The emotionally driven “we can’t just do nothing” crowd is dragging out the very ambiguous “militia” wording in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, 2nd Amendment. The Amendment reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” There is, to my knowledge, no definition of “Militia” in the Constitution. Furthermore, the addition of the dependent preambulatory clause, and the last comma render the passage ungrammatical.
Tag: rights
Why “Archation”?
You have no right to initiate force or violate property rights. You have no right to govern, murder, rob, rape, trespass, defraud, or kidnap. Those acts are all the same, ethically. You have no right to archate.
Against Argumentative Definitions: The Case of Feminism
What would a non-argumentative definition of feminism look like? Ideally, feminists, non-feminists, and anti-feminists could all endorse it. If that’s asking too much, all these groups should at least be able to accept the proposed definition as a rough approximation of the position they affirm or deny.
Umbridge Galore
One type of statist wants to protect society from some liberties, while other statists want to protect society from the other liberties. Until there is no liberty left– and the moralizing bullies still will never be content. It’s never enough for them.
Why We Must “Politicize” Guns
Every time there’s a mass shooting, or even a particularly well-publicized single homicide, all of America’s political factions go directly to battle stations on the question of whether or not the violence can be reduced or eliminated with “gun control” legislation. As the debate rages on, the calls begin to ring out from different corners that whatever else we do, we must avoid “politicizing” the issue. Have you ever noticed that the “let’s not get political” talk always seems to emanate from the side that perceives itself as on the losing end of the argument at the moment?
Substituting Passion for Reason
I do not believe a zygote has rights– you can’t violate it. I believe a full-term baby does have rights, even though it isn’t capable of exercising many of them yet. I believe those things as strongly as I believe gravity is a real force which I can depend on to be consistent, but I can’t think of a way to prove it so I can’t be 100% positive.
“Rights” You Can’t Have
You don’t have the right to archate. No one does. No one can. Nothing can create such a right. Not wishes, not public opinion, not a “need”, not fear, nothing.
Dawkins’ Religious Error
I know Dawkins is famous for his atheism, but you and I know he isn’t an atheist because he still believes in The State due to his superstitious belief in “authority”. You can’t be an atheist, by definition, if you believe in any gods whatsoever and believe in any religion. Statism is not only a religion, it’s the most popular religion on the planet by a wide margin.
It’s Not What They Claim It Is
Libertarianism is not about what many of its enemies pretend it is about. It is not about being “anti-government”. What it is about is the recognition that no one has the right to initiate force or violate private property. In other words, no one has the right to archate. That’s it, period.
Statism Freezes
I have some friends who want to march on Washington, DC, to express their preference that POTUS loses his office. We can get bogged down in narrow issues real quickly on that question. Because POTUS himself blurs all criteria of whether he is doing a good job, where would one start to open the debate back to definition of a true set of parameters?