Had to kick out a damn OCer today

[Citizen]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

SNIP A man who puts words in my mouth and then tries to attack me for what he just did, is not a person I have any intellectual fear of. In fact, I find those last 3 words to be oxymoronic.

Point taken.

Now I'm staying "ducked" to keep out of all three of y'alls way.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

PT111 wrote:

SNIP Aloose interpretaion of the Bible could easily mean that property rights are God Given. Self-Defense is a defensive action from an agressor. If you have property rights given by God then someone trying toinfringe on your property rights are therefore and agressor and you are defending yourself. In this case property rights equal self-defense.

Is that philosophical enough?

The John Adams quote Itossed into the discussion above touches on that.

First, let me say that we have debated this a number of times on this forum. I don't know that I've yet come across an answer that totally satisfied me either way.

Since I couldn't sort it out in a way that didn't seem to hinge ultimately on arbitrarily setting one right above another, I've always gone with the one that seemed to make the most sense--respect the other guys property rights. Mainly because I'd rather that than have the government get too much involved. As compared to any set of arguments that were dispositive.

Sigh. Maybe one day I'll sortit all out for myself.

 

[ixtow]

imported post

I'm not sure I'm a source of an answer, but I can sate my position.

The United States declares that Property Rights trump virtually all others. How else would Corporations be used as a proxy to infringe?

I disagree. Every part of the Bill of Rights exists for a damn good reason. And the Bill of Rights itself is nothing more than a good compromise between government power and freedoms the people require to be people. Placing one part as a priority over another is the first step down 'the slippery slope.' Example cited in above paragraph.

And if you don't like it... F yourself in the A. I'm enjoying that...

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

I consider 'property rights' and 'the right to defense' to be equal. While many interpret property right to trump it.

I agree,sort of. Right to defense means the right to defend property, which includes both your life and your body.

There is a confusing habit to try to list rights, when, asthe writers of the 9th Ammendment wrote, they are too numerous to list. Instead you try to get tothe first principle and define what a right is in general terms. The best explanation I've read was John Locke's assertion that all your rights arederivations of the right to property, since your life, liberty, land, money, person,etc., areall things that you own.

Ayn Rand tried to say that all rights are derived from the right to life, but her argument was less well-written than Locke's, even though it seemed to follow similar logic.

If you own property, and open the door and invite the public in.... Disrespecting them when they arrive is a double-whammy.

No one opens their doors to the entire public, ever. You can't walk into many stores with no shirt on, for instance, even though this is not illegal in most places. The store makes the rules for which members of the public it considers desirable and which it doesnot. Many restaurants have a dress code.

While I do find it disrespectful to be thrown out for carrying a holstered pistol, I recognize that there was never any requirement on their part to respect me in the first place.

And don't listen to Citizen, I'm actually quite dumb when you look at me closely. And uglier than my avatar, to boot.

 

[ixtow]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

ixtow wrote:

I consider 'property rights' and 'the right to defense' to be equal. While many interpret property right to trump it.

I agree,sort of. Right to defense means the right to defend property, which includes both your life and your body.

There is a confusing habit to try to list rights, when, asthe writers of the 9th Ammendment wrote, they are too numerous to list. Instead you try to get tothe first principle and define what a right is in general terms. The best explanation I've read was John Locke's assertion that all your rights arederivations of the right to property, since your life, liberty, land, money, person,etc., areall things that you own.

Ayn Rand tried to say that all rights are derived from the right to life, but her argument was less well-written than Locke's, even though it seemed to follow similar logic.

If you own property, and open the door and invite the public in.... Disrespecting them when they arrive is a double-whammy.

No one opens their doors to the entire public, ever. You can't walk into many stores with no shirt on, for instance, even though this is not illegal in most places. The store makes the rules for which members of the public it considers desirable and which it doesnot. Many restaurants have a dress code.

While I do find it disrespectful to be thrown out for carrying a holstered pistol, I recognize that there was never any requirement on their part to respect me in the first place.

And don't listen to Citizen, I'm actually quite dumb when you look at me closely. And uglier than my avatar, to boot.

I have to disagree with Ayn and John. My Rights need not be derived from anything other than the nature of what I am. As such, none are dependent upon others. Except that a lack of one will often follow a lack of them all. You know, separate, but equal......

Turning someone away for not wearing a shirt is different from the implication by proxy of rights trumping that they do not deserve to live while on 'your property.'

The flaw in the argument appears when one considers that I still have a right to be alive no matter where I am.

 

[HankT]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Not to contradict the honorable member from California; but here is something to toss into the mix for consideration:

"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would."
--- John Adams, Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763,reprinted in 3 The Works of John Adams 438 (Charles F. Adams ed., 1851).

Are you suggesting that Adams took the position that his indisputable right of nature superceded the property rights of another?

 

[Citizen]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

SNIP My Rights need not be derived from anything other than the nature of what I am. As such, none are dependent upon others.

OF COURSE!!!!

How did I overlook that? I knew that already, ina dim sort of way. Had quite forgotten it in fact.

Thank you, Ixtow!!!!

The property derivationserves to convince others who would otherwise not be able to recognize the proper derivation. Meaningthe property derivation makes a great tool to convince those who cannot see for themselves that their own rights derive the nature of what they are, recognizingthe source of one's own rights being essential to recognizing/acknowledging the rights of others.

Which makes the property derivation useful, very useful.

But not as useful as Ixtow's. In the final analysis, it cannot be anything otherthan Ixtow's.

Of course, I have to wonder if guys like Locke, Rand, and other philospersknew all along, and were just posing it as a property derivation to convince the rest of the world to bring it up a notch or three by giving them something the could relate to.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

HankT wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Not to contradict the honorable member from California; but here is something to toss into the mix for consideration:

"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would."
--- John Adams, Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763,reprinted in 3 The Works of John Adams 438 (Charles F. Adams ed., 1851).

Are you suggesting that Adams took the position that his indisputable right of nature superceded the property rights of another?

No.

I wassuggesting that it might since self-defense is a right of nature, but it seemed to me that property rights were a constructof men's minds.

I brought the Adams quote into it since it reminded me that self-defense is a right of nature, just about as fundamental as it gets since it sits right up against the very right to be alive.

Ixtow's point just above throws the whole thing into a whole new light.

Once again I am wondering if my difficulty in sorting out something for myself lay not in an inability toevaluate the factors; but in trying to solve it using askewed premise.

Now, maybe, with abetter premise, I can arrive at an answer that makes sense.

 

[HankT]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

HankT wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Not to contradict the honorable member from California; but here is something to toss into the mix for consideration:

"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would."
--- John Adams, Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763,reprinted in 3 The Works of John Adams 438 (Charles F. Adams ed., 1851).

Are you suggesting that Adams took the position that his indisputable right of nature superceded the property rights of another?

No.

I wassuggesting that it might since self-defense is a right of nature, but it seemed to me that property rights were a constructof men's minds.

I brought the Adams quote into it since it reminded me that self-defense is a right of nature, just about as fundamental as it gets since it sits right up against the very right to be alive.

Ixtow's point just above throws the whole thing into a whole new light.

Once again I am wondering if my difficulty in sorting out something for myself lay not in an inability toevaluate the factors; but in trying to solve it using askewed premise.

Now, maybe, with abetter premise, I can arrive at an answer that makes sense.

Another thing to consider, perhaps.

Seems to me that the Adams' quote includes defense of property as well as self-defense. I would think that means property rights. Which means that Adams believed that defense of property rights was included in his "indisputable right of nature."

The defenses Adams speaks of seem to beof complementary things, not hierarchically arranged things.

 

[ixtow]

imported post

I think Adams was trying to say the same thing; that the nature of human existence embodies certain rights as the same definition of human existence.

Lacking the rights enumerated, we aren't very human anymore. The struggle against oppression is merely the demand to be a person.

Hence the agenda for re-definition of 'civil rights' when we already had them enumerated... The politics at hand wanted a new name for a re-classing and elimination of certain rights, yet retain a name for the new list that sounded good. Civil Rights are a replacement for the Bill of Rights. Follow the bouncing ball now...

 

[ixtow]

imported post

If the only information you have is flawed or incomplete, so will be your thoughts on the subject. If someone puts a dowsing rod in your hand and tells you to clear the minefield, you're probably not going to do a real good job, huh? Until you realize you're being guided by someone who wants to deceive you.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

If the only information you have is flawed or incomplete, so will be your thoughts on the subject. If someone puts a dowsing rod in your hand and tells you to clear the minefield, you're probably not going to do a real good job, huh? Until you realize you're being guided by someone who wants to deceive you.

Yep.

Hey!!! I always wondered why Longwatch told me I have to stomp while dowsing the minefield!!

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

I think ixtow and I are arguing essentially the same thing about the nature of rights; that one fundamental right is just as essential as the others, because in the final analysis they are all about the same thing. Your property can be viewed as an extension of your life, or vice versa.

And I think I agree with you about "civil rights", too.

But getting back to the topic at hand, you have no right to carry on another's property without that owner's consent, because you have no right to be on his property in the first place, only the privilege of a visitor. Your right to self defense is equal to the right of the property owner and gives you no authority to violate it.

The business of being "open to the public" is just civil rights nonsense. No private property is truly open to the public. It's open to whomever the owner allows in.

There are laws against discrimination, but those laws are all civil rights nonsense as well, since they violate the property owner's right to freely associate and choose who to do business with or allow onto his property. I find it disheartening when gun rights activists sometimes claim they are being "discriminated against". Discriminating is the right of conscience.

 

[Crossfire Jedi]

imported post

I know this is the open carry forums, but why not like at conceal carry..what people don't know wont hurt them. I am not saying we should all conceal everywhere, but in areas where they have signage or rumors of no firearms being allowed why not conceal and avoid the headache.

And for those black helicopters out there, I am not stating I do this :celebrate

I get a kick how everyone from other states chime in the Arizona forums and start some sh___.

And for the security guard/loss prevention guy, ignore what they said..it's not easy to find work anywhere these days and you are doing your job. It issucks you had a bad encounter with an OC'r, that being said I have bad experiences on a daily basis it seems with those that don't carry anything :banghead:

Just speaking for myself...when I explain technology to someone I break it down to where the end usercan understand what I am saying. Some of you legal/philisophical/etc..are a bit hard to follow.

Arizona Only Forums - No Out Of Staters'

www.arizonadefensegroup.com

 

[American Rattlesnake]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

I think ixtow and I are arguing essentially the same thing about the nature of rights; that one fundamental right is just as essential as the others, because in the final analysis they are all about the same thing. Your property can be viewed as an extension of your life, or vice versa.

And I think I agree with you about "civil rights", too.

But getting back to the topic at hand, you have no right to carry on another's property without that owner's consent, because you have no right to be on his property in the first place, only the privilege of a visitor. Your right to self defense is equal to the right of the property owner and gives you no authority to violate it.

The business of being "open to the public" is just civil rights nonsense. No private property is truly open to the public. It's open to whomever the owner allows in.

There are laws against discrimination, but those laws are all civil rights nonsense as well, since they violate the property owner's right to freely associate and choose who to do business with or allow onto his property. I find it disheartening when gun rights activists sometimes claim they are being "discriminated against". Discriminating is the right of conscience.

Thank you. As I have followed the responses of ixtow, Citizen, and yourself, I began to formulate an argument for a response. Then I came to your post, quoted above. You've said everything I was going to say, only better.

 

[American Rattlesnake]

imported post

Crossfire Jedi wrote:

Some of you legal/philisophical/etc..are a bit hard to follow.

Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions, since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation... ~Bertrand Russell

 

[Crossfire Jedi]

imported post

What he said :celebrate

 

[crisisweasel]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

1st Amendment?
He may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but I have to agree with another poster... I couldn't accept a job where my employer disrespected it's customers' rights after inviting them onto the property to take their money...

I have yet to have a single job in which my employer was ethical. The degrees of unethical behavior vary but I haven't had a job yet where I haven't been put into a situation wherein I had to swallow hard and do something I didn't want to do.

That said, all the stuff about corporations may well be true, but the idea that people can just walk away from jobs that feed one's family and pay one's rent in the middle of a horrible recession is just unrealistic. It's easy to tell someone else to do that.

If indeed anyone here knows of any ethical employers in the Tucson area with job openings (IT), in all seriousness, please let me know, because right about now I've about had it with my present job.

 

[PT111]

imported post

crisisweasel wrote:

ixtow wrote:

1st Amendment?
He may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but I have to agree with another poster... I couldn't accept a job where my employer disrespected it's customers' rights after inviting them onto the property to take their money...

I have yet to have a single job in which my employer was ethical. The degrees of unethical behavior vary but I haven't had a job yet where I haven't been put into a situation wherein I had to swallow hard and do something I didn't want to do.

That said, all the stuff about corporations may well be true, but the idea that people can just walk away from jobs that feed one's family and pay one's rent in the middle of a horrible recession is just unrealistic. It's easy to tell someone else to do that.

If indeed anyone here knows of any ethical employers in the Tucson area with job openings (IT), in all seriousness, please let me know, because right about now I've about had it with my present job.

Wow, I have never had a job where ethics was questionable. One supervisors used to tell us that he would never ask us to do anything that was illegal, immoral or unethical and he did not. I am not sure what companies that you have worked for or what you consider unethical but I have never found it to be a problem. However I do know of some cases where it has been, but did not involve me.

 

[BB62]

imported post

no carry permit ? wrote:

...We must remember that the Right to Keep & Bare Arms is not a right to violate private property rights...

I suppose you mean "keep and bear" arms, right?