Comment by syshum | Hacker News Reader

Comment by syshum | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Depends on the law, most laws yes.

To Quote Bastiat

The Law is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

the principle of collective right its reason for existing, its lawfulness is based on individual right..

The common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force for the same reason cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

--

I oppose any law, or regulation that is not in the defense of individual rights

I.E - Laws punishing murder, rape, theft, fraud = Ethical

Laws punishing what I grow, or what weapons I have = unethical

To use a common libertarian phrase, I want gay married couples to be able to protect their marijuana fields with machine guns

Unless it is intentional, that logic permits swapping marijuana fields with e.g. heroin labs and machine guns with e.g. nuclear bombs. How can we objectively draw the line?

I am fine with Heroin as well, no one even government has the ethical authority to tell people what they can or can not ingest. If someone wants to consume heroin the only ethical action I can take is educating them as to why its bad, I can not prohibit them from consuming it, nor can I prohibit someone from selling it to them

There has also been a ton of unintended consequences from the pursuit of prohibition on the "hard drugs" including people with debilitating pain being made to suffer due to arbitrary drug limitations put on the medical field by people with no medical training

As to the common retort of "well do you support people having nuclear weapons" that is very easy, and my principle would apply to all manner of weapons. If we as a society believe that nuclear weapons are too dangerous then we as a society should ban them, completely. Meaning not even government should have them. This would also apply to machine guns. If we as a society believe machine guns are too dangerous for people to own then all people even people in government should be barred from owning them, for if the government does not trust me with a machine gun or nuclear weapon then I sure as shit do not trust government with it either

The biggest problem I have with Weapons control is Law Enforcement, and Military are always exempted from the law. If we believe in government for the people, by the people and that The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense, the the government of the people can not and should not have powers that exceed that of the individuals that make up that government. The collective should not, and can not be more powerful than the individual.

Equality under the law demands that if Joe Police officer has a M16, than I also can have a M16, if you ban me from having that M16, than Joe Police officer should also be banned from having an M16.

For the record, I do believe in the prohibition of Nuclear weapons, and all other Weapons of Mass Destruction, I believe in the complete prohibition of them including prohibiting governments

Yeah but the point in debate is are the police allowed to violate individuals' rights (e.g. privacy) while investigating (e.g.) a murder?

Generally speaking no I do not believe they should, however we would need to agree on what the right to privacy actually is.

For example I support the 5th amendment of the US Constitution and would even expand up on it to bar the government from forcing anyone to testify on any manner not just from self incrimination.

I also reject the current jurisprudence around the 3rd party doctrine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com