Friday, January 11, 2013

The right to shut the f#ck up!

There's a title for ya.

So, on the book of Face, a friend posted an article titled "What journalists need to know about guns and gun control". I'm not going to link it because I'm not going to give them credence. If you want to read it yourself, have at it. Search the phrase and you'll find it.

In there, the chode who wrote the article (yes, I'm being insulting. They're an asshat and I really don't care if you think my insulting someone is childish or 'lets me lose the argument'. Blow me) says "...the Constitution gave the people the right to bear arms..." That was all I needed to know about this writers position on the topics of guns and government. The whole thing is littered with other signals, but that was the kicker for me. I could dive into many other things that are wrong or skewed, but that one is a critically important issue that everyone needs to understand.

I brought it up in my level setting posts, but there seems to be a lot of confusion in this country, if not the world, on what is a "right". How you see them and explain them to people says a lot about who you are and your position on the roles of the citizen and the government.

What is a right?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Beautiful words. When I watched the HBO series "John Adams" and listened to these words being read, I welled up.
A "right" is natural. It comes from our Creator; G-d if you will. If you're an atheist, then just as we see G-d as being the Creator of nature, you would see nature itself as being the originator of rights. Because you exist, these belong to you. If you remove the boundaries of government or even modern civilization, these rights do not go away.
You have a right to speak, in whatever way you choose. If you're around others, you may say things that they don't like. That's fine. They can leave. But for them to attempt to force you to be quiet would violate the natural right of free speech AND your right to be free from harm from others to whom you've done nothing more than offend.
On that, many believe they have a right to be free from anything they find offensive. How does that work? Many people find dogs fucking to be offensive. Yet a dog is simply doing what is natural. Where do you get off telling them they can't? Now, this would obviously lead to "So people can walk down the street naked?!" You're now injecting society into a discussion about rights. When you move into a social setting, things can change because of something called decorum. We may get there.

Okay, logic may dictate (who follows logic anymore, but...) that if you've come this far and are at least understanding what I'm saying, then you'll be up for more.Your rights, all of them, being Natural, mean you only have to answer to their provider for any action you take with these rights. This is what is critically important. If you only have to answer to G-d or Nature for your right to speak, be secure in your person and property, and any other Natural right, then as long as you don't violate anyone else' rights in the process, you're all good. So while my speech may offend you, while you may not approve of my "hording" of food, water, guns, ammunition, while I may have committed a crime and you WANT me to come out and tell everything I did, etc... you have no legitimate right to prevent me from doing so because it doesn't affect you! If you feel you are affected, walk away. Problem solved.

So now we come to the fun portion of our program and tackle specifics.
Is the ubiquitous term "heathcare" a right? Follow logic and you know the answer. No. Why is it no? In order for you to have a "right" to healthcare, that would mean you have a G-d given right to the goods and services of others. You can demand of them these items and they have to give it to you. It's a right, isn't it? If that were the case, why don't you have a right to an iPod? If this were the case, clinicians, hospitals, pharmaceutical makers, device manufacturers, et al would be no more than slaves. But they're not. These people have chosen to perform a service and if they choose to allow you to purchase them, that is up to them. The second you demand these goods and services, you are attempting to make them slaves, even if you plan on paying for them. Many slaves received a "wage". It's just it was so miniscule that the slave could never get out of bondage.
Is it a right? Yes. "But you can't yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater!", shouts a friend of mine while discussing these things. Actually, you can. If there is a fire, you bet your ass you can. However, what the common phrase is suggesting is that it has been determined, by society, that it is illegal to attempt to incite public unrest, I.E. a riot. Think of the rights that you hold dear and those protected by the US Constitution and ask how these rights somehow violate another's right to exist.
You believe you have me, because based on the layout and the example given, I don't have a right to a gun because that would mean enslaving a firearms manufacturer into making me guns. Ooo... my very own gun shop. Hmm, you progressives may be onto something here. Kidding.
Our natural right is to defend ourselves from those who wish to violate our rights, even if they are our government. The 'arms' protected by our Second Amendment could be anything from a sharpened stick to a firearm. It just so happens that the best way to repel an oppressor is with the same tools they have or better. "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight."

Now, the minute a government attempts to violate Natural rights, they are becoming oppressive. This doesn't mean that everyone should rush for their muskets, but it is what it is. As a society, we have chosen to come together and live within and around each other. Because of this, there are some things that we have decided, as a majority, that just shouldn't be done. This doesn't mean that the rights of the minority should be violated, but we have allowed some restrictions to "keep the peace". BUT, this "slope" is a tricky one and there is a fine line between peace and tyranny. The more government violates our rights and the slower they do it, the easier it is for us to lose everything. In truth, we are not a free people, as we have allowed The State to violate our rights and restrict our liberties to the point that if you live an average life, every day you are breaking the law. Try as you might, you will violate some rule, statute, ordinance, regulation, or law and could find yourself in jail.

As a whole, we need to return to an understanding of what rights are, and more importantly, are not, and begin pushing back The State. If we don't (either because of fear, indifference, or because we support The State when it does things we like) then we will end up like a China, Venezuela, or worse. And YES, it can happen here and is already happening slowly. PATRIOT Act and NDAA mean anything to you?

No comments:

Post a Comment

All comments will be moderated. I don't suffer temper tantrums.