05 Jun 2011, 1:32 pm
Smithee I'm all about logical consistency.
And thats why I think the "rebellion" rationale for the 2nd amendment is illogical.
Your mistaken about my position on laws or government as the font of all good. However, they are the font of protection of rights.
Societies orginally put down laws as a covenant between its members in order to resolve the inevitable conflicts between people. Within that came property law and inevitably codified "rights". Until this happened, our hunter gatherer forbears adjudicated all conflicts eitehr through the "strong man of the tribe" or through conflict. Our forebears, especially when they urbanized , recognized that conflict was unproductive.
The idea of a right to rebel says that every person has the ability to violently refute the govenrment. That undoes the covenant and ends all protections.
It doesn't mean that there aren't circumstances when self protection rebellion aren't called for for all kinds of reasons.
But in enshrining the act of rebellion as a perceived "inherent right", and establishing it as a rationale for the 2nd amendment (much later than when the amendment was originally written mostly as a sop to slave holders) it makes the actual covenant of society more fragile. And since, in practice, the act of violent rebellion against the govenrment has always been punished it is apparent to anyone that this "inherent right" offers no protection. It is ethereal.
As the Archduke recognized all rights are ethereal until some how their are upheld and extend actual protection beyond what the individual can force through his own means. And that, whatever your name is, has always been some form of government.
I realize this is subtle but do try and grasp the nuance.
And thats why I think the "rebellion" rationale for the 2nd amendment is illogical.
Your mistaken about my position on laws or government as the font of all good. However, they are the font of protection of rights.
Societies orginally put down laws as a covenant between its members in order to resolve the inevitable conflicts between people. Within that came property law and inevitably codified "rights". Until this happened, our hunter gatherer forbears adjudicated all conflicts eitehr through the "strong man of the tribe" or through conflict. Our forebears, especially when they urbanized , recognized that conflict was unproductive.
The idea of a right to rebel says that every person has the ability to violently refute the govenrment. That undoes the covenant and ends all protections.
It doesn't mean that there aren't circumstances when self protection rebellion aren't called for for all kinds of reasons.
But in enshrining the act of rebellion as a perceived "inherent right", and establishing it as a rationale for the 2nd amendment (much later than when the amendment was originally written mostly as a sop to slave holders) it makes the actual covenant of society more fragile. And since, in practice, the act of violent rebellion against the govenrment has always been punished it is apparent to anyone that this "inherent right" offers no protection. It is ethereal.
As the Archduke recognized all rights are ethereal until some how their are upheld and extend actual protection beyond what the individual can force through his own means. And that, whatever your name is, has always been some form of government.
I realize this is subtle but do try and grasp the nuance.
