Freeman Essay #93: “The State is the Source of Rights?

CH regurtigates old posts. Freeman Essay #93: “The State is the Source of Rights? contains some mistakes about Hobbes - the same one everyone makes - but also an interesting discussion on the source(s) of Rights and the source of Law. the discussion there is largely focussed around DB's - interesting - interest in Libertarianism, but coming from that it is also possible to look more fundamentally at rights. I plan to expand this at some point, but for now I'll just quote my comment:

Your discussion of law-from-govt isn't terribly convincing, but I think that is less interesting than the question of rights, so I'll comment on that. I think a more coherent view of "rights" is the (Hobbesian) idea that in a "state of nature" everyone has a right to everything (unlike Hobbes, you don't provide a coherent defn of "rights"). Accepting a government (whether a formally constituted one or even your merchants court) means losing some of your freedom of action (aka rights) in exchange, presumably, for law-n-order. On that view a govt is, intrinsically, not a "source" of rights by its very nature. It is something that naturally removes rights, and this is only to be expected. Your Dec of Indy says "all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable...", which is the same thing: those rights pre-date govt.

Those not subject to confiscation could still be used illegally

A comment at Commonsense Firearm Regulation (found via CH):

> those not subject to confiscation could still be used illegally
This doesn't really make sense as an objection. Most (I didn't check this, but I think it is true, including the most recent) mass shootings with AR-15s involve youngish people buying newish AR-15s. Taking out all the legal ones - most obviously including those in gun shops - would significantly raise the barrier to acquiring them. AFAIK, in general, school-type mass shootings don't involve criminals; so, ironically, you're not terribly worried about criminals possessing these weapons (for these purposes).

Your assessment is inevitably worthless

Via fb, via cnsnews.com, I come to Panda's Thumb, Creationist's Wikipedia page removed, and I say:

Late to the party, but I don't see anyone making the obvious point. You say:
"I am not at all familiar with how Wikipedia applies its guidelines, but I would have guessed that..."
Which essentially means, you don't know what you're talking about. If you don't understand wiki's guidelines for notability, or how they are applied, you[r] assessment is inevitably worthless. How addicted to your own opinion do you have to be not to realise that?

God You are right, I should look elsewhere this is very boring

Nathan has left a new comment on your post "Men spake from God being moved by the Holy Ghost /...": 

God
You are right, I should look elsewhere this is very boring.

I think the problem is that you choose to direct conversations in THE MOST boring direction possible. 

You are not playful with conversation, you don't use it as an opportunity to explore concepts, or to expand an understanding of something. 

So rather than explore the question of how regulation becomes Law (and therefore different and apparently better) you would rather discuss that you didn't literally say regulation is bad.
IT'S REALLY BORING.

Posted by Nathan to Stoat at 9:57 pm