Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Grants, Rights and Other Distinctions…
Many a time, I have gotten into discussions with my lefty friends about the Second Amendment. It usually goes something like this:
Friend: Are you for gun rights?
Me: Yes!
Friend: Would you be okay with machine guns?
The issue with the any such conversation is the context of the questioning. Is the Second Amendment a right or a grant?
When one “receives” a grant, then one can have the conversation about the extent of the grant, the specifics, etc. Is the grant for one gun or a hundred? Is the grant for one bullet or 15 or 100? Does the gun shoot one bullet per trigger pull or 10 or 50?
Is the ability to carry a gun openly more or less convenient for women and disabled people? Are guns better or worse for minorities?
While these are good questions, they still are questions that arise from the premise that gun ownership is a grant; that there is someone or something greater than us who is benevolent enough “allow” us to have guns. And hence we get to negotiate with this benevolent entity… but only after they are being nice by letting us have our guns.
We do this again and again in life. We think of agreed-upon rules and regulations as necessary, as if we have no right to our freedoms. Whether it be speed limits on highways or expiration dates on food products, we operate from the “grant” premise — and act as if we should be grateful for “someone looking after us” — by protecting us from ourselves.
Should there be a limit on speed on all roads in the country? Certainly not. Can a community set limits near, say school zones or residential communities? Not as a negation of our rights to drive at any speed, but by self-policing? Sure.
When we delegate our freedoms to government, we are letting our rights just go away. And as happened in Europe, the first step towards taking away rights is to start treating them as grants. Once you have people start talking about rights as if they were grant, then we are clearly on the path to relinquish our rights.
So the appropriate answer to “Are you in favor of speed limits?” is “Who has the right to enforce it upon me?” And to “How do you feel about machine guns?” is “Who has the right to take it away from me? By what authority? You and whose army?”
While we continue to operate from the premise of “grants,” we are just arguing over degrees of allowance. In order to secure true freedom, one has to get the distinction between rights and grants. If I am a free citizen, then I should not have to negotiate on the degrees of allowances.
This is the truth that is “common knowledge” to all libertarians but not always — I think — to conservatives.
If we are free, then we do not “seek” grants for guns, how fast we drive, who we marry, or any other matter. While laws exist, they only exist to ensure individual liberty. They do not exist to “grant” anything to the citizenry.
Published in General
Because by declaring what “your community” is, you are making the rules for someone else’s community against their will, even though they disagree that they are a part of your community.
Because by declaring what “your community” is, you are making the rules for someone else’s community against their will, even though they disagree that they are a part of your community.
The community existed before you, you entered an existing community and that community had rules made by those who live there. In a self-governing community you can either accept the rules, work to change them, or leave. Why should a political or civil community be different than any other type of association?
Interestingly, back when the SCOTUS actually viewed the constitution as governing, whether or not something was of military use was a criteria for whether you could own it. It’s just that we went off the wagon, so to speak, with the NFA 1934, because gangsters had Tommy guns and BAR’s. But so did the cops, and a lot of regular people. It’s just expensive to keep those things in ammo.
To extend the argument, Americans of the Founding times had cannon. ?Why could we not also own cannon if we wished. Might be a little hard to find a place to practice, but that’s a personal problem. Likewise, if we wished, we could own tanks. In Israel, teeny country that it is, they found they had lost a lot of military equipment so they had an amnesty where you could return anything with no questions asked. Among the stuff returned were five, count ’em, FIVE tanks.
Because of the overbearing requirement to have to leave the country in order or opt out! The whole reason we started this line of questioning!
Because of the overbearing requirement to have to leave the country in order or opt out! The whole reason we started this line of questioning!
This is the argument for federalism and a very limited federal government not for no government. Balancing rights is hard but it is easier at the local level than at the state and easier at the state than the nation.
Don’t you mean it’s an argument to limits on the territorial right to associate? You said so yourself that all rights have limits (and I agree).
There’s still a problem with what “counts” as continuous association, since the original association likely didn’t include explicit agreement of a majority of the people who existed at the time of it’s formation. And even if it did include a majority, it doesn’t explain why the minority, who didn’t even want to be involved, must acquiesce to the majority’s association. It’s hard to see how we could form a civil entity and reconcile it with common sense ideas of what rights you have over dissenters in the creation of an association.
Don’t you mean it’s an argument to limits on the territorial right to associate? You said so yourself that all rights have limits (and I agree).
There’s still a problem with what “counts” as continuous association, since the original association likely didn’t include explicit agreement of a majority of the people who existed at the time of it’s formation. And even if it did include a majority, it doesn’t explain why the minority, who didn’t even want to be involved, must acquiesce to the majority’s association. It’s hard to see how we could form a civil entity and reconcile it with common sense ideas of what rights you have over dissenters in the creation of an association.
Why does consent need to be explicit? We agree to things implicitly all the time.
The minority does not have to acquiece, they have the other options I mentioned.
Man is a social animal. It is in his nature to form and live in communities. Those communities must have rules in order to function. It is the members of the community who rightfully set the rules.
Right, and implicit agreement can always be negated by explicit disagreement.
But that doesn’t explain why a bunch of people who live around him can dictate the rules he must live by without him agreeing to the original association. The association must exist in the first place before it can hold any power over anyone.
Right, but we’re arguing about what makes the community in the first place.
There’s no need to dread the phrase “slippery slope.” When someone offers it as a “logical fallacy,” just gently remind them that it never was a logical argument, but rather a psychological one—the truth of which has been demonstrated repeatedly.
But that doesn’t explain why a bunch of people who live around him can dictate the rules he must live by without him agreeing to the original association. The association must exist in the first place before it can hold any power over anyone.
Again, the association already exists. You are either born or move into it. If you are born into it, your parents consented to your membership on your behalf. If you move into it, you made a conscious decision to do so. With that decision comes acceptance of the rules of the association including the means by which they are changed.
Right, but we’re arguing about what makes the community in the first place.
I’m not arguing that at all.
So, it existed since the beginning of time?
No, it’s not. Lets think about if we could start a new community. How would we go about it? Lets say a group of neighbors get together and say “Let’s start a community,” but their properties are disjointed and account for only 60% of the homes in the area they want to incorporate. They start sending out fliers saying there will be a meeting on Saturday to determine the rules of the community. The other 40% are not interested in being a part of this new venture, see the meeting as illegitimate, and so don’t attend. Some of them explicitly state their unwillingness to abide by the results to the organizers. Then the 60% have their meeting and submit the results to the other 40% telling them what their rights and obligations are if they stay on their property, which include taxes but with a vote. Is this a legitimate use of the right to associate?
I agree with this — and it’s vitally important it be maintained — but it matters as to what the conversation is and there’s also a matter of meeting people where they are.
For a lot of folks in gun-phobic states, the idea of a private citizen responsibly carrying a firearm is just unthinkable: that’s what crazy people do. Engage them from the get-go at the (morally correct) level of rights and grants, and they shut down the conversation. Guns are bad, end of story.
On the other hand, pointing out small victories within the grants paradigm — and showing how they can be used to benefit people — can get the gears rolling in their head.
But when asked directly, I agree we need to assert that are rights are such.
No, in my case it existed as of 1832 at the local level, 1732 at the state level, and 1776 at the national level.
People go about doing it all the time at the local level. The form homeowners associations, they may even incorporate into a new municipality.
Yes
So we don’t just have a right to associate, this right supersedes most other rights?
I resemble that.
As far as machine guns, they are legal to own. You just have to go through a background check and pay a $200 tax. I have several friends who own machine guns.
If that scares you, it shouldn’t. There hasn’t been a crime committed by a civilian with a legal machine gun in decades. Civilians who own them illegally are criminals.
And it’s not you, Tom, even though one of the arguments in my example is from you. iI know for a fact that you have a much better grasp on the distinctions between rights and grants. We ll forget, though, from time to time.
Not at all. It is balanced against other rights as all rights are.
I think this is conflating the power to govern with the right to associate.
Wait… something isn’t about me?
Full disclosure – most of these conversation were with Ricochet members (yes, even the machine gun one).
That is why I wrote this piece; if we, the supposed defenders of liberty, are not clear on what the distinctions are, then we are not going to be able to make a clear case for anyone else.
As Tom pointed out, yes, the rhetoric needs to be based on the audience. My strategy (to address ET’s comment) is to just ask a lot of questions. Fear is emotional, and while incompatible with logic, cannot be dismissed. Behind every fear, though, is something deeper – whether the fear be of “our country is going to hell in a hand basket – because immigration or because guns”. Same difference.
To move from fear to logic is a slow process, that does involve patience, and empathy. However, to actually convert hearts and minds, clarity is essential. Clarity on the distinctions such as that of rights and grants is a good start.
How does a vegan gun hating lefty go to gun toting anarchist? (Yes, I have examples from personal life.) By understanding that “compassion” towards addicts in life leads to codependency and makes the situation worse, just as “welfare” in government terms makes one a serf. But for this very big and important realization, the distinction of right vs. grants is essential. Just saying that protection from rapists is the reason for 2A is underselling 2A. It is, for an effective militia.
And yes, I will shoot down that drone if it happens in my backyard :-D.
So, this is where the disagreement is. Klaatu believes there’s what I’ll call a relatively “strong” right to associate that balances heavily in favor of a majority dictating whether others are in their association whereas Barkha sees this as excessively violating the rights that the association chooses to impune based on it’s ability to incorporate others against their will.
In a republic the power to govern is derived from the consent of the governed, that is the right to associate.
Anarcho-capitalists have a poor grasp on the fact that where ever more than four unrelated families gather a government will be formed. Five is enough for factions to form, which necessitates the use of laws and procedures to settle disputes. In these situations, the notion of rights help to supersede the will of the majority ensuring stability of the community by protecting some interests of the minority.
Anarcho-Capitalists are not opposed to Governance, just monopoly in Government, which is what we have.
Governance occurs every day, even within families – where I might add it is not only monopolistic but authoritative – depending on personal preference.
Where the divide between “conservative” and “anarcho <anything>” occurs is *only* the function of monopolistic Government. We get to have as many (or as few) laws as we like if the body governing laws is not monopolistic.
I hear what you’re saying, but I just wouldn’t use those phrases together in this context.
Look, I reside in Massachusetts and — by doing so — I implicitly accede to a number of rules and regulations I find abhorrent; I have to play by their rules or face the consequences. If I don’t like it, I can leave as you say.
That being said, I’m with Mike in thinking that voting with your feet is easier said than done, and that that’s why it’s important to keep the number of rules one is “forced” to buy into to an absolute minimum.
@Klaatu : Unfortunately we have devolved into a simple democracy.
Democracy, by definition, is majority rule. So, Tom in Massachusetts cannot open carry a weapon even though he is a very good citizen and unlikely to go on a shooting spree.
When a “right of association” just devolves into majority rule, then it’s not a right. My original question to you was just that – is it a voluntary association? When 51% majority and executive orders can take away liberty, then it is no longer “right of association” but a variation on mob rule.
I have the right to carry a gun but not a right to shoot people I do not like. My right ends when I encroach on another’s. Then, we move into the territory of crime and punishment.
Similarly, the right of association ends when the association is abusive towards the associated and designed to curtail the rights of some of the associated over others.
And if they start charging for leaving the association, it’s a hint that something has gone wrong along the way….
The same principle applies. If we are talking “degrees”, then it is a grant. The benevolent Government is “allowing” me to leave. How nice of them.
What is dismaying is that people on our side also shy away from this line of questioning, and sell out to “looking or sounding normal”. 2A is not the “hunting amendment” – as are laws in the UK and the colonies. Again, distinctions, largely misunderstood….
This post is about working on the collective amnesia of the citizens of our country. And hopefully creating more people who think like you, RF.
I’m with you on limiting the number of rules but that is not because rules are, in and of themselves bad or improper affronts to liberty. Rights are not absolute, they need to be balanced against each other. The speed limit example is instructive. You do have a right to travel but others have the right to a reasonable level of safety while traveling. I do not agree with the manner many speed limits are set and enforced but their existence is not an undue infringement of my right to travel.