what are we talking about when we talk about Capitalism (not quite R.Carver)

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by davar55

Rights of individuals should not conflict.

And yet they do.

Originally Posted by davar55

And one's rights are hierarchical. If my Freedom of Speech would
in and of itself cause your loss of life or genuinely threaten it, your right to your life takes preference, or should
under the law. Similarly in other potential conflicts.

So how does the right to bear arms (or arm bears) fit into this?

[davar55]

Originally Posted by chalsall

And yet they do.

People conflict; their right's shouldn't, and should be defined
by law so as not to.

Self-defense is certainly a right, generally to protect one's
primary rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness).

[davar55]

The issue of regulating the instruments of death has nothing to do with
capitalism or free markets in general. Obviously, our rights are NOT
protected (by government and law) if there are no restrictions on the
obtaining of instruments of death; our laws must restrict these in some
ways if our rights are to be protected.

Excluding these items, for which no free (or completely unregulated)
market is or ever was intended, then I stand by my definition and
explanations of the value and importance of free markets.

[ewmayer]

Speaking only for my own page-viewing, the old forum ignore-list software is getting a workout!

Wir bitten Sie, die Kobolde nicht zu füttern. Danke. -- Die Verwaltung

[rogue]

Originally Posted by davar55

People conflict; their right's shouldn't, and should be defined by law so as not to.

How do you define "people"? Does that include children, the unborn, the incarcerated, non-Americans, etc.?

Does someone have the right to harm themselves (including suicide)?

Do animals have rights?

Does the environment have rights?

Do rights extends in perpetuity?

[only_human]

Originally Posted by davar55

The issue of regulating the instruments of death has nothing to do with capitalism or free markets in general. Obviously, our rights are NOT protected (by government and law) if there are no restrictions on the obtaining of instruments of death; our laws must restrict these in some ways if our rights are to be protected.

Excluding these items, for which no free (or completely unregulated) market is or ever was intended, then I stand by my definition and explanations of the value and importance of free markets.

One humble reader suggests that only naive blatherskites believe that market forces do not have pernicious influence on laws and governments and rights and freedoms. One doesn't just set rules in place and expect them to work merely by sophisticated reasoning and selection. But if this lowly scrivener is too cynical or blind to the wisdom of others then that is intolerable! Pessimistic foreboding must stifled while looking on great works and weeping tears of joy.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by only_human

One humble reader suggests that only naive blatherskites believe that market forces do not have pernicious influence on laws and governments and rights and freedoms. One doesn't just set rules in place and expect them to work merely by sophisticated reasoning and selection. But if this lowly scrivener is too cynical or blind to the wisdom of others then that is intolerable! Pessimistic foreboding must stifled while looking on great works and weeping tears of joy.

At last! Someone who can produce a nice turn of phrase and use more than the basic English vocabulary, even (especially!) in the footnotes.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by rogue

How do you define "people"? Does that include children, the unborn, the incarcerated, non-Americans, etc.?
Does someone have the right to harm themselves (including suicide)?
Do animals have rights?
Does the environment have rights?
Do rights extends in perpetuity?

Do you assume these all can't be answered? They can, but it would take
a paper or a book to discuss them fully.
I firmly stand by my thesis of that post.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by davar55

People conflict; their right's shouldn't, and should be defined by law so as not to.

So, then, everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want, so long as it doesn't impact on anyone else.

Originally Posted by davar55

Self-defense is certainly a right, generally to protect one's primary rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness).

But... What if the tools for self defence can be used in an offensive manner? We hear about mentally unstable people killing many people several times a year.

What about this idea: One can only own a gun after getting a black-belt in a martial art.

First of all, such a trained person wouldn't actually need the gun to kill. Secondly, such a trained person probably wouldn't be insane enough to kill.

Just putting that out there for thought....

[xilman]

Originally Posted by chalsall

So, then, everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want, so long as it doesn't impact on anyone else.



But... What if the tools for self defence can be used in an offensive manner? We hear about mentally unstable people killing many people several times a year.

What about this idea: One can only own a gun after getting a black-belt in a martial art.

First of all, such a trained person wouldn't actually need the gun to kill. Secondly, such a trained person probably wouldn't be insane enough to kill.

Just putting that out there for thought....

In that case, I'd set up an institute to teach people the ancient Lancastrian martial art of Ecky Thump (the rest of you can look it up when you get home) and award practitioners with the necessary skills a black belt.

The traditional English martial art, Morris Dancing, doesn't presently have a coloured belt system AFAIK. One could doubtless be created.

[kladner]

Originally Posted by xilman

.....
The traditional English martial art, Morris Dancing, doesn't presently have a coloured belt system AFAIK. One could doubtless be created.

Does this mean that one could get a Black (or Paisley) belt for bad squeezebox playing?