Rights and responsibilities

--- In spacesettlers, "John Frazer" wrote:

> Michael wrote:

>>> The right to kill someone is not a liberty, and "protecting your
>>> property" is an excuse not a reason. The space government needs
>>> to be as invasive as possible to ensure the survival of the
>>> colony. If citizens were not armed then the invasion would be
>>> minimal.

Replace "as invasive as possible" with "as invasive as needed, and
only as invasive as needed" and perhaps we agree.

> "orionaut" wrote:

>> The right to "agress back" at someone who aggressed at you
>> first is self-defense, pure and simple. Even beasts, in practice,
>> have this "right."

Absolutly, and I'm not sure why "right" is in quotation marks.

> If teh citizenry don't have to right to posess the instruments to
> fight back against criminals, then they effectively don't have the
> right to defend themselves. The only "rights" they have are to
> listen to the government, to be at the mercy of the government, to
> be at the mercy of criminals unless and until the government stepss
> in to defendd them.

This term, "the instruments to fight back against criminals," means
different things depending on what the criminals have, and on what
tech is available. If the entire habitat is "no guns allowed," then
the crooks don't have them, and the citizenry doesn't need them for
self-defence. Now, this wouldn't work in the US, because there are
so many guns out there already, but in a habitat you just don't let
them in in the first place. Also, if anyone ever invents the "phaser
set on stun" or its equivilent, then guns simply will not be needed
for self-defence, period. That day has not yet arrived. Not yet.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/news-item80.htm

> Michael, are you aware that in no jurisdiction at present, is there
> a requirement on the police to come to your aid if you call 911?

This is true. And in a country where "My florist has a gun!" it is
something to think about. It could be fixed by a few simple changes
to the law, without the need for continuous universal survellance or
implanted chips.

> Please! Everyone on this list, where does this stop?!? I admit

With not letting the guns into the habitat in the first place?

> that I'm drawing the worst possible picture here, but given the

You sure are. Chips implanted in people?!?

> materials at hand, how is my conclusion escapable?

Make a few simple changes in law?

> Michael, do you really propose to live in this kind of world? Do
> you really wish the USA to be this kind of State?
> Michael, you are terribly naive.

Perhaps he is. Then again, lack of overpowering fear of both
criminals and government does not fear equal.

>> Agressing FIRST, otoh, is NOBODY's right, EVER. Those who persist
>> in doing so to the detriment to the health, safety, and well-being
>> of others must be taken swiftly and, yes, violently to task for
>> it.
>> Else, all is anarchy.

With what degree of violence is needed, yes.

> Here, here. The sheeple living at the behest of the government,
> which might as well not even listen to their votes, since they have
> given up the right to reform their government even if it doesn't
> want to be reformed.

Um... The government has tanks, fighter jets, atom bombs, etc. I
doubt that what keeps them in check is a fear of Jed Clampet with his
trusty shotgun.

> The sheeple living in fear of the government, since only the
> government has arms;

Ole' Jed'll teach them a lesson!

> the police swaggering around, breaking down doors at will,
> interrogating and searching at will, since no one has any capacity

You make it sound as if nothing will produce a minimally tolerable
society except for the citizenry and government to be forever holding
each other (literally) at gunpoint.

> to resist. Cops and crooks shooting it out -since there's no way to
> disarm someone who resists the law and is determined to break the
> law and maybe kill at will anyway.

Sure there is. You take the crook's gun away from him. When he
finds himself surrounded by 30 cops, each in armor and pointing a gun
(or even non-lethal), he will likely turn it over all nice and
peaceful-like. If not, then shoot him and take it after he is
injured or dead (or before he wakes back up).

> I respect the law and the need for law. If someone breaks the
> law and abuses another's rights, then they should suffer under
> the law.

Agreed. I even obey some really dumb laws, because if we all obey
the laws we like, then we might as well not have any laws at all.

> If the law cannot be around at the particular moment when a
> citizen is in distress, I support the right of any citizen to use
> lethal force if needed to protect themselves.

Also agreed.

> Note that even today, if you shoot somebody breaking into your
> car, you go down for homicide. Mostly, I agree.

"You can't hang a man for killin' a woman who's tryin' to steal his
horse."
- Willy Nelson, Red-Headed Stranger

But yes, I agree with this, too.

> If you shoot a thug trying to rape somebody, it's justified. I
> wholeheartedly agree.

As do I. When non-lethals are good enough, then maybe not, but for
now, yes. BTW, it would probably not be a crime to "phaser" somebody
stealing your car (or horse).

> How far do you think a citizen should bend over backwards to a
> crook before they present a credible defense? Death? Letting the
> crook into your home, rampage around, rape your wife, beat you
> senseless, steal some stuff, and get away because the cops didn't
> show up?

If he presents a credible threat, then you have bent over (or been
bent over against your will) enough. Shoot at will.

> If you don't have the means to present a credible deterrant, how
> are you to defend yourself? Harsh words? When the crooks can
> have no respect for your rights?

Today, in gun-filled America, the means to present a credible defence
means having a gun of your own. That is why I do not support a ban
on fire-arms. Figure out how to make the bad guys' guns vanish, and
I may well change my mind. But 'till then...

> No, martial arts isn't the answer; The biggest, most aggressive
> thug is king.

Or skillful.

> They didn't call the Colt .45 an "equalizer" for nothing. Colt was
> the first to make a handgun that anybody could use, so anybody
> could beat the biggest thug.

Even if the biggest thug also has a dozen black belts.

> And don't start with the line about there being too much
> accidental use,

Guns could be made safer. I could support that.

> or too easy access for crooks; You can't stop crooks from breaking

If guns are never let into your habitat in the first place, then
letting them be owned by the law-abiding simply provides a source of
weapons for the crooks (a bit risky to steal... at least until he
succeeds once).

> the law, and there are now and have always been more incidences of
> lawful uses of guns by law-abiding citizens to stop a crime and
> defend someone, than the worst numbers of wrongful or accidental
> death by guns.
> Simple factual statistic.

Both sides of the gun debate spin, twist, and selectivly present
statistics to back their side. That is, when they do not lie
baldly. Both sides. I tend to be sceptical of such stats.

> Note the factual statistic about it being far safer to be around a
> civilian using a gun defensively than a cop; Far fewer incidences
> of wrongful shooting, bystander shooting, etc.

This may be true (but see above about gun stats). Would you suggest
that cops be banned from carrying fire-arms?

> Read the papers. Cops spray shots around, shooting people
> unnecessarily,and getting off scot-free.

Cops are NEVER held responsible, or not held AS responible AS OFTEN
as they should be? The first is a situation that needs to be
eliminated, the second is a situation that needs to be improved. Big
diff.

> Citizens know that the full weight of the government won't protect
> them if they do something wrong accidentally or negligently, it'll
> come down on them!

As it should.

> Cops know that the government will protect them.

It should come down on them too. If we could get past the notion
that anybody who ever questions, in any way, any action of any cop at
any time is anti-law enforcement, that would help a great deal.

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "Freedom is not empowerment. Empowerment is what the Serbs have in
> Bosnia. Anybody can grab a gun and be empowered. It's not
> entitlement. An entitlement is what people on welfare get, and how
> free are they? It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights--
> the 'right' to education, the 'right' to health care, the 'right'
> to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those
> aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery--hay and a barn for
> human cattle.
> There's only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn
> well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the
> duty to take the consequences." P.J. O'Rourke

P.J. O'Rourke is full of it.