Continued from Women's Forum Re: Guns

[Yosselle]

Of course we can have nuclear piñatas and ebola infected pidgeons. We allow certain people in society to own nuclear and biological weapons today. The people that own these things are skilled and trained to the satisfaction of a sufficient number of our citizens. Because we are satisfied that these individuals can be trusted to be good stewards of such awesome power, we the people, allow it.

We also allow certain people to own tanks, aircraft carriers, shoulder mounted rocket launchers, etc. And since those that own these things own them only at the pleasure and by the authorization of the People, and since the delagator never loses power to the delagatee, then it is only logical that the People can own these things, too.

To the extent that this ideal does not coincide with reality, the creature has become master of the creator.

Yosselle

[Yosselle]

I continue and elaborate... We don't allow government agents to possess/control weapons of mass destruction (or carry guns on airplanes, or do reseach on toxic substances). We delegate our right to do so to them. Otherwise, where whould they have gotten the right to possess or do such things? Also, remember that rights are not additive. A group of individuals (eg. a "government") has no more rights than any individual.

Just as when a CEO of a corporation delegates the night watchman or cleaning crew duties for his company to hired employees, so do we delegate certain rights and responsibilities to individuals in government. Should the CEO decide to take over Willie the watchman's or Chloe the cleaning lady's shift (or simply join them) for a night or two, he has every right to do so (and use all the tools/supplies that are part of those jobs) because delegation of rights does not mean forfeiture of rights.

Just because you loan the keys to your car to your teenager doesn't mean that you now must ask his/her permission to use your spare keys to use your own car.

Perhaps if we remembered that government is the creature/slave and we are the creators/masters, then the idea that we can rightly do whatever we (incorrectly) view as the sole province of indivduals in the government would not be so foreign.

BTW, I adhere to the following:

Covenant of Unanimous Consent

WE, THE UNDERSIGNED Witnesses to the Lesson of History -- that no Form of political Governance may be relied upon to secure the individual Rights of Life, Liberty, or Property -- now therefore establish and provide certain fundamental Precepts measuring our Conduct toward one another, and toward others:

FIRST, that we shall henceforward recognize each individual to be the exclusive Proprietor of his or her own Existence and of all products of that Existence, holding no Obligation binding among Individuals excepting those to which they voluntarily and explicitly consent;

SECOND, that under no Circumstances shall we acknowledge any Liberty to initiate Force against another Person, and shall instead defend the inalienable Right of Individuals to resist Coercion employing whatever Means prove necessary in their Judgement;

THIRD, that we shall hold inviolable those Relationships among Individuals which are totally voluntary, but conversely, any Relationship not thus mutually agreeable shall be considered empty and invalid;

FOURTH, that we shall regard Rights to be neither collective nor additive in Character -- two individuals shall have no more Rights than one, nor shall two million nor two thousand million -- nor shall any Group possess Rights in Excess of those belonging to its individual members;

FIFTH, that we shall maintain these Principles without Respect to any person's Race, Nationality, Gender, sexual Preference, Age, or System of Beliefs, and hold that any Entity or Association, however constituted, acting to contravene them by initiation of Force -- or Threat of same -- shall have forfeited its Right to exist;

UPON UNANIMOUS CONSENT of the Members or Inhabitants of any Association or Territory, we further stipulate that this Agreement shall supercede all existing governmental Documents or Usages then pertinent, that such Constitutions, Charters, Acts, Laws, Statutes, Regulations, or Ordinances contradictory or destructive to the Ends which it expresses shall be null and void, and that this Covenant, being the Property of its Author and Signatories, shall not be Subject to Interpretation excepting insofar as it shall please them.

Yosselle

[Ian]

Y, as I have it, your thinking works like this:

1) We the people give permission to individuals to control nuclear weapons, breed Ebola pigeons, etc.

2) Since WE were the ones who gave permission in the first place, and delegators never lose power to the delegatee, every citizen in the US of A may also carry nukes or Ebola infected pigeons, etc, and by extension, the People can't stop any citizen from doing anything whatsoever for their own good? (If, presumably, ANYONE in the US has the right to do that thing?)

corrections?

[Yosselle]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Ian asks Yosselle: ...every citizen in the US of A may also carry nukes or Ebola infected pigeons, etc,(?)

In principle, yes.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Ian continues: and by extension, the People can't stop any citizen from doing anything whatsoever for their own good? (If, presumably, ANYONE in the US has the right to do that thing?)

Absolutely correct. I will qualify this to exclude irresponsible children.

[This message has been edited by Yosselle (edited September 03, 2001).]

[Panther]

Hey! I recognize that!

I also adhere to that Covenant of Unanimous Consent.

Who agrees? Who would sign that covenant?

If not, why not?