XPost: talk.politics.guns, alt.politics, talk.politics.misc   
   XPost: soc.rights.human   
   From: ¡Jones@fubar.com   
      
   On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 16:54:53 -0400, in talk.politics.guns Mr. B1ack   
    wrote:   
      
   > It's all kind of fuzzy thinking about fuzzy criteria. Naturally   
   >   you're gonna get fuzzy results. "Freedom"/"Liberty"/"Natural   
   >   rights" .... there's a lot of rhetoric but in every case we're   
   >   seeing people trying to justify and codify emotional/empathic   
   >   "feelings" about what they and/or others oughtta be free to   
   >   do, or free from, "just because". Doesn't help that there are   
   >   about, oh, seven BILLION slightly different ideas as to what   
   >   "freedom" actually means ....   
   >   
   >   While empathy is fairly constant across time and cultures   
   >   many of the finer details of "freedom" are heavily influenced   
   >   by the local culture & history. "Free" to an Englishman is   
   >   not the same as "free" to some goatherd in Afghanistan,   
   >   some deep-Amazon tribesman or someone living in   
   >   China. As such, I don't think you CAN compose a "freest   
   >   country" list or "freedom index".   
   >   
   >   In any country, an emphasis on "freedom" (local def) is   
   >   likely to increase the overall 'happiness index' ... but also   
   >   is likely to decrease economic productivity and overall   
   >   social order. Biz/govt types always think they'll do better   
   >   by clamping down on freedoms. There's also the   
   >   paradoxical aspect of "freedom" too ... that the more   
   >   options everybody has the more factionalization you   
   >   get - each faction out to silence/suppress the heretics.   
   >   Think, say, 'abortion rights'.   
      
   I don't have a problem agreeing with most of what you write; one man's   
   idea of "freedom" (eg: to play loud music) might easily conflict with   
   another person's desire for quiet... I am aware of that problem and   
   that it's not a black/white matter; the center is poorly defined and   
   tends to be a moving target.   
      
   That said, we do *try* to place an operational definition and   
   differentiation upon the idea of "rights" versus "freedoms".  Whenever   
   I write, I will define human rights as having three, I admit, somewhat   
   arbitrary, properties:   
      
   1) Endemic   
   2) Indelible   
   3) Universal   
      
   "Freedoms" are anything else we can do that do not meet these   
   criteria.   
      
   "Endemic" means to me that the right I discuss is a property of the   
   human being, not the law; it is simply recognized by a constitution,   
   not created by it.  The person has a human right simply by the fact   
   that they're a human being.  They do not earn it; it is not subject to   
   licensing or regulation in any way by the government.  "Congress shall   
   make no law..." is a pretty good segway into a discussion of basic   
   human rights.   
      
   "Indelible" means that, regardless what abomination a person might   
   commit, that basic human right still holds.  By this definition, your   
   life is not a basic human right since about half of the planet allows   
   capital punishment.  OTOH, your religion is a basic human right   
   because this is a protected area even on death row.  (See the next   
   topic before you reply, please.)   
      
   "Universal" means *generally* universal; I'm not going to get into   
   what some third world garden spot does on this matter.  Bolivia   
   protects your right to believe in whatever religion (or lack thereof)   
   suits you in its constitution... yeah, you can find some countries   
   that don't; oh, well... I'm over it.   
      
   So, I will now apply *my* definition of rights to the question of gun   
   ownership.   
      
   Is it endemic?  It is not.  A person arriving in the US by plane, by   
   swimming the Rio Grande (or Rio Bravo del Norte, depending upon your   
   perspective), or barfed up by a whale on the Santa Barbara beach does   
   *not* have the right to own a gun.   
      
   Is it indelible?  Obviously not!  If you falsify your college   
   transcripts (for example), you have committed a felony, believe it or   
   not... college transcripts are notarized documents and altering any of   
   them (or any other notarized document) is perjury!  Perjury is a   
   felony.  You may never again in your life own a gun by legislative   
   fiat!  The big point here is that this was not a punishment assessed   
   by a jury.   
      
   Is it generally universal?  Bah!  The US is the only country on the   
   face of the planet that seems to believe thus and only here because   
   the gun industry has such a lucrative business supplying the Mexican   
   and Central American dope cartels with guns.  It isn't even sort of   
   universal... that one isn't a close call.   
      
   OK, now you know what *I* think; please use your remaining two wishes   
   carefully!   
      
   Jones   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)