“Oh these poor kids who are forced to work! Let them work and be exploited by corporations - Better than selling themselves on the street!”

“What if the government helps them out so they don’t have to do either? We’re a very wealthy country, after all.”

“Collectivist/statist!”

Good god, imagine holding this ideology?

I’m sure you’ve helped plenty of children get off the streets. Let me guess: restricting everyone’s rights helps the children—unless it’s Hollywood. They can hire whomever they want.

So sarcasm and a red herring from the Trump guy always talking about “fallacies.”

No surprise — I wouldn’t want to explain why I support school shootings and child labor exploitation either.

Because rights only exist in the context of a wider society and governmental system. You have no power to give that, but people as a collective do.

I should be allowed to fly a plane. I have no history of crashing planes and don’t intend to. My passengers safety? In a free market, they can fly elsewhere, and my airline would quickly go out of business. No need for meddling statists trying to restrict my natural right to fly.

What about the people in houses that I could potentially crash into? Well, that’s in the future— and imaginary. Who are these people I’m “protecting”, after all? Can you name them? What’s the color of their eyes? Their rights aren’t as important as restricting my right to fly.

Likewise, anyone should be allowed to buy a gun. It’s also a totally natural right. Been posting about shooting up schools for months? Well, who knows what the future brings— here’s your AR-15. Your right to “defend yourself” is more important than schoolchildren’s rights to life.

Because rights only exist in the context of a wider society and governmental system. You have no power to give that, but people as a collective do.

If the government were to fall tomorrow, would you deny someone the right to life, or steal their property?

There would be no rights if the government fell. It doesn't matter what you say rights only exist because of society and government. Property only has meaning under a legal body that recognizes and enforces it.

You can't get around it.

And therefor you wouldn’t confer someone the right to life or to own property, let alone advocate or protect such rights. Is that correct?

There are no such rights.

I just told you property has no meaning without a legal system and the recognition it brings. In fact that’s literally how it came about.

I think you’re just willfully stupid at this point, pretty much everyone is saying something similar to what I am.

There are no such rights because you refuse to give them. You will not afford anyone the right to life or the right to own anything. And of course you will not defend them. Only government can do that.

A majority want gun control. In some instances a vast majority, including republicans. So they’re really not winning— not with their arguments anyway. — Mikie

From Pew...

Roughly half of Americans (53%) favor stricter gun laws, a decline since 2019, according to the Center’s April 2021 survey. Smaller shares say these laws are about right (32%) or should be less strict (14%). The share of Americans who say gun laws should be stricter has decreased from 60% in September 2019. — https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/

... I don't call that 'not winning'. And this is just 'stricter laws'. With most gun deaths being handguns, we need a lot more than 'stricter laws'.

They win by buying off politicians and through gerrymandering and through stocking the courts, etc. — Mikie

Indeed. So what chance do you think the "we need stricter laws" campaign has? The consistent refusal to widen out the debate just leads every campaign to butt its head up against this brick wall. You're arguing here to keep a debate on-focus to a solution that you've just admitted will never work because no matter how much support it has, the government are corrupt and won't pass it.

So what's the focus for?

I’m sure you’ve helped plenty of children get off the streets — NOS4A2

Maybe they have, but you missed something. There are organizations helping, some of which are kept going by taxes. Specialists, because an individual can't be a specialist in all. Roads, infrastructures, hospitals, schools, organized health care, electricity, clean water, sewage systems, whatever, elected officials taking the job of organizing things (employees of everyone in a society), ... And shrinks helping survivors of school shootings, that would have been better off with fewer guns available to whoever.

Florida bill to allow gun owners to carry without permit heads to Gov. DeSantis' desk
^{— James Call · USA TODAY · Mar 31, 2023}

In a way, I'd rather see something like a new Moon race (perhaps even a Mars race, but not an arms race), better forward goals, and that can't be achieved by a couple of anti-cooperators. If you're one of those, then you have no chance of taking on, say, North Korea, or just Cosa Nostra's Chicago chapter.

—unless it’s Hollywood. — NOS4A2

a solution that you've just admitted will never work because no matter how much support it has — Isaac

I never said that. I only mentioned why it has so far been enacted. There was a (albeit weak) gun bill passed last year, which surprised some people. It’s not impossible for the majority to win out— it’s just a matter of effort and time.

@NOS4A2

Can you get back to this question? https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/794202

There’s no point to a debate or any forms of protestation as gun culture is to entrenched in their culture.

It’s the nature of their capitalism to sell and and such make profits whether that be guns or bullet a or happy meal

Even a sane person with no priors can go mental and shoot people.

You just have to hope you’re not there

There are no such rights because you refuse to give them. You will not afford anyone the right to life or the right to own anything. And of course you will not defend them. Only government can do that. — NOS4A2

Yes NOS, if only everyone would behave and not take anything from anyone else and if someone did take something from someone else we should defend the person who was wronged.

If only ...

Do you really need to be told that this is not the way the world works?

The American fascination with guns is a political one.

There is this myth held by Americans that they are more free and have more liberties than others, thanks to their constitution, and the "free ownership" of guns guaranteed to them is a sign of this for many. Secondly, guns are seen as defense of their home, not something you have for hunting or for a shooting hobby. It is as if you would be naive and totally dependent on the government without a gun, but with a gun you can independently defend your home and family. And then you have a gun culture that harks back the frontier era.

And one has to say that owning a firearm is quite popular: nearly every third American owns one and nearly half of the American households have a firearm. That means that arms manufacturers hope for some politician coming into power to attempt to "ban firearms" in the US. The demand spike would be great for them.

By what mechanism do men confer rights? And how do you reconcile this with your earlier statement:

I believe rights are naturally founded, derived from human nature, and not the edicts of those in power.

We use our reason, speech, and bodies to derive, confer, and protect rights, like any right that has ever been uttered.

We observe human nature in order to find what is universal about human beings. For instance, humans need to speak, to communicate, to be creative. So we grant them the freedom to speak, refuse to intervene when they are doing so, and defend that right if necessary.

We use our reason, speech, and bodies to derive, confer, and protect rights, like any right that has ever been uttered. — NOS4A2

Who are we? Vigilantes?

So we grant them the freedom to speak — NOS4A2

Again, who are we?

There are plenty of people, from individuals to school board members to the governor of Florida, who attempt to do away with that freedom. In many cases they succeed.

We are human beings.

It’s the nature of state education to have its curriculum determined by the state. If you want to tell kids about sex I would advise doing it at home.

Human beings grant rights. But not the state — even though the state is just a bunch of human beings. We don’t like states, because St Reagan said government is the problem.

Something something human nature, something something natural rights, blah blah blah collectivism blah blah blah I hate paying taxes and read too much Ayn Rand yada yada yada. :yawn:

“Child labor is wrong.”
“But what if a kid wants to work?”

“What if a kid wants to learn about sex in school?”
“Too bad.”

It’s not impossible for the majority to win out— it’s just a matter of effort and time. — Mikie

Your optimism is admirable. I'm afraid I don't share it.

I’m not that optimistic, but it’s possible. Look at civil rights, women’s rights, gay marriage, even attitudes towards marijuana. Look at the IRA and gun bill last year. They’re both way too weak and I’m not an apologist for either, but I don’t think either of us would have predicted that even they would pass.

Regardless, this is on the federal level. On the state and city level, which I’ve increasingly focused on politically, things are much less gridlocked. Not to mention more energy in the labor movement. All gives me more hope than others perhaps.

We are human beings. — NOS4A2

How are we human beings to protect ourselves from ourselves? Do you think that everyone who is not part of the government cares about your interests and will rush to defend you and your rights? Can your guns protect you if you are outnumbered or overpowered?

It’s the nature of state education to have its curriculum determined by the state. — NOS4A2

Don't change the subject. You claimed:

... we grant them the freedom to speak, refuse to intervene when they are doing so, and defend that right if necessary. — NOS4A2

There are individuals, human beings, who are not part of a state educational system who are actively working to limit freedom of speech. As human beings they too are included in "we". So, "we" human beings also deny others freedom of speech. "We" also intervene when "they", (who are also "we"), want to uphold freedom of speech. "We" also deny that right if necessary.

Already explained how rights mean nothing without a legal and governmental body to recognize and give them, and a society.

At this point it’s just willful ignorance

I see nothing wrong with the Parental Rights in Education bill because it restricts the power of the state and expands the power of parents. State employees ought not have the power to instruct children in gender ideology. Those teachers can teach their own kids about sexuality as much as they wish, but they ought not have that same power over other children.

I see nothing wrong with the Parental Rights in Education bill — NOS4A2

I see nothing right with your attempt to evade the issue. But since you wont address those issues I'll address the one you raise in their place.

A bill that passes becomes part of the power of the state. This bill does not expand the power of parents. Despite the name of the bill it represents the very thing you claim to be opposed to, the power of the state.

The state of Florida, not the county, not the town, or the city, or the school district, or the school itself has any right to teach as it deems appropriate. All state employees must comply with the ideology of the state, an ideology that hides from students ugly parts of American history.

But it is not just elementary and secondary education. With the hostile takeover of New College, and his battle with the college board over African American studies, DeSantis's reach extends to college education as well.

Those teachers can teach their own kids about sexuality as much as they wish, but they ought not have that same power over other children. — NOS4A2

It would be surprising to hear you argue for limits to free speech given your argument against limiting free speech, but we have come to expect inconsistency and lack of coherence from you.

I don’t know the details of the bill but I still don’t think race and gender ideology ought to be taught in public schools. Tax-payer dollars ought not to be spent on such schooling. But if this bill extends to private institutions, businesses, and universities, then that is wrong and I oppose it.

I see nothing wrong with the Parental Rights in Education bill because it restricts the power of the state and expands the power of parents — NOS4A2

In the general case, it's not quite that simple.

Better communication could help prevent deaths like Alex Radita's, inquiry hears
^{— Jason Herring · Calgary Herald · Sep 22, 2022}

Alex Radita (1998-2013) could have avoided much suffering and death, and instead experienced life. In my personal opinion (of little importance), the sentences of the parents were harsh, yet the case shows a problem.

You continue to ignore the problem. You are against the power of the state, except when you are in favor of what it does.

Who gets to decide how tax-payer dollars ought to be spent? It can't be the tax-payers if there are tax-payers on both sided of the issue. This is the same problem you refuse to face with "we". For you it really means "you".