sc94597 said:
You need to be less vague than that. A few questions to ponder: 1. What constitutes a given society? 2. Where does the state gain it's authority to manage society? 3. Who controls the current political process? Is it "society as a whole?" 4. Why are billionaires and corporations so keen on gun control? 5. Should they have this disproportionate social power? 6. Is the United States of America democratic? 7. Which forms of democracy best represent the social interests and values of most people? The rest of your post was liberal-democratic dogma which sounds nice on paper, but which is often used by the powerful to deprive the powerless of autonomy. I don't even believe in "natural" rights. All rights are determined intersubjectively and in the United States we've intersubjectively determined that common gun ownership enhances our abilities to attain life and happiness. The state is the protector of privilege not the regulator. So what is my solution? Eliminate that which enforces social alienation through centralized violence -- the state and the capitalist class which controls it. That combined with lifting the poor out of poverty eliminates the bulk of violence in this country which is caused by those so desperate that they join the illegalized drug trade. |
Those are all interesting questions but not really that relevant to your statement. You don´t have a natural "right" to bear any weapon you want. If you would form you own country you could set up any rule you want, but if you choose to live in the society you are a part of you either abide by the rules or work towards changing them.
Your first three questions are quite easily answered by the constitution of any given country. That is the decision of a majority of the people for the ground rules of what they call "society".
There are a lot of billionares and millionares (for example the current president of the US, most of the GOP and even some democrats) that are in favor of not having any more regulations on gun ownership. Some companies have gone out to put their own sanctions on NRA because of public preassure, not because they are "kind hearted". It´s a very important part of capitalism, that the consumers can affect companies this way.
Regarding number five, I am strongly opposed to having any private interests other than the citizens themselves supporting democracy financially. And this problem is not unique to the US, just more emphasized than in many other countries.
Number six is a tricky one since it depends on what you mean. The way the system is handled with Gerry mandering, the system of electoral votes and money in politics, I would say it has major flaws, but it is the system the US citizens have and a system that has brought major changes through the years like social security, medicare, medicaid, the emancipation of slaves, the end of institutionalized segregation and so on. It is far from perfect but it has a lot of power and the people can change it if they work for it hard enough.
And I agree with you that there are no "natural rights" but the "unalienable rights" mentioned are part of a social contract between the people and their government. And how can you claim that the state is the protector of privilege and not the regulator of it if you don´t believe in natural rights? That doesn´t add up at all. And the system you describe will ultimately always lead to oppression of minorities, free speeach and violence since there is no force governed by the people that protects the people against large private interests. You would only replace a flawed system with a catastrophic one.
