Take my tractor and you're dead!

[David Floyd]

Now, if a cop saw, say, a joint in plain sight he'd have probable cause under current law (actually called the plain sight doctrine).

[David Floyd]

So where do those natural rights come from? Just another human fabrication?

Oh God I shouldn't have opened this can of worms

Basically, they come from principles of self-ownership.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Oh God I shouldn't have opened this can of worms

Basically, they come from principles of self-ownership.

No, you shouldn't have!

[Boris Godunov]

Alright, so I can deduce then you feel that their is a higher moral law, or natural law or whatever, that guides your actions over the dictates of human law, correct? And that when human law contradicts your natural law, you are obligated to act by the latter?

[David Floyd]

My natural right to own property trumps any human law saying I can't, so in that sense yes.

*Anticipating your next argument*

Before you make the analogy, by the way, my argument is not that Hitler justly took property and lives away from Jews, but rather that the Nuremburg Trials were immoral because: they were blatantly hypocritical, an example of might makes right, and they tried many people who were simply following orders.
An example is that if you steal my property, our common government has a duty to intervene, but an international body neither of us have elected or consented to has no right to intervene.

[Ramo]

Well, if a burglar breaks in in the middle of the night you are entitled to assume danger to yourself.

Sure, but do you think you're always entitled to assume lethal danger; i.e. you need to kill him to protect yourself?

Likewise, if a cop abuses his power, attempts to search or rob you illegally, you frankly have no idea how far he is going to go, and I think force is certainly justified, although unless he assaults you I'd go for a non-lethal gunshot wound or preferably just beat his ass, take his weapon, and throw him out.

Why go for a lethal instead of a non-lethal gun shot wound? What do you accomplish by killing him instead of incapacitating him?

[David Floyd]

Sure, but do you think you're always entitled to assume lethal danger; i.e. you need to kill him to protect yourself?

If someone is in your house against your will, assuming danger is entirely reasonable IMO.

Why go for a lethal instead of a non-lethal gun shot wound? What do you accomplish by killing him instead of incapacitating him?

Going for a non-lethal shot would be my ideal preference - I don't get excited about killing and frankly would have psychological problems doing it. However, I think that if someone enters your house against your will, even if it's a cop, you are entitled to assume a danger to your life.

[Ramo]

However, I think that if someone enters your house against your will, even if it's a cop, you are entitled to assume a danger to your life.

If the danger can be mitigated by non-lethal force, why are you entitled to lethal force?

However, I think that if someone enters your house against your will, even if it's a cop, you are entitled to assume a danger to your life.

Do you think you're entitled to kill an IRS person if he comes after you?

[David Floyd]

If the danger can be mitigated by non-lethal force, why are you entitled to lethal force?

How do you know non-lethal force will suffice?

Do you think you're entitled to kill an IRS person if he comes after you?

Sure, if he's coming after me illegally, same as if a cop is.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd
My natural right to own property trumps any human law saying I can't, so in that sense yes.

*Anticipating your next argument*

Before you make the analogy, by the way, my argument is not that Hitler justly took property and lives away from Jews, but rather that the Nuremburg Trials were immoral because: they were blatantly hypocritical, an example of might makes right, and they tried many people who were simply following orders.
An example is that if you steal my property, our common government has a duty to intervene, but an international body neither of us have elected or consented to has no right to intervene.

Were you walking down the street with your wife and a rapist jumped out and attacked her, I would hope you would interfere and stop him. That applies even if it were illegal to do so in some hypothetical world. That is because the moral obligation to prevent someone from harming yourself or another is something that transcends any human law. It is a basic law of social interaction.

I believe the same thing applies to nations interacting in the global environment. There are times when the actions of a regime are so egregiously wrong and in violation of natural rights that it is imperative for another nation or group of nations to step in. It is moral and just to do so, and if we do not, who will there be to step in for us if we find ourselves in the same position.

Now, as for Germany...she was responsible to Geneva Convention rules created in 1899 for treatment of prisoners, which the Nazis clearly violated. That alone constituted war crimes under an agreement Germany willingly entered into, and therefore they were legally responsible for the crimes committed against PoWs, yes?

[Ramo]

How do you know non-lethal force will suffice?

Depends on the situation, but I can't think of many that require lethal force.

Sure, if he's coming after me illegally, same as if a cop is.

Why illegally? Why not legally? Don't income taxes go against your ideas about "natural rights?"

[David Floyd]

Were you walking down the street with your wife and a rapist jumped out and attacked her, I would hope you would interfere and stop him. That applies even if it were illegal to do so in some hypothetical world. That is because the moral obligation to prevent someone from harming yourself or another is something that transcends any human law. It is a basic law of social interaction.

I certainly agree.

I believe the same thing applies to nations interacting in the global environment. There are times when the actions of a regime are so egregiously wrong and in violation of natural rights that it is imperative for another nation or group of nations to step in. It is moral and just to do so, and if we do not, who will there be to step in for us if we find ourselves in the same position.

A nice justification of WW2 - except you forget one thing. In order to right a wrong, the US had to violate the natural rights of millions of Americans, which is totally unjustifiable. It's more immoral to directly violate someone's rights than to fail to act to prevent someone's rights from being violated.

This is different from the social interaction example, because your hypothetical man voluntarily risks himself in intervening.

Now, as for Germany...she was responsible to Geneva Convention rules created in 1899 for treatment of prisoners, which the Nazis clearly violated. That alone constituted war crimes under an agreement Germany willingly entered into, and therefore they were legally responsible for the crimes committed against PoWs, yes?

True, but I doubt the Geneva Convention had a provision for trying individuals before an international tribunal (none of which existed in 1899) who violated the Convention.

[David Floyd]

Depends on the situation, but I can't think of many that require lethal force.

Maybe, but I'd prefer to leave that call with the people involved, not some detached bureaucrat.

Why illegally? Why not legally? Don't income taxes go against your ideas about "natural rights?"

Yes, I thought about this earlier actually - I'll have to think about that one. I'll get back to you on it.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd

IA nice justification of WW2 - except you forget one thing. In order to right a wrong, the US had to violate the natural rights of millions of Americans, which is totally unjustifiable. It's more immoral to directly violate someone's rights than to fail to act to prevent someone's rights from being violated.

This is different from the social interaction example, because your hypothetical man voluntarily risks himself in intervening.

America did many things wrong during the war, but I'm not only talking about America, I'm talking about all those who fought against the Nazis. And why does committing a wrong while in the pursuit of something that is truly right invalidate that right? Surely, it merely means the wrong on our end needs to be addressed as well, not fighting the Nazis was made wrong because of that?

True, but I doubt the Geneva Convention had a provision for trying individuals before an international tribunal (none of which existed in 1899) who violated the Convention.

What would have been the point of the Convention had it not allowed for the creation of such tribunals, like on an ad hoc basis? How else could they enforce the rules the nations signed on to uphold?

[Ramo]

Maybe, but I'd prefer to leave that call with the people involved, not some detached bureaucrat.

Detactched bureaucrat? Isn't that a little hyperbolic? Why not let everyone do what they want, and not deal with any "detatched bureaucrats?"