By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Puppyroach on 25 February 2018
Edit Thread
sc94597 said:
Puppyroach said:

1. 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.

2. 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".

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6, 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.

1. Did you not read my post? I don't believe in natural rights. And they are highly relevant questions, because they help us understand why people want to own a gun when they are deprived of political power. Nobody "chooses" to live in a society, by the way. 

2. Who wrote the constitution? Was it the "whole people?" Why should we discard portions of said document and not the whole thing, if it has such authority? 

3. The current president was for gun control until the moment he ran on the Republican party's ticket. He's probably the worst example to choose. Most politicians aren't billionaires, but middling rich. And corporations don't receive public pressure, they receive pressure from their consumers and shareholders, whom consist of a minority of the public. That is a part of capitalism, but I am not a capitalist, so... 

4. I am not just talking about political power. I am talking about social and economic power too. They aren't using political power here. 

5. Slaves were emancipated by violence through a civil war. Social security, medicare, and medicaid were instituted through the threat of socialist revolution/crisis, and the end of institutionalized segregation involved these guys. Always was there a threat of political revolution which forced the elites to reform. 

6. The Declaration of Independence preceded the United States by fifteen years. It wasn't a social contract. I say the state is the protector of privilege, because it is the vehicle through which the bourgeoisie institutionalize their violence in order to maintain their position in society. Its very purpose is to protect the capitalist class and its property. Everything else it does -- it does to prevent revolution. "Large private interests" can't exist without the state. Private property is too costly without a monopoly on the legitimacy of violence subsidizing the costs of ownership. 

1. Yes you do if you believe the that privileges exist as they are just as much of a "right" as any natural "right" anyone would claim. And I didn´t say you could choose whether or not to live in society, but rather which society you want to live in.

2. Because you don´t have a choice. Through the democratic process, the people have decided that you as part of that society is obligated to follow the laws that are a product of the constitution. If you wish to change that, becaome part of the democratic process.

3. Public preassure is rarely the same as the majority of people putting preassure on companies. And how is Trump a bad example just because he switches position every day? It just makes him like many other politicians, pro gun or not.

4. But social and economic power is almost always derived from political power.

5. Exactly, which in turn changed the political process. And in most of the cases you mentioned, the revolution was mostly non-violent and happened through elected officials, as it should be.

6. Yes, but it can still be amended. And you must believe that natural privileges exist if your view is that the government should only uphold them, never regulate them, otherwise your arguments makes no sense at all. You can argue that natural privileges does not exist but that the privleges we have decided upon in society should not be regulated; but that is just an opinion, not a static fact. If you believe privileges are a man-made entity, then those privileges in themselves are regulations on humans. And you forget that humanity is an animal that is egotistical, predatory and violent (like most mammals) and we will always find ways to oppress and manipulate people around us o protect our "flock".