Gun Plan

[Antonio the Sixth]

The workers need to prepare for TEH REVOLUTION, you see, Scott.

Even when I wasn't a socialist I supported gun rights, largely because I don't think that state monopolies on firepower are pre recs for good behavior on the part of the state. (And if the experience in the USSR, PRC, et al. are any indication, I'd say those are safe bets)

Baseless generalization followed by a lousy parallel to some random authoritarian regime... Dear God, do you realize you're sounding like a Paultard? Just replace "state monopolies on firepower" with "socialized medicine" or some other catchphrase.

[TNF]

The workers need to prepare for TEH REVOLUTION, you see, Scott.

Even when I wasn't a socialist I supported gun rights, largely because I don't think that state monopolies on firepower are pre recs for good behavior on the part of the state. (And if the experience in the USSR, PRC, et al. are any indication, I'd say those are safe bets)

Baseless generalization followed by a lousy parallel to some random authoritarian regime... Dear God, do you realize you're sounding like a Paultard? Just replace "state monopolies on firepower" with "socialized medicine" or some other catchphrase.

Attacking the arguer rather than the actual argument?

[Beet]

A freedom that is protected only due to force of arms is no freedom at all. I've never understood how people miss the contradiction there.

[Franzl]

The workers need to prepare for TEH REVOLUTION, you see, Scott.

Even when I wasn't a socialist I supported gun rights, largely because I don't think that state monopolies on firepower are pre recs for good behavior on the part of the state. (And if the experience in the USSR, PRC, et al. are any indication, I'd say those are safe bets)

Baseless generalization followed by a lousy parallel to some random authoritarian regime... Dear God, do you realize you're sounding like a Paultard? Just replace "state monopolies on firepower" with "socialized medicine" or some other catchphrase.

Attacking the arguer rather than the actual argument?

That was a pretty good rebuttal to your "argument".

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

The workers need to prepare for TEH REVOLUTION, you see, Scott.

Even when I wasn't a socialist I supported gun rights, largely because I don't think that state monopolies on firepower are pre recs for good behavior on the part of the state. (And if the experience in the USSR, PRC, et al. are any indication, I'd say those are safe bets)

Baseless generalization followed by a lousy parallel to some random authoritarian regime... Dear God, do you realize you're sounding like a Paultard? Just replace "state monopolies on firepower" with "socialized medicine" or some other catchphrase.

Attacking the arguer rather than the actual argument?

That post was not an ad hominem attack.  Read it again.  Your post above is a strawman if I've ever seen one.

[DC Al Fine]

I want the right to shoot wild boars with an assault rifle from a helicopter dammit!

Assault rifles are, by definition, fully automatic weapons, thus VERY hard to obtain....but you can do it in the US....but it's going to cost you.

Assault weapons on the other hand, is a made up word for a class of guns that LOOKS SCARY to gun control fetishists.



edit-actually, I'm not sure you can actually hunt legally with an automatic weapon (or from a chopper for taht matter)....probably not...so no, you can't do that.

Damn, dream ruined man... dream ruined

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

A freedom that is protected only due to force of arms is no freedom at all. I've never understood how people miss the contradiction there.

Most people who want to protect their freedom are not willing to commit to pacificist anarchism.

[Deus Naturae]

A freedom that is protected only due to force of arms is no freedom at all. I've never understood how people miss the contradiction there.

If that were true, then most, if not all, of our current freedoms would be "no freedoms at all."

[Beet]

A freedom that is protected only due to force of arms is no freedom at all. I've never understood how people miss the contradiction there.

If that were true, then most, if not all, of our current freedoms would be "no freedoms at all."

If it were not true, we would need to go through TSA just to get on the subway or go to a football game. The American way of life would not exist.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have you ever killed anyone? Most people are "pacifist" in practice.

[Deus Naturae]

A freedom that is protected only due to force of arms is no freedom at all. I've never understood how people miss the contradiction there.

If that were true, then most, if not all, of our current freedoms would be "no freedoms at all."

If it were not true, we would need to go through TSA just to get on the subway or go to a football game. The American way of life would not exist.

There are two things which prevent people from murdering and stealing from others at random:
1. The State's threat of force against those who do such things
2. The potential victim's assumed threat of force against the potential aggressor

Ideally, all people would respect the rights and freedoms of others. In reality, however, the threat of force is all that prevents a great many people from violating those things.

[Beet]

A freedom that is protected only due to force of arms is no freedom at all. I've never understood how people miss the contradiction there.

If that were true, then most, if not all, of our current freedoms would be "no freedoms at all."

If it were not true, we would need to go through TSA just to get on the subway or go to a football game. The American way of life would not exist.

There are two things which prevent people from murdering and stealing from others at random:
1. The State's threat of force against those who do such things
2. The potential victim's assumed threat of force against the potential aggressor

Ideally, all people would respect the rights and freedoms of others. In reality, however, the threat of force is all that prevents a great many people from violating those things.

No the primary thing is that most people, believe it or not, do not want to go around randomly murdering and stealing from others. I can't tell you how many times I've lost my wallet in this city... and the last 10 times, someone has always picked it up and turned it into the lost and found, or pointed it out to me. Once, someone even drove to my house to deliver it. This is the kind of thing that makes society work.

[Deus Naturae]

A freedom that is protected only due to force of arms is no freedom at all. I've never understood how people miss the contradiction there.

If that were true, then most, if not all, of our current freedoms would be "no freedoms at all."

If it were not true, we would need to go through TSA just to get on the subway or go to a football game. The American way of life would not exist.

There are two things which prevent people from murdering and stealing from others at random:
1. The State's threat of force against those who do such things
2. The potential victim's assumed threat of force against the potential aggressor

Ideally, all people would respect the rights and freedoms of others. In reality, however, the threat of force is all that prevents a great many people from violating those things.

No the primary thing is that most people, believe it or not, do not want to go around randomly murdering and stealing from others. I can't tell you how many times I've lost my wallet in this city... and the last 10 times, someone has always picked it up and turned it into the lost and found, or pointed it out to me. Once, someone even drove to my house to deliver it. This is the kind of thing that makes society work.

So if the the police decided not to enforce anti-murder laws, and no one bothered to defend themselves against murderers, the right to not be murdered would still be universally respected? I mean, even with people doing those things murder happens all the time.

[Beet]

So if the the police decided not to enforce anti-murder laws, and no one bothered to defend themselves against murderers, the right to not be murdered would still be universally respected? I mean, even with people doing those things murder happens all the time.

Yes that's sort of my point. It is social norms that govern crime, not the police. If someone is truly determined to kill you, no amount of laws or self-defense will prevent them. Anyway, the more police you put on the ground, or the more people with coercive weapons generally, the greater the chance for abuse. By the way I really think my position in this debate is the more 'libertarian' one.

[Deus Naturae]

So if the the police decided not to enforce anti-murder laws, and no one bothered to defend themselves against murderers, the right to not be murdered would still be universally respected? I mean, even with people doing those things murder happens all the time.

Yes that's sort of my point. It is social norms that govern crime, not the police. If someone is truly determined to kill you, no amount of laws or self-defense will prevent them. Anyway, the more police you put on the ground, or the more people with coercive weapons generally, the greater the chance for abuse. By the way I really think my position in this debate is the more 'libertarian' one.

To be clear, you believe that the existence of law enforcement has no effect on crime? I mean, as much as I'd like to think otherwise, I'd probably steal frequently if there was no one, not even property owners themselves, to stop me.

As to which position is more libertarian, I'm simply saying that the use of force is justified (and in many cases necessary) to protect basic rights. I'm fairly sure that most non-anarchist libertarians (probably even including many anarchists) would agree with that.

[Beet]

So if the the police decided not to enforce anti-murder laws, and no one bothered to defend themselves against murderers, the right to not be murdered would still be universally respected? I mean, even with people doing those things murder happens all the time.

Yes that's sort of my point. It is social norms that govern crime, not the police. If someone is truly determined to kill you, no amount of laws or self-defense will prevent them. Anyway, the more police you put on the ground, or the more people with coercive weapons generally, the greater the chance for abuse. By the way I really think my position in this debate is the more 'libertarian' one.

To be clear, you believe that the existence of law enforcement has no effect on crime? I mean, as much as I'd like to think otherwise, I'd probably steal frequently if there was no one, not even property owners themselves, to stop me.

You're arguing with a strawman. I'm saying the threat of countervailing force is not primarily what deters violence. Law enforcement is sometimes necessary, but it's at most a stop-gap measure, an admission that something has gone wrong. Lack of sufficient law enforcement is not main source of the problem of violence, in the view of those interested in a free society.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course. No one would deny that. But at the most basic level it's still a use of force. The same force that the government applies to control the citizenry, only on a smaller scale. Thus it's more of an exception to liberty rather than its manifestation, and the libertarian fetishization of it is perverse.

[Pheurton Skeurto]

There is such a strong dichotomy between pro-gun leftists and anti-gun leftists on this forum

[Deus Naturae]

So if the the police decided not to enforce anti-murder laws, and no one bothered to defend themselves against murderers, the right to not be murdered would still be universally respected? I mean, even with people doing those things murder happens all the time.

Yes that's sort of my point. It is social norms that govern crime, not the police. If someone is truly determined to kill you, no amount of laws or self-defense will prevent them. Anyway, the more police you put on the ground, or the more people with coercive weapons generally, the greater the chance for abuse. By the way I really think my position in this debate is the more 'libertarian' one.

To be clear, you believe that the existence of law enforcement has no effect on crime? I mean, as much as I'd like to think otherwise, I'd probably steal frequently if there was no one, not even property owners themselves, to stop me.

You're arguing with a strawman. I'm saying the threat of countervailing force is not primarily what deters violence. Law enforcement is sometimes necessary, but it's at most a stop-gap measure, an admission that something has gone wrong. Lack of sufficient law enforcement is not main source of the problem of violence, in the view of those interested in a free society.

I agree. Law enforcement is by no means the only thing preventing people from violating the rights of others. The threat of defensive force by individuals (which I believe was what your original statement was referring to) plays an even greater role. I'm not trying to say that "more force=more freedom." What I'm trying to get at is that if everyone (the State and individuals) simply declined to use force for the purpose of self-defense, I think that a much greater number of people would have their most basic rights violated.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, I agree with this. The necessity of defensive force is one of the greatest tragedies of human civilization. However, that doesn't make it any less necessary.

[Beet]

I agree. Law enforcement is by no means the only thing preventing people from violating the rights of others. The threat of defensive force by individuals (which I believe was what your original statement was referring to) plays an even greater role. I'm not trying to say that "more force=more freedom." What I'm trying to get at is that if everyone (the State and individuals) simply declined to use force for the purpose of self-defense, I think that a much greater number of people would have their most basic rights violated.

You're still arguing against a strawman, and no, the threat of defensive force by individuals is no more effective than the threat of force by the police in deterring crime. By the time you've reached the point where force comes into question, you've already lost. The aggressor will always have an advantage in a physical confrontation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, I agree with this. The necessity of defensive force is one of the greatest tragedies of human civilization. However, that doesn't make it any less necessary.
[/quote]

It's not a tragedy that self-defense is justified. Those that attack deserve to get beaten back. But it's not an expression of freedom to do so; it's an exercise of force, which is the opposite of freedom. Thus libertarians in particular would be concerned about solutions to violence which do not involve reaching that point in the first place.

[Deus Naturae]

I agree. Law enforcement is by no means the only thing preventing people from violating the rights of others. The threat of defensive force by individuals (which I believe was what your original statement was referring to) plays an even greater role. I'm not trying to say that "more force=more freedom." What I'm trying to get at is that if everyone (the State and individuals) simply declined to use force for the purpose of self-defense, I think that a much greater number of people would have their most basic rights violated.

You're still arguing against a strawman, and no, the threat of defensive force by individuals is no more effective than the threat of force by the police in deterring crime. By the time you've reached the point where force comes into question, you've already lost. The aggressor will always have an advantage in a physical confrontation.

That simply isn't true, though. Let's use property rights as an example. If the majority of property owners simply declined to react to the violation of their property rights (namely the destruction or theft of their property) the number of people who have their property stolen or destroyed would increase significantly. I think it's fair to say that "everyone loses" when force is used, but I still think that its defensive use is net-beneficial when we consider the violations of rights that it prevents.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that the right to self-defense is very much a freedom. If people have the right not to have their persons violated, that would imply that they have the right to prevent such a thing from happening.

In addition, I would agree that peaceful solutions are greatly preferable to violent ones. I'm not so sure that I agree with the solution that you seem to be implying.

[Beet]

I agree. Law enforcement is by no means the only thing preventing people from violating the rights of others. The threat of defensive force by individuals (which I believe was what your original statement was referring to) plays an even greater role. I'm not trying to say that "more force=more freedom." What I'm trying to get at is that if everyone (the State and individuals) simply declined to use force for the purpose of self-defense, I think that a much greater number of people would have their most basic rights violated.

You're still arguing against a strawman, and no, the threat of defensive force by individuals is no more effective than the threat of force by the police in deterring crime. By the time you've reached the point where force comes into question, you've already lost. The aggressor will always have an advantage in a physical confrontation.

That simply isn't true, though. Let's use property rights as an example. If the majority of property owners simply declined to react to the violation of their property rights (namely the destruction or theft of their property) the number of people who have their property stolen or destroyed would increase significantly. I think it's fair to say that "everyone loses" when force is used, but I still think that its defensive use is net-beneficial when we consider the violations of rights that it prevents.

You're assuming the question, though. In order for property owners to fail to react to the violation of their property rights, the violation must have already occurred to begin with. My question is, without assuming anything, what is the reason why property rights are generally secure? And my argument is that the security of property rights rests primarily on society's inculcation into it's citizens that rights ought to be respected, as a matter of moral principle. And that, to go back to TNF's original point, that this is the foundation of free societies. I never said that the police ought to be gotten rid of; only that the police (Or the parallel use of force by private citizens is an inferior solution to the real problem that must be dealt with to the extent that we want society to survive. Force, in other words, while may be necessary to reduce violence tactically, is inimical to freedom. If you want to look at a country where the social norms I am talking about have broken down but the police and individuals are responsible for their own 'defense', just look at Syria; there are plenty of guns there, but would you want to live there ?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that the right to self-defense is very much a freedom. If people have the right not to have their persons violated, that would imply that they have the right to prevent such a thing from happening.

In addition, I would agree that peaceful solutions are greatly preferable to violent ones. I'm not so sure that I agree with the solution that you seem to be implying.
[/quote]

Not just that they're preferable, but that they're inherently better.

When a person is attacked, their rights have already been violated. The whole point of a right is that you have the expectation it will be respected. The 'right' to strike back is not much of a right; after all, there is no guarantee you will win. In fights, there are no 'rights'; there are only winners and losers. Rights are a construct of society and that's why it's courts that enforce them. The implementers of violence, justified or not, do not dole out rights; they dole out damage.

[PJ]

Machine Guns:

Restricts the transfer and possession of machine guns except for “transfers to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision.

The ATF can authorize the transfer of a machine gun to an unlicensed civilian.

An unlicensed individual may acquire machine guns, with ATF approval, from its lawful owner residing in the same state as the individual.

The transferor must file an ATF application, which must be completed by both parties to the transfer and executed under penalties of perjury, and pay a $200 transfer tax to ATF.

Application to include detailed information on the firearm and the parties involved in the transfer.

Those receiving a machine gun through transfer must certify that they are not disqualified from possessing firearms.

Someone receiving a machine gun through transfer must submit two photographs taken within the last year, fingerprints, and a copy of a permit required to possess a machine gun.

Also must certify that machine gun will be used only for lawful purposes.

Anyone acquiring a machine gun must, as part of the registration process, pass an extensive Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal background investigation.

ATF must refund the $200 tax if application is denied.

Gun owners must keep approved applications as evidence of registration of the firearms and make them available for inspection by ATF officers.


Registry Prohibition:

Multiple Sales Reports
Suspect Guns- guns suspected of criminal use but not collected
Traced Guns
Out of Business Records
Theft Guns- reported as stolen by the ATF
 

Disqualified Individuals:

those who have served more than a year in prison
fugitives from the law
anyone currently addicted to a controlled substance
illegal citizens
those with "mental illnesses" who have been involuntarily admitted for treatment
dishonorable discharge from the military
No selling of guns to those who have renounced U.S. citizenship.
felons
convicts of domestic violence against a spouse or child
anyone with a court order restraining them from an intimate partner or child


Places of Possession:

Keep general cross-state standard for concealed carry.
Allow guns in Washington D.C. with no trigger lock requirement.
Allow for open carry outside of cities with exception of legal officials.
Guns must be kept in a locker room at courthouses.
No guns on or near schools and churches.


Sales Procedures:

Mandatory background checks for gun purchases.
Background checks may take no longer than three days.
Proof of previous background checks maybe used for later purchases.
One day waiting period for purchase of a firearm.
Require 12 hour training class before allowing open carry.
Magazines holding more than 31 rounds considered as automatic firearms.
No requirement that guns be sold with trigger locks.
Protect gun manufacturers from lawsuits from gun misuse.

Licenses and Private Sales:

Require license to purchase valid for 3 years.
Allow guns to be traded between dealers and private citizens.
No license needed if trading a gun.
No license needed for purchasing a firearm of more than 50 years of age.
Guns considered as collectors items not subject to license.
No license required for veterans to purchase a gun.


Firearms in Vehicles:

1. In a closed package, box, or case.
2. In a compartment that can only be reached by leaving the vehicle.
3. In plain sight and secured in a rack or holder.
4. Must be unloaded.

And again, I would like to comment on how intrusive the self-proclaimed "conservative" barfbag is on some of these issues.  I know, it's for the children.  We can't trust a bunch of weed smoking hunters in Montana with weapons, can we?

Lol. Barfbag's standards are a little frightening. Specifically, renouncing US citizenship, controlled substance, and dishonorable discharge are just… no.

Strange how the True Leftists are suddenly up in arms (no pun intended) about guns.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A quote from the time when semi-automatics were only beginning to develop is hardly a valid excuse for banning semi-automatics or opposing background checks. A total gun ban? Sure.

[Deus Naturae]

I agree. Law enforcement is by no means the only thing preventing people from violating the rights of others. The threat of defensive force by individuals (which I believe was what your original statement was referring to) plays an even greater role. I'm not trying to say that "more force=more freedom." What I'm trying to get at is that if everyone (the State and individuals) simply declined to use force for the purpose of self-defense, I think that a much greater number of people would have their most basic rights violated.

You're still arguing against a strawman, and no, the threat of defensive force by individuals is no more effective than the threat of force by the police in deterring crime. By the time you've reached the point where force comes into question, you've already lost. The aggressor will always have an advantage in a physical confrontation.

That simply isn't true, though. Let's use property rights as an example. If the majority of property owners simply declined to react to the violation of their property rights (namely the destruction or theft of their property) the number of people who have their property stolen or destroyed would increase significantly. I think it's fair to say that "everyone loses" when force is used, but I still think that its defensive use is net-beneficial when we consider the violations of rights that it prevents.

You're assuming the question, though. In order for property owners to fail to react to the violation of their property rights, the violation must have already occurred to begin with. My question is, without assuming anything, what is the reason why property rights are generally secure? And my argument is that the security of property rights rests primarily on society's inculcation into it's citizens that rights ought to be respected, as a matter of moral principle. And that, to go back to TNF's original point, that this is the foundation of free societies. I never said that the police ought to be gotten rid of; only that the police (Or the parallel use of force by private citizens is an inferior solution to the real problem that must be dealt with to the extent that we want society to survive. Force, in other words, while may be necessary to reduce violence tactically, is inimical to freedom. If you want to look at a country where the social norms I am talking about have broken down but the police and individuals are responsible for their own 'defense', just look at Syria; there are plenty of guns there, but would you want to live there ?

I agree that moral principles and social contracts are also part of what allows us to preserve our rights and freedoms. Ideally, they'd be all we need to preserve them. However, I think we can agree that the threat of force is still necessary to a certain degree.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The existence of the right to self-defense prevents its own use, at least to a certain degree. People are deterred from attacking others because they know that they will be attacked in return. Obviously this doesn't always work, in fact it often doesn't, but it still decreases the number of conflicts in society. In fact, that seems like a good example of a social norm that prevents violence, wouldn't you say?

[Beet]

I agree. Law enforcement is by no means the only thing preventing people from violating the rights of others. The threat of defensive force by individuals (which I believe was what your original statement was referring to) plays an even greater role. I'm not trying to say that "more force=more freedom." What I'm trying to get at is that if everyone (the State and individuals) simply declined to use force for the purpose of self-defense, I think that a much greater number of people would have their most basic rights violated.

You're still arguing against a strawman, and no, the threat of defensive force by individuals is no more effective than the threat of force by the police in deterring crime. By the time you've reached the point where force comes into question, you've already lost. The aggressor will always have an advantage in a physical confrontation.

That simply isn't true, though. Let's use property rights as an example. If the majority of property owners simply declined to react to the violation of their property rights (namely the destruction or theft of their property) the number of people who have their property stolen or destroyed would increase significantly. I think it's fair to say that "everyone loses" when force is used, but I still think that its defensive use is net-beneficial when we consider the violations of rights that it prevents.

You're assuming the question, though. In order for property owners to fail to react to the violation of their property rights, the violation must have already occurred to begin with. My question is, without assuming anything, what is the reason why property rights are generally secure? And my argument is that the security of property rights rests primarily on society's inculcation into it's citizens that rights ought to be respected, as a matter of moral principle. And that, to go back to TNF's original point, that this is the foundation of free societies. I never said that the police ought to be gotten rid of; only that the police (Or the parallel use of force by private citizens is an inferior solution to the real problem that must be dealt with to the extent that we want society to survive. Force, in other words, while may be necessary to reduce violence tactically, is inimical to freedom. If you want to look at a country where the social norms I am talking about have broken down but the police and individuals are responsible for their own 'defense', just look at Syria; there are plenty of guns there, but would you want to live there ?

I agree that moral principles and social contracts are also part of what allows us to preserve our rights and freedoms. Ideally, they'd be all we need to preserve them. However, I think we can agree that the threat of force is still necessary to a certain degree.

This is where we disagree though. The social contract is not just "part" of our rights and freedoms; it's the very essence of our freedoms themselves. With no social contract we've got no freedoms or rights. We've returned to the Hobbesian state of nature. (This is where think traditional social contract theory has it backwards.) The fact that you can use violence to assert yourself in that scenario is all well and good, but you have no 'freedoms' or 'rights' in the sense that we talk about them today in that scenario. If a 'right' was anything that you could enforce yourself, you could simply declare your own right to $1 million and then go try rob a bank. Rights are social guarantees.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The existence of the right to self-defense prevents its own use, at least to a certain degree. People are deterred from attacking others because they know that they will be attacked in return. Obviously this doesn't always work, in fact it often doesn't, but it still decreases the number of conflicts in society. In fact, that seems like a good example of a social norm that prevents violence, wouldn't you say?
[/quote]

Yes, but it's trivial. That's my point. Anyone can defend themselves, and as I've repeatedly said you have a right to; but so what? Such as it has always been for thousands of years. Modern (classically) liberal societies involve more than that.

[Deus Naturae]

I agree. Law enforcement is by no means the only thing preventing people from violating the rights of others. The threat of defensive force by individuals (which I believe was what your original statement was referring to) plays an even greater role. I'm not trying to say that "more force=more freedom." What I'm trying to get at is that if everyone (the State and individuals) simply declined to use force for the purpose of self-defense, I think that a much greater number of people would have their most basic rights violated.

You're still arguing against a strawman, and no, the threat of defensive force by individuals is no more effective than the threat of force by the police in deterring crime. By the time you've reached the point where force comes into question, you've already lost. The aggressor will always have an advantage in a physical confrontation.

That simply isn't true, though. Let's use property rights as an example. If the majority of property owners simply declined to react to the violation of their property rights (namely the destruction or theft of their property) the number of people who have their property stolen or destroyed would increase significantly. I think it's fair to say that "everyone loses" when force is used, but I still think that its defensive use is net-beneficial when we consider the violations of rights that it prevents.

You're assuming the question, though. In order for property owners to fail to react to the violation of their property rights, the violation must have already occurred to begin with. My question is, without assuming anything, what is the reason why property rights are generally secure? And my argument is that the security of property rights rests primarily on society's inculcation into it's citizens that rights ought to be respected, as a matter of moral principle. And that, to go back to TNF's original point, that this is the foundation of free societies. I never said that the police ought to be gotten rid of; only that the police (Or the parallel use of force by private citizens is an inferior solution to the real problem that must be dealt with to the extent that we want society to survive. Force, in other words, while may be necessary to reduce violence tactically, is inimical to freedom. If you want to look at a country where the social norms I am talking about have broken down but the police and individuals are responsible for their own 'defense', just look at Syria; there are plenty of guns there, but would you want to live there ?

I agree that moral principles and social contracts are also part of what allows us to preserve our rights and freedoms. Ideally, they'd be all we need to preserve them. However, I think we can agree that the threat of force is still necessary to a certain degree.

This is where we disagree though. The social contract is not just "part" of our rights and freedoms; it's the very essence of our freedoms themselves. With no social contract we've got no freedoms or rights. We've returned to the Hobbesian state of nature. (This is where think traditional social contract theory has it backwards.) The fact that you can use violence to assert yourself in that scenario is all well and good, but you have no 'freedoms' or 'rights' in the sense that we talk about them today in that scenario. If a 'right' was anything that you could enforce yourself, you could simply declare your own right to $1 million and then go try rob a bank. Rights are social guarantees.

I never said anything about where rights come from (or if I did I phrased my thoughts incorrectly). I completely agree that rights do not come from force. All I'm saying is that force is (unfortunately) sometimes necessary for the defense of rights, and it is thus immoral for the State to restrict the ability of the People to adequately defend themselves.

Now, let's look at the "right to rob a bank" problem you pose. Such a right doesn't exist (at least not in the sense I'm talking about) because it is an arbitrarily derived positive right, based solely on interest. I'm talking about rights in the classical liberal sense, as negative rights that remain unviolated as long as aggressive force isn't used. However, when aggressive force is used, rights have, as you said before, already been violated. At this point, the violated party has the right to prevent further violation of their rights by using defensive force. This prevents the random violation of rights at will. In fact, it is this conception of defensive rights that prevents people from violently asserting arbitrary demands like bank robberies.

[Deus Naturae]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The existence of the right to self-defense prevents its own use, at least to a certain degree. People are deterred from attacking others because they know that they will be attacked in return. Obviously this doesn't always work, in fact it often doesn't, but it still decreases the number of conflicts in society. In fact, that seems like a good example of a social norm that prevents violence, wouldn't you say?
[/quote]

Yes, but it's trivial. That's my point. Anyone can defend themselves, and as I've repeatedly said you have a right to; but so what? Such as it has always been for thousands of years. Modern (classically) liberal societies involve more than that.
[/quote]Well, you originally said that a right which is guaranteed by the threat of force is no right at all. Philosophically and ethically, I agree with you. What I'm saying is that, in reality, the threat of reactive force is all that prevents many from neglecting and ignoring that philosophical and ethical truth. Is not the prevention of such neglect the justification for the existence of the State in the first place?