:



This, too, is logically fallacious because we have not discussed anything thati s unquantifiable.  Saying, "Your right to violence is inviolable" is asserting a right to something unquantifiable (broadly).  Saying, "your right to _self-defense_ is inviolable" encapsulates the context in which your actions take place (and thus quantifies them as retaliatory or preemptive in the face of a credible threat of _initiated_ force).



> If I know that I have neither a right to nor a prohibition against striking preemptively, then I know I'd better get it as right as I possibly can, and that means assessing potential risks ahead of time as well as I can.



Having the right to defend yourself and conducting yourself in the manner you describe are not mutually exclusive.  In fact, in order to exercise your right to self-defense, you must first determine that what you are doing or will do _is_ in fact _self-defense_.  Preempting a credible threat is self-defense.  Whacking someone for looking at you strangely is not.  Rational people understand this and act accordingly, knowing they will be penalized if they do not (even in an ideal society in which the inalienable right to self-defense is recognized).

Too many people who do not understand both rights and force seem to believe recognizing your right to self-defense is license to behave violently and irresponsibly regardless of context.  This is the straw man argument used most often by gun control groups, who howl about the blood in the streets that will follow if citizens' rights to arm themselves are not infringed.  The howling is only lessened somewhat by the decrease in violent crime statistics that invariably follows (Florida and Texas in the United States are two states in which this occurred) -- but the diminished shrieking is only temporary, as such groups invariably find some other piece of misinformation on which to get hysterical.



> Asserting some 'inviolable right', on the basis of a bunch of pie in the sky unprovable theories,



Simply dismissing as unprovable a logical derivation does not constitute a substantive refutation of it.  You can only do that substantively and point by point.



> is just a way of glossing over my responsibility to myself to criticise my future actions on how I am likely to feel about them after the event.



Your feelings are not tools of cognition, unfortunately.  If you conduct your entire life and build your morality based on how you will _feel_, I suppose the best outcome for which you can hope is to be a hedonist.  I'm not sure what that would accomplish, but you'd have fun.



> That includes weighing up my attitude to myself and my compassion for loved ones and for strangers of different types.



Compassion and reason are not mutually exclusive, either.



> If you can't grasp that then stop spewing your rationalizations for causing the maximum pain at the earliest possible moment to the "filth", "manimals" and whatever other pejoritive names your fear-motivated, hating, splenetic rants give to the objects of your online anger.



"Splenetic" is a good word;  I shall have to remember it.  The only person I see getting angry here is you, though I'll state gladly that I am outraged at the degree to which our society is being harmed by the presence of the societal parasites to which I referred earlier.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Aug 4, 2004)

Gotta love the internet.


----------



## Baoquan (Aug 4, 2004)

Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> Spoken like someone who doesn't have to interact with the homeless on a regular basis.  Such creatures _are_ adversly affecting modern society and they also pose an individual security threat -- but of course, don't let that get in the way of helping you feel all compassionate and falsely morally superior.



Yeah, Sydney, a densly packed, urban centre with little or no urban planning to speak of doesn't have homeless people. And Australia doesn't have the most highly urbanized population on the planet. I couldn't see that for all the roos and koalas and stuff. 

Hey Phil, would that paragraph be both (a) a logical straw man, and (b) a personal attack? Surely, you wouldn't sully this thread with things like that would you?




			
				Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> There are two kinds of people in the world -- people who think there are two kinds of people, and people who don't.
> 
> 
> 
> Who's huffy?  The points raised were addressed in the original piece, as I pointed out.


 
So what have you done to help alleviate said problem??



			
				Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> That's because I don't fall for rhetorical traps designed to remove the discussion from the substantive points raised to logically fallacious territory.



No, what you do is fail to answer valid questions. You're "article" was an opinion piece, so other people's opinions, and questions towards the validity of your opionion based on your own life experiences are just as valid. Every time someone has questioned you, you either reply with "No, thats not valid," or "No, you don't get it."

Yeah, *someone* deosn't get it. 




			
				Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> That might be true -- if the piece included nothing but that.  It does not;  it is a fairly thorough (if brief, given space restraints) derivation and identification of natural rights coupled with the applications implications of them.  There is no such thing as a "collective right," and there is no "collective good."  The term is an oxymoron designed to help people feel better about taking what they have not earned in order to be generous and compassionate with _other people's_ earnings.  The concept extends to the use of the "collective good" argument in passing civilian arms prohibition legislation -- which, in effect, violates the individual's right to self-defense in the name of the non-concept of the collective.



If it was "thorough", and the rights were "natural", why wouldnt the argument be more compelling? Why would so many respondants disagree? Mebbe because your arguments dont track, your opinion is unconvincing, and your article reads like a first year philosophy paper. 

Its about as convincing as wearing a mass-produced necklace declaring yourself an individual.  



			
				Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> Would you?  It does not appear so, since there is no substance to your comments -- but there is certainly much personal hostility.  If we remove from your post everything that is not an indignant personal attack, with what are we left?  Precious little, I'm afraid.
> 
> (Now _this_ is the sort of response I thought the article would get. )



Umm...nope, i won't. You see, I understand that once you place your opinions in the public sphere, any response is valid. Mebbe not constructive, or salient, but valid, nonetheless. You on the other hand, thank everyone that agrees with you, and state that anyone who disagrees "doesn't understand".  So I'll continue to express my opinions on yours, and you, based on my experience of such. It might not be constructive, or salient, but it will be valid.

Finally, quoting oneself is really not done unless one is the leading authority on a subject, and it's really quite gauche even then.


----------



## Bester (Aug 4, 2004)

I knew of a Man once who had a bout with bad luck.

His wife left him.
He lost his job.
He was left homeless with a child to raise.
He lived in the restrooms in the NYC subway system, bathing in the sink, begging and scrounging to feed his son, feeling the gaze of a world filled with cold unfeeling hearts, empty souls, and the blindness of the 'haves'.

Today, he drives a car that is worth more than most of us will make this year.
He is a leading businessman, and a motivational speaker.
He gives back to the community, even though he owes it nothing.

Sadly, I don't recall his name but A&E did a profile on him some months back.

People like Phil would have had him 'removed' as an 'creature'.

Perhaps, the 'creature' isn't the so called 'Homeless', but the unfeeling, uncaring heartless and calious individuals among us today?

You can also look at Les Brown, who homeless, slept in his office until the landlord threw him out.  Today, he is much more successful, but for a time, was very much one of those 'creatures' Phil babbles on about.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Aug 4, 2004)

Bester said:  "...feeling the gaze of a world filled with cold unfeeling hearts, empty souls, and the blindness of the 'haves'."

Not everyone in NYC is like that, as Pete stated.  New Yorkers tend to have blinders on while in the street because that's the safe way to live your life - some people take a direct look as a challenge.  To say that we are all cold and unfeeling is to do us a disservice.  And, not everyone who rides the subways is one of the 'haves'.  Empty souls?  I think not.

Otherwise, however, a good post.  Just wanted to clarify that we're not all neanderthals here.  BTW, ever been to NYC?  Your public profile doesn't give any info.  KT


----------



## Mark Weiser (Aug 4, 2004)

I know this may sound out of place but after reading your postings Phil. I would like to ask a few questions so I can get a possible handle on your responses. 


What religion do you practice? I have seen some indications of socialist type thinking in your arguements this does not make you a horrible person just trying to understand.
I would be interested in what type of work you do. I am curious as to your daily interactions with people in general?
That is it for now. Thank you in advance

Mark E. Weise r


----------



## Baoquan (Aug 4, 2004)

Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> There is no such thing as a "collective right," and there is no "collective good." The term is an oxymoron designed to help people feel better about taking what they have not earned in order to be generous and compassionate with other people's earnings.



Hey Phil,

Bob Hubbard runs this board out of his own pocket, so other people, including you, will have a place to come and discuss the martial arts in a friendly atmosphere. We all as members benefit from his action. 

He is currently also trying to raise money to move the MT to a new server, so it can continue to grow and engender some more collective good. He isnt charging us for the benefits of MT, he's offering advertising space, the choice to become a supporting member, to sponsor a forum or just give a donation.

Please correct me if i'm wrong, but your profile doesn't suggest you're a supporting member (and of course, doesnt indicate whether or not you've made a donation). So i guess if you don't like people taking what they haven't earned, etc etc, and you haven't made some donation already (kudos if you have), you'll be ponying up for the new server, right??

I think i've seen some advertising for _The Martialist_ around here somewhere, but given that you are getting some benefit from that, i dont think you can claim it as a credit towards the net benefit you've gained from your participation on MT.



			
				Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> I have utter contempt for the homeless, that is true.  I have watched my city's downtown become a wasteland in which no citizen can walk freely from point A to point B without being accosted by stinking, diseased, increasingly aggressive panhandlers.  I have witnessed and have personal knowledge of numerous threatening incidents.  It sickens me.  These are no longer _people_ at all, but some manner of societal predator.  At the very least they are societal parasites -- scavengers who are only too content to play the roles of predators when they see victims of suitable weakness.




I just Googled the words *homeless* and *attacked* (in that order), and looked at the top 10 results. In order to ensure the search engine wasn't priveleging one word over the other, i then googled *attacked* and *homeless*. Each time i got:

Eight (8) results recounting homeless people being attacked.

One (1) result reporting the NSW (Australian) health service being attacked for failing to provide adequate health care to the homless.

and One (1) story of a psychiatrist being attacked by a homeless man. 

I then googled *homeless* *assaulted* and *assaulted* *homeless*. I got another set of ten results, this time;

Nine (9) recounting either assualt occaisioned on homeless people or the rate at which homeless people are assaulted,

and One (1) story of a young woman being assualted by a homeless person.

Now, it seems there is a lot of assault being occaisioned in the homeless community, but that little eensy-weensy googling effort indicates that 85%-90% of that is assault *on the homeless*, not *by the homeless*.

*It seems that you may be able to effect a net result of improving the numbers of assaults involving the homeless by offering your services as a bodyguard to the homeless. * 

Pro bono publico, of course. 

See you out there, big boy.

Or, on the other hand, if you are truly interested in the "inalienable right" to self defense, you could start training and arming the homeless.  :uhyeah:


----------



## Phil Elmore (Aug 5, 2004)

> No, what you do is fail to answer valid questions.



No, what I do is fail to fall for rhetorical ploys designed to divert the argument from a substantive discussion of issues to a personal discussion of personalities.  Still not falling for it, sorry.



> You're "article" was an opinion piece, so other people's opinions, and questions towards the validity of your opionion based on your own life experiences are just as valid.



Opinions can be judged by the degree to which they correspond to reality.  They are also judged by how well they are substantiated and supported.  I have constructed a very logical argument in deriving, supporting, and applying natural rights to the topic of self-defense.  In order to call into question the validity of the conclusions, you must address the substance of the arguments contained therein.



> Every time someone has questioned you, you either reply with "No, thats not valid," or "No, you don't get it."



No, I have provided lengthy explanations for precisely _why_ a given critique has been invalid or a participant has failed to grasp the concepts at play.  Don't waste our time by deliberately mischaracterizing the exchange.



> If it was "thorough", and the rights were "natural", why wouldnt the argument be more compelling?



To those who think rationally, it is extremely compelling (in my humble opinion).  No amount of rational argument will sway someone who is determined to believe irrationally, or who substitutes emotional conviction for reasoned, critical thought.



> Why would so many respondants disagree?



Right and wrong are not a matter of majority opinion.  "So many" people disagree because "so many" participants -- even in martial arts fora such as this one -- do not truly understand the realities of force, the appropriate role of government, or their natural rights as human beings.  Articles like this I write in an effor to help make more people aware of these concepts.  Pointless arguments such as this one don't convince most of the respondents, but they do help lurkers form opinions.  If I can help at least one person understand the moral foundation for his or her right to self-defense, it has been worth the effort.



> Mebbe because your arguments dont track, your opinion is unconvincing, and your article reads like a first year philosophy paper.



Perhaps your opinions aren't logically based, your own attempts to refute the piece are less than compelling, and your attitude reads like an angry child who is outraged that someone else's opinion is both different and strongly professed.  We can go 'round and 'round like that all day, but it does not change anything.



> Its about as convincing as wearing a mass-produced necklace declaring yourself an individual.



I don't know about you, but every piece of clothing I wear and most of the items I own are "mass produced."  Funny thing about mass production;  it makes one's clothing, DVD players, computers, and automobiles a lot more affordable -- and in a free market economy, that's a wonderful thing.  If the symbolism is lost on you, that's fine.  



> Umm...nope, i won't.



Didn't think so.



> You see, I understand that once you place your opinions in the public sphere, any response is valid.



No, it isn't.  Placing an opinion in the public sphere certainly does open one to critism.  For that criticism to be _valid_, however -- for it to be anything but meaningless hostility, empty jeering, or intellectually bankrupt heckling, one's criticism must be substantive.  It must be targeted to the points made in the original argument if one is to engage in debate rather than pointless bickering.  This is the standard you must meet if your responses are to be "valid." 

To put it another way, opinions aren't all created equal.  Some correspond to reality better than do others.  Some are supported more thoroughly than others.  Some are, in fact, uninformed -- and some are simply wrong.  Unless you're one of those people who believes that all reality is subjective, there is no truth, and we all create our lives based on what we want rather than what truly is, this is unavoidable.  (Even if one does believe such things, reality is _still_ unavoidable, but much evasion occurs between here and there.



> Mebbe not constructive, or salient, but valid, nonetheless.



A response that is neither constructive nor salient is not "valid" in the context of a discussion or debate.  We must then stop and define what we mean by "valid."  If we consider "valid" to mean "free to state whatever opinion one possesses, no matter how uninformed or unsubstantiated," then that does fit.  If, however, we use a more commonly applied connotation of "valid" as applicable and substantiated in the course of a debate on a given topic, then no, a response that is not constructive and is not salient is not "valid."



> You on the other hand, thank everyone that agrees with you...



Should I get angry at them for agreeing?  Should I not be polite?



> ...and state that anyone who disagrees "doesn't understand".



No, this is both false and a deliberate mischaracterization.  If someone disagrees with me, I will _explain_ why they are incorrect in doing so (unless they can provide a compelling argument to support their disagreement).  That is what has occurred here.  Of course, to address an argument I must be provided with arguments;  refuting heckling isn't exactly an intellectual process.



> So I'll continue to express my opinions on yours, and you, based on my experience of such. It might not be constructive, or salient, but it will be valid.



No, it won't, for the reasons previously discussed.  You may continue to make comments that are not supported and for which you have no compelling or logical arguments, but this does not make your input "valid."  It does not, in fact, further the process of discussion at all.  It constitutes simply bickering.  If you enjoy bickering, I suppose that is a worthwhile activity, but you will not be able to convince an objective observer that your responses are in any way credible or that they constitute a "valid" refutation of the opinions you are attempting to address.



> Finally, quoting oneself is really not done unless one is the leading authority on a subject, and it's really quite gauche even then.



Quoting an article previously written on the same subject an entirely acceptable tactic in supporting one's opinions.



> His wife left him.
> He lost his job.
> He was left homeless with a child to raise.
> He lived in the restrooms in the NYC subway system, bathing in the sink, begging and scrounging to feed his son, feeling the gaze of a world filled with cold unfeeling hearts, empty souls, and the blindness of the 'haves'.
> ...



Yes, whenever the topic of the homeless comes up, we are always treated to the spectre of poor, down-on-their luck nuclear families living in cars through circumstances beyond their control, or single individuals who've simply had the misfortune of misplacing their means of support who are really good people -- just misunderstood.  Callous, cruel members of society look down on them, failing to see that if not for the grace of God, they too are a paycheck away from donning several pairs of winter coats and joining their grimy brethren on the off-ramps of their local highway system.

While this is very touching and makes for entertaining _Lifetime_ movies, it is not reality.  The overwhelming majority of homeless street people suffer from mental problems and from substance abuse issues.  Their presence in contemporary society is, in part, the legacy of the mental health diaspora in the last two or three decades, when group homes were shut down, larger mental health facilities were closed, and thousands of people who really cannot function as individuals in a free society were turned loose onto that society.

While you will always be able to find exceptions and you will always be able to compose tear-jerking stories of human tragedy, this _does not alter the individual threat posed by street people_, nor does it change the conditions in which so many people must live every day.  I have a friend who works in a public facility downtown, and he and his coworkers must every day endure the threats and the aggressive panhandling and the inhuman stench of the small army of homeless people through whom he walks to work every day.  He and his coworkers are on a first-name basis with these people -- and not because they'd like to be.  Not a week goes by when there is not an "incident" in his workplace;  just recently, one of these poor, misfortunate, misunderstood human beings started raving at the staff and threatening everyone with death after getting into a near-fistfight with one of the other customers.  My friend and his coworkers live under constant threat of violence from these people and, because theirs is a public facility, they cannot remove any of the street people from the premises until it is too late to prevent the worst.

If I were to ask _him_ about his lack of compassion for the people who threaten his life every week and who make his existence a living hell as he does his best to serve the public, his opinion will be greatly different from the false moral superiority of those who believe we just need to _care more_.  His opinion will be based on the violence and the fear and the misery with which he must deal every day -- _for no other reason than that he works in a public place that is overrun with homeless parasites._

Does this sound terribly cruel, terribly uncaring?  I suppose it might -- to anyone who has not lived through it.



> What religion do you practice? I have seen some indications of socialist type thinking in your arguements this does not make you a horrible person just trying to understand.



How on Earth could you accuse me of being a _socialist_ when I spend most of time arguing _against_ the collective and _for_ the individual?  That is truly amazing.

I certianly don't mind yapping on about myself, but I think a separate thread would be more appropriate so as not to divert this one to that.  You could start it in my Martialist hosted forum at this site, if you want.



> I would be interested in what type of work you do. I am curious as to your daily interactions with people in general?



I'm a professional writer.  Most of my day is spent dealing with freelance clients long-distance and with engineers in person.  I am fluent in that language that is not quite English called "Engineering-ese."



> Bob Hubbard runs this board out of his own pocket, so other people, including you, will have a place to come and discuss the martial arts in a friendly atmosphere. We all as members benefit from his action.



He certainly does.  I do the same at *Pax Baculum*.  I also publish, despite the extensive amount of work required, a monthly magazine that, while it offers subscriber content, provides an extensive body of work for _free_ to anyone who cares to read it.  These could be seen as acts of altruism.

However, (and I can't speak for Bob, but I'll speculate), neither he nor I do what we do simply to "give back" to the community.  We do it because we love the martial arts and because we derive much personal satisfaction from creating work in that field, from having online communities to which we can go (and which we can run as we see fit), and from furthering our beliefs about martial arts and self-defense.  



> Please correct me if i'm wrong, but your profile doesn't suggest you're a supporting member (and of course, doesnt indicate whether or not you've made a donation). So i guess if you don't like people taking what they haven't earned, etc etc, and you haven't made some donation already (kudos if you have), you'll be ponying up for the new server, right??



Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do indeed seem to be a supporting member with access to all the features of MartialTalk -- and I distinctly remember seeing my own hosted forum at this site.  Of course, there's also the free content that I previously mentioned, and the forum that I myself run elsewhere.  If were' going to make this an argument about who's more generous, I suppose we could, but the fact remains that I don't expect anyone to give me their earnings without their consent and I would resent very much anyone presuming to believe such a thing.



> I think i've seen some advertising for The Martialist around here somewhere, but given that you are getting some benefit from that, i dont think you can claim it as a credit towards the net benefit you've gained from your participation on MT.



Most people do things for "mutual benefit" rather than some altruistic need to sacrifice of themselves.  Most people who become supporting members at any forum do so because to be a supporting member provides certain benefits -- the most abstact of which is the sustenance of the site they enjoy for their own reasons.  _Nobody_ is truly altruistic, when you come right down to it;  we all get something in return for what we do, even if that something is just the satisfaction of having done it.



> I just Googled...



Search engine games don't prove anything.  If you truly want something approaching statistical results from news reporting (and forgetting for a moment how much of these types of things go unreported) you'll have to start doing Nexus searches.  I hear they're expensive. 



> See you out there, big boy.



See you around, little boy.


----------



## Bod (Aug 5, 2004)

> Don't waste our time by deliberately mischaracterizing the exchange.



Don't waste whose time? Your time? My time? Shouldn't we each decide if the exchange was mischarecterised? Don't accuse Baoquan of deliberately mischarecterising it either, that is a wild inference, designed to imply dishonnesty. The words are written down, anyone can read them.

Do you think we can't see that that comment is simply a rhetorical ploy (to use a hideously loaded phrase designed to imply dishonesty)?

It is a disguised ad-hominem attack. Slick, yes. Honest, no.

From your fundamentalist view of the world, everybody either agrees wholeheartedly with you or is ignorant or dishonest.

Reminds me of when you used to write lines such as:

"Well, Jonathan, ..." In the hope that I hated my own name and preferred Jon, and that the patronising tone would get to me. Then claim that anyone who responded in a huffy tone, was lowering the standards of debate.

Well, Philip, you had to stop using that one when you realised how clear to everybody else it was, that you were using a 'rhetorical ploy'.

You'll be running out of 'play by my rules' tricks pretty soon I hope. Then you will have to discuss the professed logic of your arguments.


----------



## Bod (Aug 5, 2004)

p.s. sorry about the appalling punctuation in the previous post. If I edit it now it'll look like I was trying to monkey with the meaning.


----------



## OULobo (Aug 5, 2004)

Mod. Note. 
Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

Please, keep the conversation on topic..

-OULobo
-MT Moderator-

Intellectual sparring is fine, but attacks with a good vocabulary are still attacks. Let's keep to polite and friendly conversation or at least on-topic heated debate.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Aug 5, 2004)

> Don't waste whose time? Your time? My time?



Mischaracterizing the conversation wastes everyone's time, yes.



> Shouldn't we each decide if the exchange was mischarecterised?



Not if you're the one doing the mischaracterization.



> Don't accuse Baoquan of deliberately mischarecterising it either, that is a wild inference,



I rather think I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, given that I'm assuming he's smart enough to understand it.



> ...designed to imply dishonnesty.



To deliberately mischaracterize something is to be intellectually dishonest, yes.



> The words are written down, anyone can read them.



They certainly are.  This does not change the fact that one must not allow any participants to the debate to get away with scoring cheap shots in that manner.



> Do you think we can't see that that comment is simply a rhetorical ploy (to use a hideously loaded phrase designed to imply dishonesty)?



If it was, an objective reader could see it.  An _objective_ reader, however, can just as easily see the ploy for which I was taking him to task.



> It is a disguised ad-hominem attack. Slick, yes. Honest, no.



No, in this case it is simply a fair identification of what occurred.



> From your fundamentalist view of the world, everybody either agrees wholeheartedly with you or is ignorant or dishonest.



No, but deliberately mischaracterizing the exchange as such (there's that term again) certainly does make it easier for you to attack things I've haven't truly said, or ignore things I have said in greater proportion to the thread.

I believe in addressing points fairly and honestly.  I also don't believe in soft-pedaling anything in so doing.  I'll address substantive points, but I'll also point out both ignorance and dishonesty when they occur.  To do so is not somehow unfair.



> Reminds me of when you used to write lines such as:
> 
> "Well, Jonathan, ..." In the hope that I hated my own name and preferred Jon, and that the patronising tone would get to me.



Who is making wild inferences now?  To read some sort of patronizing slight into the use of your _name_ seems a bit far-fetched.  It sounds to me like you're just looking for reasons to get offended, Jonathan, and grasping at straws in so doing.  I think you're so upset by my opinions that your emotions affect your ability to address them reasonably.  Your post is a good example of that -- charge after charge that has nothing to do with the ideas being discussed, and everything to do with your assumptions and speculations about my motives or my tactics.



> Then claim that anyone who responded in a huffy tone, was lowering the standards of debate.



I'd say your post was a good example of a huffy tone, neh?



> Well, Philip, you had to stop using that one when you realised how clear to everybody else it was, that you were using a 'rhetorical ploy'.



(That's two *l*s, not one.)  I, for one, do not get offended when people use my name to address me.  My entire family calls me "Phillip;"  "Phil" is just the usual truncation everyone else seems to find convenient.  

It mystifies me that you read some sinister plot into the use of your full name and that you honestly seem to believe I sat at my Onyx desk deep within the Caves of Evil wherein my secret headquarters is located, cursing the fact that my devious plot to address other people by the names given them by their parents has been exposed, forcing me to move on to other equally dastardly schemes.  "Damn them all!  Next I'll have to start calling people 'sir' or 'madame' in order to unfairly sidetrack the conversation!"

Honestly, son.  This is getting surreal.



> You'll be running out of 'play by my rules' tricks pretty soon I hope. Then you will have to discuss the professed logic of your arguments.



At such time as you actually manage to make a post about that "professed logic," Jonathan, rather than simply spitting and shrieking and wailing about _me_, we might actually have a discussion that justifies the time spent on it.


----------



## KenpoTess (Aug 5, 2004)

* MOD NOTE

Personal attacks will NOT be Tolerated!  Take it to PM or Email.   This is NOT THE TOPIC of the Thread being discussed.  End it or the thread will be Locked!

~Tess
-MT S. MOD-
*


----------



## Phil Elmore (Aug 5, 2004)

I'll be glad to keep the discussion limited to the _ideas_ originally presented.


----------



## Bod (Aug 5, 2004)

OK, back to the topic of debate. 



> An aggressor who seeks to harm you without provocation and without justification -- he who initiates force -- is committing an immoral act,


You've specified here a _very_ narrow definition of an aggressor. It assumes that:

A theoretical non aggressor becomes a theoretical aggressor when he seeks to harm me.

Seeking to harm is equivalent to initiating force.

That acts can be categorised objectively as moral or immoral.

Is this mischaracterisation of your argument? Deliberate or not?

Now what sort of thing can be an aggressor?

A brick?
A car?
An animal?
A human?
A child of 5?
A child of 12?
A child of 13?
A man of 14?

What can I categorise as harm? 
Mental harm?
Theft of my life?
Mild pain?
A waste of my time?
Loud music at 2 in the morning?

That seeking is equivalent to commiting an act.

How do we measure seeking?
How do we characterise seeking harm objectively?
How do we characterise it in practice? How credible is a credible threat?
If a collection of people as an existent is theoretically unsound, how is a thought as an existent theoretically sound?

When you insist that there is such a thing as an objective 'right', you are still forced to make subjective judgement calls as to what to apply your categories of credible, harmful, intention, morality and so on.

This means that objective rights have as much application to the practical realm of self defence as the possibility of an unstoppable force, or an immovable object.

What is the point of rights in self defence, when two men can approach each other, both guess, calculate or suffer divine objective insight that the other is a 'credible threat' and shoot each other dead preemptively.

They were both right! Hey, let's celebrate, throw a party, and then all go home knowing that the world is no less right than it was yesterday.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Aug 5, 2004)

> A theoretical non aggressor becomes a theoretical aggressor when he seeks to harm me.
> 
> Seeking to harm is equivalent to initiating force.
> 
> ...



This is correct, as far as I can see.



> Now what sort of thing can be an aggressor?
> 
> A brick?
> A car?
> ...



_Moral_ judgments only apply to mortal human beings.  Where the line between a child who honestly doesn't understand his actions and a adult who does may lie, chronologically, is a topic worthy of debate.  The law generally sets an age at which this is supposed to occur magically, but of course this is arbitrary, and the trend towards charging murderers as adults for crimes committed under that arbitrary age would seem to indicate a recognition of an "age of reason" lower than current standards (at least here in the US; I've no idea what that age is considered to be abroad).



> What can I categorise as harm?
> Mental harm?
> Theft of my life?
> Mild pain?
> ...



Generally "harm" would be physical injury or some manifestation of being deprived of assets rightfully yours (fraud and theft).  

The topic of mental anguish becomes a bit stickier.  The case that became the movie _The Burning Bed_ involved a wife who was abused as much emotionally as she was physically, and it was the emotional abuse (her lawyer successfully argued) that prompted her to become "temporarily insane" and burn her husband alive while he slept.  Was this "self-defense?"  Many people still debate the issue (at least in the abstract).  Personally, I believe it was, as we can construct an inductive argument that he would harm her again physically as well as emotionally and she reasonably believed only his death would prevent this future harm.  But that is probably a topic for another thread.



> That seeking is equivalent to commiting an act.
> 
> How do we measure seeking?



This is where human judgment must come into play.  The standard of the "reasonable man" is most relevant.  Would a reasonable man conclude that the initiation of force was imminent and that, without acting, he would suffer injury?  If the answer is yes, morally, force is justified even when preemptive.  Legally, our society does not always accept this measure.



> How do we characterise seeking harm objectively?



We do this by applying reason to the available data, applying the science and art of non-contradictory identification (logic) as ruthlessly and thoroughly as possible.  If we are wrong, _everyone_ pays for it, so it behooves us _not_ to act recklessly.



> How do we characterise it in practice? How credible is a credible threat?  If a collection of people as an existent is theoretically unsound, how is a thought as an existent theoretically sound?



Thoughts are not existents.  A concept is an intangible.  Actions, likewise, are not "existents" -- they are processes or incidents.



> When you insist that there is such a thing as an objective 'right', you are still forced to make subjective judgement calls as to what to apply your categories of credible, harmful, intention, morality and so on.



Applying non-contradictory identification (logic) to the data provided and integrating that data into concepts (using reason) is and can be an entirely objective process provided we are careful to be rational in so doing.  This requires us to leave our illusions and our evasions at the door -- to look at reality as carefully and as thoroughly as we can _in context_ in order to make sound judgments.



> This means that objective rights have as much application to the practical realm of self defence as the possibility of an unstoppable force, or an immovable object.



No, this is a spurious conclusion, based on the misconception that all judgment is subjective.  Judgment can be... forgive me... judged by how well our conclusions and our opinions correspond to reality in context.  Truth _can_ be known and reality itself is not subjective.



> What is the point of rights in self defence, when two men can approach each other, both guess, calculate or suffer divine objective insight that the other is a 'credible threat' and shoot each other dead preemptively.



The _piont_ in making moral judgments -- and in identifying rights in order to _make_ moral judgments -- is the very reason we require philosophy as mortal beings.  Morality and moral principles are the means through which we determin _ought_ from _is_ -- the method by which we determine which actions further our goals and which actions do not, measured against the standard of value for our morality.  

The only _rational_ standard of value for morality is the promotion and sustenance of the life of the rational individual over the long-term.  All other standards of value invariably lead us down blind paths, the only destination of which is premature death.  The dead do not moralize, nor do they philosophize.



> They were both right!



No, they weren't.  Possibly, they were both wrong.  Possibly, one man was right and the other man was initiating force.  Possibly, both men acted immorally (in the case of two criminals shooting each other for drug territory).  Being morally right is no guarantee of success; sometimes the other guy is faster (particularly if he has the initiative).

A man who shoots another man acts either morally or immorally.  If he is _wrong_ in his judgment, he has acted immorally even if he thought his actions were justified -- which is why it is important to learn to think critically if we are to make sound moral judgments.  Two men whose opinions are diametrically opposed _in the same context_ cannot both be correct, or the Law of Identity (A Thing is Itself, and thus constrained by its nature) is violated (which is impossible).


----------



## Bod (Aug 5, 2004)

> The only _rational_ standard of value for morality is the promotion and sustenance of the life of the rational individual over the long-term. All other standards of value invariably lead us down blind paths, the only destination of which is premature death.


Incorrect. This conclusion is based upon the assumption that only actions have an effect on sustenance of life. Inaction also has an effect on the sustenance of life.
Since non-volitional forces will act without our effort - e.g. if we allow ourselves to beome filthy and lousy, the bacteria and lice will _without our action_ infect those in proximity to us - often the most benefitial way to promote and sustain life is to make prohibitions. We prohibit people from invading our personal space. This is not a property rights issue. This is a negative prohibition. It can only be applied to a mass of people.

Prohibitions are a _necessary evil_. I don't like them. But they prevent me from having to defend myself from all manner of carelessness on others' parts.

The most efficient way for an individual to survive in a group situation is to have a balance between personal 'thou mays' and collective 'thou shalt nots'.

If I have or am granted a personal 'right' to defend myself against a clear threat, that is useful. If I have or have imposed a societal obligation to act in a manner that is clearly non threatening, that is doubly useful, since the symetrical obligation on the people around me makes me more aware of an aggressor.


----------



## Bod (Aug 5, 2004)

Additionally, a democratic system even gives you a practical right to try to remove prohibitions! That's why I love it.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Aug 5, 2004)

> Incorrect.



No, absolutely correct, because...



> This conclusion is based upon the assumption that only actions have an effect on sustenance of life. Inaction also has an effect on the sustenance of life.



...the decision _not_ to act is itself a goal-directed action.  How does that old Rush song go?  "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."



> Since non-volitional forces will act without our effort - e.g. if we allow ourselves to beome filthy and lousy, the bacteria and lice will without our action infect those in proximity to us



Forces lacking volition do not truly "act" -- they _occur_.

The question of just how much morality applies to animals and to lower life forms is another matter and would make for an interesting thread.



> - often the most benefitial way to promote and sustain life is to make prohibitions.



The most beneficial way to promote and sustain life is for individuals to respect the soverienty of their fellow human beings, and to be left alone to do so.  Human life is promoted and sustained best in a free society, in which the government exists but operates according to strictly defined rules and according to narrowly defined roles.

Laws that protect your natural rights are, of course, perfectly in keeping with the function of such a government.  Laws that immorally restrict your natural rights are both unjustifiable and work in opposition to the promotion and sustenance of human life.  A wonderful example is arms prohibition, which infringes on your right to self-defense in the name of making you "safer."  The reality of such laws is they make no one safer except for those who are _breaking_ the law (and acting immorally) in order to initiate force (and thus prey on) the unarmed citizenry.



> We prohibit people from invading our personal space. This is not a property rights issue.  This is a negative prohibition. It can only be applied to a mass of people



Yes, it is a property rights issue -- it is your property right to _yourself_.  You are born with the inalienable property right to _you_.  Your _personal_ space is a function of this.



> Prohibitions are a necessary evil.



Government is a necessary evil.  Prohibitions that infringe on one's natural rights are _never_ necessary, for protecting your natural rights helps a society's members to prosper.



> But they prevent me from having to defend myself from all manner of carelessness on others' parts.



This is a delusion.  Such prohibitions do not make you any safer and do not form a guarantee against any of this behavior.  Passing a law does not deter those determined to break it.  You are in danger every day of your life because those around you may act carelessly at any moment.  No amount of societal prohibitions prevents this from occurring.



> The most efficient way for an individual to survive in a group situation is to have a balance between personal 'thou mays' and collective 'thou shalt nots'.



Incorrect.  The most _effective_ means of surviving in a group situation is to respect the sovereignty of those who comprise that group, and to insitute a governemnt whose narrowly defined role is to protect the natural rights of those sovereign individuals.



> If I have or am granted a personal 'right' to defend myself against a clear threat, that is useful.



Right are not granted.  They are yours.  They are not bestowed.  Your government may choose to recognize your rights or it might not; its functionaries might protect your rights or they might infringe on them.  They do not and cannot _grant_ them, however, because those rights were never the possession of your government to give or to deny. 



> If I have or have imposed a societal obligation to act in a manner that is clearly non threatening, that is doubly useful, since the symetrical obligation on the people around me makes me more aware of an aggressor.



Obligations cannot be imposed justly.  They can only be _accepted_.



> Additionally, a democratic system even gives you a practical right to try to remove prohibitions! That's why I love it.



Democracy is simply majority (mob) rule.  If enough people within a democracy choose to violate your individual rights, you are at the mercy of the mob.  Only a government that recognizes and protects your natural rights (regardless of the opinion of the majority) is worthy of "love."


----------



## tmanifold (Aug 5, 2004)

> What is the point of rights in self defence, when two men can approach each other, both guess, calculate or suffer divine objective insight that the other is a 'credible threat' and shoot each other dead preemptively.



That is Locke to a T. In Levathian, Locke put forth the idea that in a state of nature (ie with no rules) the only logical thing to do when meeting a new person was to kill him. Since we could not possibly know his mind, it was only reasonable to assume he might be thinking of killing me. If he is thinking of killing me, I must kill him first or die. Hence, in a state of nature it is reasonable to kill everyone you meet.

Somewhere in this mess, someone accused Phil of reading too much Locke. Phil argues the opposite of Locke. Locke was a monarchist who believed that the state has a right to survival and could infringe on the rights of individuals to ensure its survival. Locke would consider a group as an enitity capable of having rights where Phil believes only individuals have rights.


We however do not live in a state of nature. We have governments that ensure (to some degree or another) that we respect the rights of other individuals. I can't go up to someone and kill him because I thought he might be thinking of infringing on my right of safety because by doing so I would be infringing on his right to safety. This is why we must go through and exhuastive de-escalation attempt before we initiate pre-emptive force. We must be sure that he is going to try to hurt us.

Now I am not going to go through this and pick out  point to point counter arguements, I would like to finish writing sometime today. I will say this. Phil's point on the homeless is valid in one respect. He is not talking about the family living in the van down by the river, nor is he talking about the poor old man asleep under newspaper. He is talking about the new generation of homeless people. We commonly call them street kids up her because they are generally under thirty. They are aggressive, beligerent and believe it is their right to expect money from you. If you don't give them what they want, they will yell at you, threaten you and in some cases attack you or turn their dogs on you. (I always wondered how a person could get a dog when they can't afford to eat themselves. That alone would make me loathe them.) However, Phil is wrong to make a blanket statement about all the homeless. Because some of them are just honest people down on their luck. Some have mental illnesses that are not treated. Some have long histories of abuse leading to them living on the street because it is safer than living at home. These people deserve help and are not creatures to be loathed. The rest however could disappear in to a giant hole one day and I would be very happy about it.


----------



## Baoquan (Aug 5, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Sharp Phil_
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do indeed seem to be a supporting member with access to all the features of MartialTalk




As i said, kudos. You're a man of your principles.





> Search engine games don't prove anything. If you truly want something approaching statistical results from news reporting (and forgetting for a moment how much of these types of things go unreported) you'll have to start doing Nexus searches. I hear they're expensive.



You wanted substantive. I substantiated. You're claims to the danger of the homeless are just spray. Zero substantiation. You have no interest in debate, simply declaring your own paranoia as rational and decrying any argument to the contrary as inviald.

I'm done with this, and you.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Aug 5, 2004)

Tony, I did make the wry comment that I would take Locke over Hobbes any day.  The humor of it was lost on the audience, I think.  



> However, Phil is wrong to make a blanket statement about all the homeless. Because some of them are just honest people down on their luck.



It's a question of _proportion_, Tony.  I've never said there are not exceptions -- but the overwhelming majority of the homeless suffer from mental illness, substance abuse, and other serious personal problems that make them unpredictable and dangerous.



> You wanted substantive. I substantiated.



I would say you _tried_ to substantiate, for which I give you credit.



> You're claims to the danger of the homeless are just spray. Zero substantiation.



No, my claims are based on direct experience.  That is much more _substantial_ than speculation based on Google.



> You have no interest in debate...



I've addressed every point made and refuted in good faith every earnest point made.  This contrasts directly to the mewling responses of those who seemed to want very much to disagree, but could find nothing with which to do it except to make personal accusations.  While this may be very satisfying to the people doing the accusing, it is the very definition of a lack of interest in debate.



> ..simply declaring your own paranoia as rational...



I've not "simply declared" anything -- I've stated my opinion and I've supported it.



> ...and decrying any argument to the contrary as inviald.



That, again, is a deliberate mischaracterization of the exchange.


----------



## tmanifold (Aug 6, 2004)

Oh damn it. I got Locke and Hobbes mixed up. Everywhere I said Locke in my post above read Hobbes.


----------



## Athena (Aug 9, 2004)

phil-

first of all, i think your paranoia regarding homeless people is ridiculous. it discredits your arguments regarding them and until you present some statistics i will continue to think that you are being juvenile and subjective as hell. you're a writer, and so you of all people should know that respect often requires citations. this is one such case, and you can argue with me until the end of time, but (rightfully so) nobody respects those opinions... and not because they "don't understand." 

on a less personal note, i think your comments about government being a necessary evil are interesting. aren't governments created in order to protect rights, not violate them? granted this violation is what inevitably occurs, but that is not the original intention. this then brings me to the question, "is it fair for a government to deny your rights in order to protect someone else's?" if self-defense is an inalienable right, what happens if you're incapable of defending yourself? is someone else required to defend you even if it denies them their rights as an individual? how do you choose _who_ to violate if the choice must be made?


----------



## Phil Elmore (Aug 9, 2004)

> first of all, i think your paranoia regarding homeless people is ridiculous.



A recognition of reality is not "paranoia."  It may offend your sensibilities and you may consider it harsh, but in this case it is the reality it self that is harsh.  Ask anyone who lives or works downtown who has to run that reeking, barking gauntlet every day just how "paranoid" they are to be wary of it.



> it discredits your arguments regarding them



No, it doesn't -- not in the eyes of anyone who's actually had to face the problem.



> and until you present some statistics i will continue to think that you are being juvenile and subjective as hell.



Reality isn't a Google search or an actuarial table.  These are self-evident facts.  Go searching for statistics yourself, if you like;  I've seen enough actual _people_ who weren't figures in a chart to know more than I wish to know about the matter.



> you're a writer, and so you of all people should know that respect often requires citations.



Actually, I think people put way too much emphasis on these things when the axiomatic stares them in the face.



> on a less personal note, i think your comments about government being a necessary evil are interesting. aren't governments created in order to protect rights, not violate them?



Governments of free societies, properly defined and limited, are -- that is what makes them _necessary_.  It is the potential for abuse and for overreaching of power that makes them inherently evil.  It is Lord Acton's somber warning all over again.



> "is it fair for a government to deny your rights in order to protect someone else's?"



No.  That was the whole thesis of my article.  It is _never_ justifiable to infringe on someone's natural rights in the name of someone else's.  By what rationale does the government pick and choose, elevating one individual over another in that fashion?



> if self-defense is an inalienable right, what happens if you're incapable of defending yourself?



Rights are rights to action -- not guarantees of success.  The fact that you have the right to protect yourself means you have the right to _try_.  That is why it is a right to _self-defense_ and not to _continued life as such_.


----------



## Athena (Aug 10, 2004)

Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> Rights are rights to action -- not guarantees of success.  The fact that you have the right to protect yourself means you have the right to _try_.  That is why it is a right to _self-defense_ and not to _continued life as such_.



Does this mean that you disapprove of child rape laws? Should a 40-year-old man be allowed to molest an 8-year-old boy, as long as the defenseless 8 year old has the right to "try" to defend himself? If you create a law prohibiting this situation you are violating the man's right to sexual freedom. Is it still not okay to violate anyone's natural rights under any condition?


----------



## Phil Elmore (Aug 10, 2004)

> Does this mean that you disapprove of child rape laws? Should a 40-year-old man be allowed to molest an 8-year-old boy, as long as the defenseless 8 year old has the right to "try" to defend himself? If you create a law prohibiting this situation you are violating the man's right to sexual freedom. Is it still not okay to violate anyone's natural rights under any condition?



Setting aside for the moment that this example is logically spurious, please do not waste our time with intellectually dishonest ploys like this.  

To answer the question, however, child rape laws exist because children (legal minors) do not have the capacity to make reasoned decisions regarding sexual contact, which is why they are considered the dependents of their parents (who are responsible for them until they are no longer minors).

Rape is forced sexual contact and therefore the _initiation of force_, which I've explained at great length is both immoral and unjustifiable.  Laws punishing those who initiate force are entirely just.

There is no "right to sexual freedom with anyone and everyone" -- that would constitute a _guarantee of [sexual] success_.  Certainly you have the right to _pursue_ sexual gratification with any reasoned adult who chooses to do so with you voluntarily -- but this is not a _right to sex_ or to "sexual happiness," because that again would constitute a _gurantee of success_ in the endeavor.

Rights are rights to _action_, not guarantees to _outcomes_.


----------



## Flatlander (Aug 10, 2004)

Athena said:
			
		

> Does this mean that you disapprove of child rape laws? Should a 40-year-old man be allowed to molest an 8-year-old boy, as long as the defenseless 8 year old has the right to "try" to defend himself? If you create a law prohibiting this situation you are violating the man's right to sexual freedom. Is it still not okay to violate anyone's natural rights under any condition?


Athena, I have absolutely no idea how you arrived at this conclusion.  Please try to keep the discussion on topic.


----------



## tmanifold (Aug 10, 2004)

As Phil said a man has a right to have sex with whome ever he wants as long as that person gives consent. The issue is not sex with a young person per say, it is that the young person can not give reasoned consent. There for a 40 year old molesting, as you said (which btw instantly kills your arguement because molesting _by definition_ is without consent), the 8 year old has pushed his will on another without their consent. He has attacked the eight year old and the state punishes him for it.



> Is it still not okay to violate anyone's natural rights under any condition?



My natural rights stop when I intrude on another's. This is one of the most ignored facts when discussing human rights. I can't go out and attack someone because then I would be violating his natural right to self preservation. However, if he attacks me, my right to natural right to self preservation says I can defend myself because he violated my rights knowing the only way I had to stop him was to violate his. He gives implied consent by virtue of initiating contact and force.


----------



## Athena (Aug 10, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> Athena, I have absolutely no idea how you arrived at this conclusion.  Please try to keep the discussion on topic.



i was wondering what his take on minors is, that's all. my apologies.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Aug 10, 2004)

I don't take anybody's minors.


----------



## Cruentus (Aug 10, 2004)

I read the article, but not the entire thread. I see points that I both agree and disagree with.

I have a question or two, though...

#1. Aren't things like the right to safety, the right to live in a clean environment, the right to fair competition, and the right to make a decent wage individual rights? If this is true, then why wouldn't the "right to have decent healthcare" be included here too...after all I think it is a safety issue.

#2. Our Individual survival relies on the rest of the species. This may not be true with all organisims, but it IS true with humans. We has humans would have been dead long ago without each other. True or not?

#3. SHOULD corporations, special interests, and other such collections of individuals have the same rights as an individual as defined by government?

#4. This is directed at Phil....Phil, what kind of society do you envision....or rather what social/governmental structure do you think would work the best?

Thanks for the time, all...

PAUL 
 :supcool:


----------



## tmanifold (Aug 11, 2004)

> #1. Aren't things like the right to safety, the right to live in a clean environment, the right to fair competition, and the right to make a decent wage individual rights? If this is true, then why wouldn't the "right to have decent healthcare" be included here too...after all I think it is a safety issue.



The problem with the right to health care is to question of what consitutes "decent" and at who's expense. Most people mean the best money can buy without paying for it. I live in canada where we have socialized health care. While it is nice to just go to the doctor when you need to rather than worrying whether or not you have insurance, in reality things rarely get done. It can take years for a surgery that would be done in weeks down in the US. Also 50 cents out of every dollar the province spends is on health care and we still can't get it right. That is with the average Canadian paying 40 percent income tax. (In Canada the Federal Gov. and the Provincal gov. share the cost for Health care with the province administering it.) The only solutions they can come up with is to throw more money at it. 



> #2. Our Individual survival relies on the rest of the species. This may not be true with all organisims, but it IS true with humans. We has humans would have been dead long ago without each other. True or not?



Yes and no. Humans are not herd animals. We could live quite successfully alone and only coming in contact with other humans to breed. However, we would not be were we are today in that mode. The sheer size and scope of our society requires multiple people to do projects of importance. Yet, those projects inverably start with one person.



> #3. SHOULD corporations, special interests, and other such collections of individuals have the same rights as an individual as defined by government?



Only in the sense that it would be a recognition of a group of individuals with similiar rights. The a religion has no rights, only the individuals right to follow that faith and as such if the religion is outlawed it is an attack on those members right to believe whatever they want.


----------



## Bod (Aug 11, 2004)

> Setting aside for the moment that this example is logically spurious, please do not waste our time with intellectually dishonest ploys like this.


 Well it wasn't a waste of my time, nor was Athena a liar as far as I can tell (that _is_ what you mean by 'intellectually dishonest' isn't it Phil?).
If the purpose of this board is for you to spout your ideas and for us to listen and agree, then, yes it is a waste of our time. Otherwise I find the tone patronising to say the least. Posters with less rich vocabularies usually get clouted by the mods for such behaviour.
What the question has to do with the subject is:

Phil has stated 





> Democracy is simply majority (mob) rule.


 He has stated that an elite (rather than elected) government should decide what is reasonable.

He seems to think he is reasonable. Thus it is not 'intellectually dishonest' to ask what he thinks of a certain situation.

Neither is it off topic. The only mistake Athena makes is to assume that Phil believes children of eight have any rights at all. In this thread Phil has stated:
and 





> You are born with the inalienable property right to you.


 He also states that you belong to no-one. Elsewhere he has stated that a person gives up their inalienable right to their person when they commit a crime which infringes on another rights. Children of course infringe on others rights pretty much all of the time.

So do children have rights? If they belong to non-one they do not belong to their parents, so this is not a question of the parent's rights. It is a question of the child's rights.



> Moral judgments only apply to mortal human beings. Where the line between a child who honestly doesn't understand his actions and a adult who does may lie, chronologically, is a topic worthy of debate.


Worthy of debate yes, but Phil's 'reasonable man' must know or it cannot be a 'rational' debate. Either the child has inalienable rights which can only be alienated from him when he does 'wrong' or he has no 'inate rights' until he reaches a certain age.

Thus the queston is valid. It still has not been answered satisfactorily.

As to whether such emotionally loaded questions have validity I can only quote Phil Elmore again. Being a 'reasonable man' (please read 'irony' not 'intellectual dishonesty') he seems to think the technique is valid


> _Phil Elmore_ I also don't believe there's any moral equivalence between the pain felt by a rapist and the pain felt by the one he rapes


.

Hmm, one rule for 'the mob' another for the 'rational individual'.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Aug 11, 2004)

> #1. Aren't things like the right to safety, the right to live in a clean environment, the right to fair competition, and the right to make a decent wage individual rights?



No.  You do not have _rights_ to such things.  If you did this would constitute the guarantee of a specific outcome, rather than a right to _action_.  Guarantees of outcomes and claims to goods and services are not natural rights at all, for if they were they would justify enslaving and taking from others in order to fulfill the "rights" without the consent of those producing the necessary efforts.



> If this is true, then why wouldn't the "right to have decent healthcare" be included here too...after all I think it is a safety issue.



You don't have a "right to healthcare."  What is a doctor if not someone who takes the time and the trouble to become educated in order to trade his skill for value like any other person who offers a good or service for sale?  You no more own the doctor's life and time than you own that of the retailer or the manufacturer.  

You have the right to try and extend your life provided you violate no one else's rights in so doing.  You have the right to _try_ to survive.  Neither of these rights constitutes the _guarantee of continued life_.



> Our Individual survival relies on the rest of the species. This may not be true with all organisims, but it IS true with humans. We has humans would have been dead long ago without each other. True or not?



You are identifying the reason that it is in our interests to cooperate with each other _for mutual benefit_.  Mutual gain is the reason any rational group of human beings choose to work with one another.  Working towards a shared goal does not constitute the claim of one person (or group) on another person (or group) without consent.



> #3. SHOULD corporations, special interests, and other such collections of individuals have the same rights as an individual as defined by government?



A corporation is a legal fiction;  while those who comprise it can do certain things in its name (own property, for example), it should not and cannot have the same _rights_ as does an individual.  

A "special interest" is simply a group of individuls who have gathered together to lobby their government for whatever reason;  we are all part of various "special interest groups" because we all believe in certain things and oppose (or support) certain laws.

Only mortal individuals have _rights_.



> #4. This is directed at Phil....Phil, what kind of society do you envision....or rather what social/governmental structure do you think would work the best?



I envision a free society -- a Constitutional Republic, the role of whose government is strictly defined, whose laws protect the natural rights of the individual.  This was the basis for the United States.



> Well it wasn't a waste of my time, nor was Athena a liar as far as I can tell (that is what you mean by 'intellectually dishonest' isn't it Phil?).



Making bizarre conclusions like, "You must be against child rape laws, then" is an intellectually dishonest attempt to divert the discussion to some variation of, "You must be a bad person for holding the opinions you hold."  It's a ploy, much as it would be a ploy if I said, "Jonathan, given what I know of you, you must support state protection of child molesters."



> If the purpose of this board is for you to spout your ideas and for us to listen and agree, then, yes it is a waste of our time.



You're missing the point (as usual).



> Otherwise I find the tone patronising to say the least.



Yes, Jonathan, but let us not forget that you find the use of your own name somehow offensive.  Try not to read too much into others' text.



> Phil has stated
> Quote:
> Democracy is simply majority (mob) rule.
> 
> He has stated that an elite (rather than elected) government should decide what is reasonable.



That is not correct.  I have stated that there exist certain natural rights that must be protected regardless of the willingness of the majority to infringe on them.  This is not the same as wishing for some sort of Platonic state in which elitists ignore the will of the people.



> He seems to think he is reasonable. Thus it is not 'intellectually dishonest' to ask what he thinks of a certain situation.



No, but it is intellectually dishonest to use emotionally charged rhetoric like, "You must oppose child rape laws" in order to imply that your opponent would hold such a disgusting view.  



> Neither is it off topic. The only mistake Athena makes is to assume that Phil believes children of eight have any rights at all.



The appropriate way to word the query would have been something along the lines of, "But what about minors?  Do they have rights and, if so, are they the same as those of adults?"



> You are born with the inalienable property right to you.
> 
> He also states that you belong to no-one. Elsewhere he has stated that a person gives up their inalienable right to their person when they commit a crime which infringes on another rights.



If you'd read the piece in question you'd know that I also devoted considerable time to the sources of your rights -- among them your capacity to _reason_ and the implications of choosing to use that faculty as a rational human being.  As minors lack the capacity to reason, their parents or guardians are responsible for certain aspects of their lives and their decision-making processes until such time as those children _can_ make such decisions.

This does not, however, make children the "property" of their parents -- for their parents still cannot sell them into slavery or physically abuse them.  (If they do, the parents have violated the children's ultimate, inalienable property right to themselves and will be punished for it in a rational society.)



> Children of course infringe on others rights pretty much all of the time.



This is a strange conclusion; if you mean they infringe on the property rights of their parents, you are mistaken given that the parents have chosen to have the children in the first place.  If you mean children infringe on others' property rights you are likewise mistaken;  my neighbors can no more drop off their kids to live with me than I can wander into their living room and watch their television without their permission.



> So do children have rights? If they belong to non-one they do not belong to their parents, so this is not a question of the parent's rights. It is a question of the child's rights.



Children have certain rights from birth but lack full rights because they lack the capacity to reason as adults.  They are the _responsibility_ of their parents, but no the _property_ of their parents.  Parents accept this responsibility when they choose to produce those children.



> Worthy of debate yes, but Phil's 'reasonable man' must know or it cannot be a 'rational' debate. Either the child has inalienable rights which can only be alienated from him when he does 'wrong' or he has no 'inate rights' until he reaches a certain age.



This does not follow;  you are born with certain rights and your ability to reason confers certain others.



> Thus the queston is valid. It still has not been answered satisfactorily.



Yes, it has.



> As to whether such emotionally loaded questions have validity I can only quote Phil Elmore again. Being a 'reasonable man' (please read 'irony' not 'intellectual dishonesty') he seems to think the technique is valid



Please, Jonathan, keep your bitterness to yourself or this conversation will devolve yet again into a bout of pointless bickering.  There is a substantive difference between identifying the implications of a philosophy (correctly) and posting some variation on the theme of, "You must be a bad person for having your opinion."

I understand you are frustrated, but do try to keep your input on topic and productive.


----------



## Bod (Aug 11, 2004)

> It's a ploy, much as it would be a ploy if I said, "Jonathan, given what I know of you, you must support state protection of child molesters."


 Nothing wrong with saying that. In fact I do believe in state protection of child molesters in that I argue that the accused has the right to a fair trial by the state, and that the state should carry out the punishment.

The way I see it you have argued from a conclusion (the sort of government you want and the laws they should pass) to a set of axioms which, by the way, I deem unsupportable. From those axioms certain conclusions seem to me and others inevitable. Calling the questioning of either the axioms or the seemingly inevitable conclusions 'intellectually dishonest ploys' is disingenuous. Only a fool would take your assertions at face value and agree with them if they had reservations about the axioms or the conclusions drawn from them, either directly by you, or otherwise.




> _self_
> If the purpose of this board is for you to spout your ideas and for us to listen and agree, then, yes it is a waste of our time.
> [Phile Elmore]
> You're missing the point (as usual).


 So the point of this board _is_ for you to spout your ideas and for us to listen and agree? You haven't addressed the point I am supposed to have missed.


> _self_Otherwise I find the tone patronising to say the least.
> _Phil Elmore_ Yes, Jonathan, but let us not forget that you find the use of your own name somehow offensive. Try not to read too much into others' text.


 Now I'm beginning to believe you are oblivious to the concept of the term patronising. I mean't that to sound irate, in case anyone thinks I'm oblivious to the tone or percieved tone of my own text.



> I have stated that there exist certain natural rights that must be protected regardless of the willingness of the majority to infringe on them. This is not the same as wishing for some sort of Platonic state in which elitists ignore the will of the people.


 Now that _is_ a distinction too subtle for me to grasp. The only difference my underdeveloped intellect can percieve is the wording.



> No, but it is intellectually dishonest to use emotionally charged rhetoric like, "You must oppose child rape laws" in order to imply that your opponent would hold such a disgusting view.


 I implore you to read to the end of my posts before replying. I've dealt with this very issue further on.



> Children have certain rights from birth but lack full rights because they lack the capacity to reason as adults.


 Where, in your theory, do these rights, inate to a non-rational being, come from? 

In my theory, childrens' rights come from the state, in response to the majorities' compasion for them. They are neither God given or inate, nor are they arbitrated by some 'reasonable man'. If the state does not give them these rights then the compassionate need to do what is necessary to ensure that they do.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Aug 11, 2004)

> Nothing wrong with saying that. In fact I do believe in state protection of child molesters in that I argue that the accused has the right to a fair trial by the state, and that the state should carry out the punishment.



Yes, but if I took that and said, "Jonathan, do you honestly think child molestation ought to be legal," I'd be engaging in a ploy intended to cast you in a bad light rather than addressing the concept you were describing.



> The way I see it you have argued from a conclusion (the sort of government you want and the laws they should pass) to a set of axioms which, by the way, I deem unsupportable.



The axiomatic is not refutable _by definition_.



> So the point of this board is for you to spout your ideas and for us to listen and agree? You haven't addressed the point I am supposed to have missed.



I haven't addressed it because in stating it your simply indulging in your dislike for me, rather than offering substantive ideas.  Anyone is free to disagree with me -- but in doing so they must discuss ideas rather than simply blathering on about how I must be a bad person.



> Now I'm beginning to believe you are oblivious to the concept of the term patronising. I mean't that to sound irate, in case anyone thinks I'm oblivious to the tone or percieved tone of my own text.



Yes, Jonathan.  Given that I write for a living I _must_ be ignorant of what the word means.



> Now that is a distinction too subtle for me to grasp. The only difference my underdeveloped intellect can percieve is the wording.



Well, that's the problem, isn't it?  It's the difference between a democracy and a Constitutional Republic like the United States as defined in its founding documens.  The Founding Fathers put into a place a means whereby citizens held the reigns of government and possessed the mechanism of self-rule, yet also wrote into the fabric of the nation protections on what they considered _inalienable_ rights.  Thus, no matter how many people decide today that they wish to ban privately owned firearms, the Constitution's Second Amendment makes such an act unconstitutional and unsupportable _unless the Constitution is itself changed_.  The First Amendment likewise protects freedom of religion regardless of how many people would like to, say, ban Islam because of the threat of terrorism.

This is what it means to protect inalienable rights against infringement by the majority.  It is not the election or the appointment of a Platonic ruling class.



> Where, in your theory, do these rights, inate to a non-rational being, come from?



If you don't own you, who does?



> In my theory, childrens' rights come from the state, in response to the majorities' compasion for them. They are neither God given or inate, nor are they arbitrated by some 'reasonable man'. If the state does not give them these rights then the compassionate need to do what is necessary to ensure that they do.



No.  The State cannot grant rights.  It can only choose to protect them or to infringe on them.


----------



## Bod (Aug 11, 2004)

> If you don't own you, who does?


 No-one. This question is ill formed. It is meaningless. It is predicated on the possibility of a 'rational existence'. If a child owns itself, and a child is not rational, then a dog could own itself, or a brick. This applies no matter how many times you state that only a mortal human being has objective rights.

You are simply defining an axiom. Irrefutable by definition maybe. But only because axioms can only be defined subjectively. Once they have been agreed the ymay be used objectively within an argument by the parties who agreed them. Outside that agreement they are merely subjective.

I've nothing against the subjective. Believing that the subjective is objective is not productive though.

On the subject of the constitution and gun control, well these matters are still subjective. The right to bear arms could mean a lot of things. But arguing for, or against, any position on gun control is still subjective. Do subjective arguments have merit? Yes. However discussing the merits and demerits of gun control is a sure-fire way to go off topic. I won't go there.

My principle beef with you is that you preach the idea of objective rights. I believe that the idea of objective rights is _harmful_ especially in the arena of self defence.

My secondary problem with you is your methods. You seem to scare away those who do not have the time or bullishness to argue with you, even if they have something good to say. I'm here to learn, not to win arguments (OK not _just_ to win arguments).

That's as honest as I can make it. Do I dislike you because you are bad? No, I used to believe in objective right and loved arguing simply for arguing's sake, doing anything and everything to win an argument. Was I bad? Dunno.


----------



## Mark Weiser (Aug 11, 2004)

_"In my theory, childrens' rights come from the state, in response to the majorities' compasion for them. They are neither God given or inate, nor are they arbitrated by some 'reasonable man'. If the state does not give them these rights then the compassionate need to do what is necessary to ensure that they do."_


I have been reading this thread for a bit. I have to step in and say something in regards to the above statement. The State has no more power than those (people) chose to give it.  Governement exist at the request of the People the way the above statement reads as if the State has a separate mind or ability to enact laws. 

The congress (State representatives and senators) of the state make up the laws and have to vote on it giving it (the State) the _*illusion *_of being alive. Rights have never been GRANTED by any government organization. Rights vs privelges are a different matter. Thru the statues passed by a congress we as citizens of that state have certain privelges but the state can never add too or take awary RIGHTS.  

In this definition you can see Rights and Privelges are separate

*bill of rights
*Usage: _often capitalized B&R_
*:* a summary of fundamental *rights and privileges* guaranteed to a people against violation by the state -- used especially of the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution 

in the use of related words for RIGHTS here is some *Synonyms *appanage, _birthright_, perquisite, prerogative

A lot to chew on lol. 

Sincerely,
MArk E. Weiser


----------



## Phil Elmore (Aug 11, 2004)

> No-one. This question is ill formed. It is meaningless.



Incorrect.  Ownership is a question of access.  You control access to you;  you _own_ you.

Children are a special category by virtue of their diminished capacity to reason.  They are almost, but not quite, sovereign entitites for this reason.  Thus the rights naturally conferred on us by virtue of our existence as discrete biological entities (concepts covered in the original editorial) apply, but the rights conferred by our ability to reason do not (because children lack that capacity).  This is why children are the responsibility of their parents.



> If a child owns itself, and a child is not rational, then a dog could own itself, or a brick. This applies no matter how many times you state that only a mortal human being has objective rights.



This is logically spurious and does not apply no matter how many times you say it does.  Animals do not philosophize.



> You are simply defining an axiom. Irrefutable by definition maybe.



Precisely.



> But only because axioms can only be defined subjectively. Once they have been agreed the ymay be used objectively within an argument by the parties who agreed them. Outside that agreement they are merely subjective.



Incorrect;  axioms are self-evident and irrefutable even if they are not evident _to you_.  They are the principles we all accept, whether we believe we truly do, when we interact with each other.  Every attempt to undercut the axioms by which I operate ultimately depends on those very axioms to do it.



> On the subject of the constitution and gun control, well these matters are still subjective.



No, they're not, for the reasons stated in my editorial.  For that matter, anyone who would call himself a "martial artist" but who supports gun control is not, in fact, a _martial_ artist at all.

*Going Armed: Guns, "Gun Control," and "Martial" Artists*



> My principle beef with you is that you preach the idea of objective rights. I believe that the idea of objective rights is harmful especially in the arena of self defence.



As you are incorrect and cannot support this assertion, why does it matter what you believe?



> My secondary problem with you is your methods. You seem to scare away those who do not have the time or bullishness to argue with you, even if they have something good to say. I'm here to learn, not to win arguments (OK not just to win arguments).



Other people's lack of intellectual courage or fortitude is not my problem.  I'll argue substantively and rationally with anyone capable of doing the same.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Aug 26, 2004)

Quite a late response, I know, but hey, better late than never.  

First off, this thread isn't in The Study yet why?  I know what the subject originally was, but my thought is that this thread belongs there.  

Sharp Phil, I understand that you believe there is no such thing as the collective, but only a group of individuals who each have their rights as individuals, and that therefore any argument based on the collective good is unrealistic.  But I think it's easy to see how a collective good can be established, just by considering the idea of a music band.  According to what you claim, there is no band, but merely a group musicians each separately playing their own instrument.  There is no song being played, just a series of sounds that seem to follow a very close pattern.  But when you think about it, in order for those sounds to become a song, or for those individuals to form a band, a collective does have to be established.  In order for people to be members of a society, they have to form some unified collective in a very similar, though obviously much more complex, manner.  As part of society, citizens are bound by things such as the Constitution (the common pattern in the song, if you will), that makes them more than just a bunch of individuals.  

I'm sure that in the morning I'll realize that this analogy will need some work, but I think I've made my point well enough for 3 in the morning.  To clarify, am I arguing against someone's right to bear arms, or that the individual is always trumped by the communal?  Hell no.  People are individuals, sure.  Im only trying to argue that their is such thing as a collective good in society which binds those individuals.  I realize that I'm bordering on social contract theory here, but oh well.  

As for your statements about homeless people, I'm just too disgusted by them (meaning your comments, not homeless people) to really respond, so good night.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Aug 26, 2004)

Save your disgust for someone who cares.

In your analogy you entirely miss the concept of a group of individuals _working and towards a shared goal for mutual benefit_.  That is the basis for all cooperation among sovereign, rational individuals.


----------



## KenpoTess (Aug 26, 2004)

* MOD NOTE

I'm locking this thread Pending Admin review .. it's certainly not accomplishing anything- Inflammatory flotsam & jetsam~!

~Tess
-MT S. MOD-
*


----------

