In the U.K., is it not a given that you have the right to use force against an intruder in your home? This isn't even about gun ownership or anything ... is it the European perspective that absolutely all (100%) of personal defence must be done by government officials?
If so, that's news to me. I come from a worldview where rights are inherent, intrinsic, unalienable. They are not granted by the government; they are only acknowledged and protected (or ignored and infringed) by the government. You have rights by virtue of the fact that you own yourself. From my worldview, it is the government's right to act with force that is to be questioned, and it possesses that right only by virtue of the fact that we delegate it: we employ the government to defend us, just as we might employ a private security guard to defend us. As Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence, "all men ... are endowed ... with certain unalienable Rights ... to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men." In other words, the purpose of the government we institute is to act on our behalf to secure our rights: to act with force against those who would threaten our right to life, for example.
I'm in the depths of misunderstanding as to why anyone would question whether or not a person has the right to use unarmed force against an intruder with clear malicious intent in his own home. I understand some have qualms about allowing people to keep arms for personal defense; I understand some would say you have to be absolutely sure an intruder is really there to kill or harm and that failing that you could take no force. But when it is clear that the person is there with intent to steal (and possibly hurt or kill you to escape detection, if they've discovered you are there), I can't believe there are some who say you have no right other than to call the government police and hope they arrive in time.
I presume noone would question an individual's right to hire private security guards. Where does this right come from, if not from the fact that they possess the right to defend themselves and may delegate it to employ help? Or is the right of personal defense beyond that which the government provides a right that belongs only to those rich enough to purchase it?
I agree that asking whether or not you can defend your home is assinine, but I'm not entirely certain of the basis for my assertion. You wrote:
I come from a worldview where rights are inherent, intrinsic, unalienable. They are not granted by the government; they are only acknowledged and protected (or ignored and infringed) by the government. You have rights by virtue of the fact that you own yourself.
I agree that the government should be acknowledging and protecting our rights and not granting them, but that's a gut reaction. The only justification I can see is that these "rights" are merely a convention we adhere to protect and promote the welfare of society (and thus our own.) It seems a "don't mess with me and I won't mess with you" sort of argument. That does not seem "inherent" to me.
Mind you, I'm not trying to be difficult. I honestly want to know the justification used here.
Re:Definitions Wanted!
jdavidb on 2004-11-24T18:41:04
My justification is less explicit and more of a request for justification of what you said. It seemed that you said we have our rights as a byproduct of promoting the welfare of society. I'm saying we have our rights, period, and that society benefits as a side-benefit. Both are important, of course.
My justification is the fact that I own myself. I belong to me, not to society. People have had grand schemes about bettering society through telling everybody what to do since time immemorial, but that doesn't make it right. There was no justification for the Pharaohs of Egypt to regulate everyone's lives; there was no justification for the absolute rights of monarchs over their citizens; there is no justification for a democracy to exercise the same rights as monarchs; and there is no justification for a Communist regime to better society through exercising this kind of "ownership" role over its citizens.
If I own myself, then all other rights follow. If I don't own myself, the only alternatives are that I belong to society, to the state, to the crown, or to another individual. Obviously all of those are untenable.
Did you get a chance to check the link from the journal entry on my worldview? That might provide some justification. If it's not enough, I'll try to elaborate further.
Re:Guns
jdavidb on 2004-11-29T15:09:53
I fail to see how I personally in the post above was taking it to an extreme (or did you mean all Americans). I tried to acknowledge that people have qualms about allowing private ownership of weapons and firearms, and tried to imply that I felt such qualms were reasonable.
In the post above, all I tried to assert was that a person had the right to use unarmed nonlethal force against an intruder with clear malicious intent (intent to steal or harm). I tried to acknowledge limits people feel on this. My main question was whether British law or culture questioned even the right to use such unarmed nonlethal force in a clear case of burglary. Was I really extreme?
Re:Guns
Matts on 2004-11-30T10:22:32
You said: "is it the European perspective that absolutely all (100%) of personal defence must be done by government officials?". This is clearly not the case.Re:Guns
jdavidb on 2004-11-30T14:52:45
It was a sincere question. The article I linked to seemed to show some people who actually felt that way. I could not believe that would be at issue with anybody.
I am constantly running into things that surprise me about Europe, things both good and bad (open racists running for high political office, laws on social liberties that in some cases are far more relaxed (I think that's a good thing) than their American counterparts but in others are far more restrictive, etc.) From this side of the pond, it's hard to tell if an article like that is citing a few exceptional cases to make an issue out of nothing, or if the issue is really in earnest debate. It is probably clear to you that that is not the case, but it was not clear to me when I asked.
No offense intended.
If someone attacks you, you are allowed to respond with sufficient force to avert the attack, but not more, ie. if someone is out to kill you, you are permitted to kill in selfdefense, but if it just is someone taking a swing at you the courts will take poor view of you breaking his arm, and probably sentence you for bodily harm. You are allowed to do the same amount of harm to the assailant as he is trying to do to you.
For someone trying to break into your house the threat to you is quite minor, and you would be allowed to make a citizens arrest, but not break his arm in the attempt.
But normally it would be wiser to let him get away (at least if he is bigger than you) and just let the insurance pay up - as was seen in a case here a few years ago where a father of two was killed while trying to stop the getaway car of some bank robbers. He blocked their way by parking in front of their vehicle, and was shot in the head when they came out of the bank. They have been caught and sentenced.
Re:delegation
jdavidb on 2004-11-29T15:21:49
We have never gotten away from the idea of government as absolute monarch with unlimited power granted by divine right. All we have done is substitute democracy for that monarch.
So what we have rather than a belief that the government is an institution of people to secure the people's rights, is a belief in a government of potentially unlimited power (even constitutional limitations can be voted or amended away, and in the case of the U.S., discarded through ratification of treaties) with unquestioned right to rule granted by the "virtue" of "democracy." The idea of taking such rights and powers back from the government simply cannot occur to most people, as they do not think of the powers of government as being delegated from the people, nor do they think of governments as something instituted and replaceable as described in the Declaration of Independence. We are still mentally in the monarchic/imperial model. This showed early in American history as one faction tried to do all the things that "governments normally do" such as establish a central bank and ran into another faction that insisted the powers of the government were limited by the Constitution.
