At the heart of the RKBA struggle...

[gunsnmoses]

of course RKBA is good for the community. more guns (in the hands of law abiding) = less crime (for everyone, even people who don't have guns)

if someone is "community minded" give him evidence!
eg - Kennesaw, GA vs Morton Grove, Ill.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

 

[JCF]

The welfare of the "community" is inextricably tied to the welfare of the individuals in that community. If the statement were true, then logically it would be best, if possible, to sacrifice a single member every so often to guarantee the safety of the "community" as a whole.

Well, first of all, placing the welfare of the community (and understand that community in this context equates to our national community) above that of the individual does not require sacrifice of one individual by another, or by the community as a whole. What we are talking about here is a recognition by the individual that there is a point in time where he must make the decision as to whether or not he is prepared to sacrifice himself for his community.

Let me put it to you this way: do you feel it is in the best interest of the community to have the RKBA? To what extent would you go to support that right for others? Do you believe it is in the best interest of the community to have laws prohibiting child sexual abuse? To what extent would you go to stop the sexual abuse of a child if it were in your power? If your answer to either of these questions involved any level of potential sacrifice of your own personal welfare, then you believe in the principle of placing the welfare of the community over that of the individual.

Secondly, the OP was simply suggesting the promotion of the RKBA as being in the interest of community welfare.

 

[JCF]

That statement is true, in my book, but it strongly supports the individual RTKBA, not the other way around.

Precisely. Exactly where the OP was going.

+1 PremiumSauces and hugh damright

 

[357WheelGun]

Well, first of all, placing the welfare of the community (and understand that community in this context equates to our national community) above that of the individual does not require sacrifice of one individual by another, or by the community as a whole. What we are talking about here is a recognition by the individual that there is a point in time where he must make the decision as to whether or not he is prepared to sacrifice himself for his community.

So, the community has no ability to compel an individual to sacrifice his life or welfare for the community as a whole, but the individual must make that choice of his own free will? That is an explicit admission that the individual is superior to the community; if the community were superior to the individual, it would have the ability to compel individual sacrifice because the community's welfare has primacy. Since the community, at least according to you, should not have the ability to compel the individual to sacrifice himself, then it logically follows that the individual's welfare has primacy over the community's.

The only way, the only way, to elevate the welfare of the community above the welfare of the individual is to grant the community the ability to compel an individual to sacrifice his own welfare against that individual's will.

Let me put it to you this way: do you feel it is in the best interest of the community to have the RKBA? To what extent would you go to support that right for others? Do you believe it is in the best interest of the community to have laws prohibiting child sexual abuse? To what extent would you go to stop the sexual abuse of a child if it were in your power? If your answer to either of these questions involved any level of potential sacrifice of your own personal welfare, then you believe in the principle of placing the welfare of the community over that of the individual.

As it is in the best interest of the individual to have the right to keep and bear arms, it is also in the best interest of the community that individuals have that right. Inasmuch as it is not possible for me, individually, to have the right to keep and bear arms without others having that right as well, I will fight for everyone's right simply because it is not possible for me to gain my right without others gaining theirs also.

It is absolutely in the best interest of a community as a whole to protect its individual members as well as it can. That includes the protection of its children. However, potential inconvenience to an offending member of society is not a result of the community assuming primacy, but rather the result of the interaction of the rights of two individuals. It is not the community's interests that dictate an accused person will be inconvenienced, but rather it is the individual interests of the wronged party.

Assuming that I had the power to do so I would defend, to my death if necessary, a child in the position you describe. This, however, is not detrimental to my welfare. Quite simply, I would not be able to live with myself if I did less than I was able; my long-term welfare would be less if I failed to defend the child. My short-term physical welfare may be compromised, but my long-term, overall welfare would, in fact, be augmented resulting in no net risk to my welfare and, accordingly, no necessity of belief in granting the community primacy.

To grant a community primacy is to grant a mob power over the life of an individual man. It is an onerous idea and I shall never defend it.

 

[JohnBT]

"The welfare of the community as a whole is more important than the welfare of any individuals in that community."

Most people, both anti and pro gun folks would agree with that statement.
____________

Most people? Based on what evidence? Can you cite a source of published research for instance?

Even if it is true, there are numerous ways of measuring "welfare" and what one person or small group believes to be important may or may not be important to another person or group.

Okay, I'll go back to gazing at my navel and leave the philosophy to others.

John

 

[Jim March]

There's no such thing as collective rights. All civil rights are individual. Forcing people to give up their personal civil rights for some nebulous "collective good" ALWAYS ends badly. Worst case, with dead bodies stacked in heaps - see also Germany, Japan, Soviet Russia, Cambodia, China...

 

[JCF]

So, the community has no ability to compel an individual to sacrifice his life or welfare for the community as a whole, but the individual must make that choice of his own free will? That is an explicit admission that the individual is superior to the community; if the community were superior to the individual, it would have the ability to compel individual sacrifice because the community's welfare has primacy. Since the community, at least according to you, should not have the ability to compel the individual to sacrifice himself, then it logically follows that the individual's welfare has primacy over the community's.

The only way, the only way, to elevate the welfare of the community above the welfare of the individual is to grant the community the ability to compel an individual to sacrifice his own welfare against that individual's will.

Assuming that I had the power to do so I would defend, to my death if necessary, a child in the position you describe. This, however, is not detrimental to my welfare. Quite simply, I would not be able to live with myself if I did less than I was able; my long-term welfare would be less if I failed to defend the child. My short-term physical welfare may be compromised, but my long-term, overall welfare would, in fact, be augmented resulting in no net risk to my welfare and, accordingly, no necessity of belief in granting the community primacy.

To grant a community primacy is to grant a mob power over the life of an individual man. It is an onerous idea and I shall never defend it.

So in essence, any action you might take that might be construed as self-sacrificial in the the collective interest is, in fact, not? It is in fact undertaken with substantive deliberation to assuring that any benefit is, in fact, individually enjoyed? In effect, were your actions to have a collective benefit, despite that explicitly not having been your intent, would it be an unwelcome development?

Let me see if I understand this correctly: you would never fight for your country. You might join your nation's military for purposes of PERSONAL gain to yourself, or to protect the INDIVIDUAL rights of each one of your 300 million countrymen, but you would NOT fight for them as a nation?

Just for the sake of my own understanding... if you were to act in defense of ten individual people in your community, how do you know that what you are doing won't help all of them instead of helping each one of them? How do you ensure that division and what is the difference?

You would defend, to the death, a child victim of sexual abuse. You would do this, NOT in the interest of THEIR welfare, but rather in order safeguard your own? Is that correct?

Do you swear allegiance to a flag?

 

[Seekerrr]

We CANNOT be rugged individualists and survive.

And.....

If our rights as individuals are protected and lifted up, then our communities will have less crime and be better places to live. Are we making this argument?

First, maintaining one's rugged individuality is not mutually exclusive to making proper, cogent and legally-sound arguments, so I strongly disagree with the first quote.

Second, as a self-umm....*confessed* rugged individualist, I have made the argument you pose countless times, both live and on discussion forums, pretty much proving that your first quote is off-base. I survive pretty darn well, as does my ability to research and provide good sources for the premise that more guns equals safer communities. And the fact that gun sites attract thousands and thousands of participants (and lurkers) makes me believe that "our" community is doing fine too.

While it may be true that you don't see this argument much on forums such as this one, you have to realize, it isn't really necessary to repeat over and over to people who "get it." The kinds of places I use this argument are on a couple of music sites and on forums that are not topic-specific. Music sites are rampant with left-leaning anti-gun types, as are general debate/discussion sites. I could give you a couple of examples if you're interested, but the point is, nearly every time I participate in a gun-rights discussion on a generally gun-unfriendly website, I pull out all the stats I can put my hands on to show that an armed society is indeed a much more polite society.

If we refuse to engage society and give cogent arguments, we have no one to blame but ourselves if our personal rights get stepped on.

Not that I accept the premise that we *aren't* engaging society with cogent arguments, but even if we really weren't, I definitely would not accept the blame for losing my rights to tyrannical liberty-thieves who disregarded The Constitution to accomplish such an evil deed. I don't get this train of thought at all. It's the epitome of blaming the victim.

That's why we should all vote.

I definitely agree that all people who are eligible should vote, but I would never suggest that those who don't, don't have a right to complain. Of course they have that right. It's called the 1st Amendment! Missing a vote for whatever reason is not grounds for suspension of your right to complain about your government. And besides that, there are many people who refrain from physically casting their vote as a way of saying, "None of you have earned my support. Thus, I register my vote against all of you." A non-vote if done purposely and conscientiously, is a vote as far as I'm concerned. That said, the one time I decided not to vote for any candidate that was on the ballot, I still went and wrote in votes. I do vote even when I've got no one to vote for on the ballot, but it's every bit as much my right not to and to still voice my opinion if I so choose.

And even more than that, we should all get involved in the political process on a local level.

I'm not sure how you define "process" in this context, but in general, I don't want *us all* involved in any aspect of the process of government. I don't want *us all* at City Council meetings clogging up the works to the point that all the politicians hear is a cacophonous crowd in which the message gets lost. I sure as heck don't want *us all* actually becoming politicians! Imagine how few people there would be left to respect! Kind of a joke, but then again, kind of not. Not all of us are cut out for activism, anymore than all of us are just sitting at a keyboard thumping our chests. Some DO and some benefit from the doers. That's just the way of the world. Welcome to humanity!

Get involved in your community! Debate the antis, and show them that RKBA is good for the city, county, whatever.

I would be interested to know what evidence you have that suggests this isn't happening. Maybe it's not being done by *us all*, but you can't seriously believe that our cause (preserving and strengthening the 2nd Amendment) isn't well represented "out here" in the general population, can you? If you do believe that, then I would suggest that it's founded on nothing more than perception, as opposed to any firm, personal knowledge of how much or how little activism emanates from *us all*.

Seekerrr

PS: My apologies to anyone who already said what I've said here. I got to the post I am responding to and just hit "Reply" before reading the whole thread. I know there's nothing particularly original in this post, but I still didn't plagiarize.

 

[JCF]

Huh, and to think all this time I was under the impression that when the Constitution said "We the People" it actually meant it, and not really "Each One of You People".

And to think that all this time I should have been saying "I pledge allegiance to the flag of cfriesen".

And to think, I never knew that all our boys actually never died for their country, but rather for me personally, and the neighbor, and Bill, and Manuel, and Shaneequa..., but not for the country, just for everyone, but not everyone together... everyone separately.

Whoa.

 

[Dead]

"The welfare of the community as a whole is more important than the welfare of any individuals in that community."


So if the community as a whole doesnt like you personally, it would be OK for the community to kill you? I mean it is for the overall good of the community after all.

So I would have to say NO that statement is not the way I generally view things.

 

[357WheelGun]

So in essence, any action you might take that might be construed as self-sacrificial in the the collective interest is, in fact, not? It is in fact undertaken with substantive deliberation to assuring that any benefit is, in fact, individually enjoyed? In effect, were your actions to have a collective benefit, despite that explicitly not having been your intent, would it be an unwelcome development?

An action of mine being beneficial to the community is a bonus. The simple fact is that when an individual acts in his own long-term best interest, the needs of the community are served as well. In practice, operating out of rational self-interest yields precisely the same results as are theoretically yielded from altruism, albeit without the guilt and coercion. When I do anything, I do it because I choose to, that is to say that I do it because I, as an individual, prefer it to the other possible actions available to me. If my actions have a collective benefit as well, that is welcome, but it is not, and should not be, the primary aim of my actions and any community benefits are secondary to individual benefits.

Let me see if I understand this correctly: you would never fight for your country. You might join your nation's military for purposes of PERSONAL gain to yourself, or to protect the INDIVIDUAL rights of each one of your 300 million countrymen, but you would NOT fight for them as a nation?

A nation is nothing other than a collection of individuals serving an idea. I will gladly fight for the idea of freedom and personal responsibility and self-determination. Also, omit the word "gain" from the above, the phrase, "You might join your nation's military for purposes of PERSONAL gain to yourself" is inaccurate. It would correctly read, "You might join your nation's military for purposes that are PERSONAL to yourself". The use of "gain" is pejorative in this case and implies material possessions.

I will fight for my country as long as I believe that it is working to advance the ideals of freedom, personal responsibility, and self-determination. If I am drafted, I will fight because I have accepted that as a responsibility attached to my personal choice to continue to live in this country. I am proud, very proud, of the ideals for which America has stood, and still stands today. But I will not fight simply for a political entity.

Just for the sake of my own understanding... if you were to act in defense of ten individual people in your community, how do you know that what you are doing won't help all of them instead of helping each one of them? How do you ensure that division and what is the difference?

See my response to your first paragraph and kindly dispense with the strawman argument. Benefit to the community is a secondary issue that is subordinate to the individual. It does not follow from this that benefit to the community is to be avoided, merely that primacy is given to individual benefit. The fact is that the two often coincide.

You would defend, to the death, a child victim of sexual abuse. You would do this, NOT in the interest of THEIR welfare, but rather in order safeguard your own? Is that correct?

Yes. Though in this case it is prudent to remember that my own best interest and the child's overlap entirely and the net result is identical. I choose not to hide behind the lie of altruism.

Do you swear allegiance to a flag?

No. But I do firmly believe that the US is currently the greatest nation in the world and that it will continue to be until it drifts completely away from any grasp of freedom, personal responsibility, and self-determination.

 

[gc70]

"The welfare of the community as a whole is more important than the welfare of any individuals in that community."

This question may not have an absolute Yes/No answer. Actual examples are always interesting to consider.

(Typhoid) Mary Mallon was a healthy carrier of typhoid fever who was confined to North Brother Island in the East River near the Bronx from 1915 until her death in 1938. Her confinement infringed on her rights, but protected the people of New York from exposure to a deadly disease.

 

[marshall3]

One more attempt to advance my thesis

I think ALL of us on this board believe (if we think a minute) that the welfare of the community is more important than our personal welfare. Example: My family is my nearest and dearest community. If my death is necessary to preserve the welfare of my family, then I am willing to die. I imagine all of you here believe that. Let's take it a step further. If my death promotes the welfare of my extended family? I know that's a big if, but for argument's sake, suppose that my death really will advance my extended family. Should I not then be willing to die for them?

I fully realize that most of us are not that noble. We may not be willing to die for Uncle Ned and Aunt Nellie who have done us wrong. However, this is just a hypothetical situation I raise to prove a point.

Please understand that my thesis is NOT that we should sacrifice our individual rights and liberties because someone in Washington says so. Not at all. I'm saying that we ought to try to convince the anti-gun folk that our individual rights and liberties INDEED ARE for the welfare of our whole nation. I believe we CAN demonstrate that, and we SHOULD be actively demonstrating that.

 

[Jim March]

I think ALL of us on this board believe (if we think a minute) that the welfare of the community is more important than our personal welfare. Example: My family is my nearest and dearest community. If my death is necessary to preserve the welfare of my family, then I am willing to die.

Listen carefully, because this part's important:

ONLY YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THAT DECISION.

M'kay?

The moment anybody else thinks they have the right to make that decision, the only sane response, the only response that preserves civilization, is to shoot them in the head and keep doing so until you KNOW they're dead.

And then let loose a couple more to make sure.

If you think I'm kidding, ask anybody who survived Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge...or any surviving Jews with serial number tattoos, or....

Is any part of this unclear?

 

[geekWithA.45]

"The welfare of the community as a whole is more important than the welfare of any individuals in that community."

No.

The welfare of the community is *the*sum* of the welfare of the individuals that comprise the community.

The community will not prosper through any subtractive sum operation. You cannot take away from the members of the community, and expect the community to prosper, nor will the community prosper through any redistributive, zero sum operation.

The only way for the community to advance is to support its members in the creation of positive sum operations, and these operations are ONLY available to individuals.

The OP is trying to find common ground with the opponents, and this is to be commended.

The problem with the statement as writ is that it simply defines the individual as entirely subordinate to the community, which would imply that any amount of imposition upon the individual would be justified in the name of collective welfare. Even if one denied the assertion, leaving it as a blank piece of paper to write on invites danger and disaster.

The actual relationship of the individual to the community is much more complex and two way.


I advise the OP to look into the deep, fundamental, and mutually exclusive philosophical split: that of Locke vs Rousseau before proceeding any further in his thought train.

Locke and Rousseau each posited a social compact detailing the nature of an individual's relationship to his community.

The names of Locke's mind children can be found signed to the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. The fruit of his philosophy was the American Revolution.

Rousseau's looks similar at first blush, but deeper thought reveals it to be tainted in several ways, some subtle, and some overt.

Rousseau's first mind children where the Jacobins, and the immediate fruits of his labors was the French Revolution, quickly followed by the Terror and guillotines in the town square. His later mind children were Marx, Engels, socialism, and communism.

IMO, one MUST understand this fundamental and irreconcilable philosophical split in order to have this conversation.

Our opponents, for the most part, even if they reject later day collectivism a la socialism/progressivism/communism, are the mind children of Rousseau.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

It's possible to simplify this issue down to its bare essentials, at which point, IMO, things become clear.

If by "arms" we mean personal small arms like pistols, rifles, and shotguns (as opposed to "area weapons" like bombs, WMD's etc.), then there are two cases to consider.

Case One is where individuals have a RKBA.

Case Two is where they do not.

Because of their ability to selectively deal death at a distance, regardless of the size or physical prowess of the user, guns are also known as "equalizers." Even when a defender is faced with multiple antagonists, pretty much no one wants to get shot or killed. Because of this, a single armed person, even if small, old, weak, or all of the above, can hold off or deter a larger, younger, stronger attacker, or group of attackers.

Note that this is not true of a non-lethal weapon such as pepper spray. It is the potential lethality that makes a gun what it is.

So in Case One, a defender can, if they so choose, place themselves on very close to an equal footing with most potential attackers, and hence has good chances of avoiding being molested.

Case Two is much less complicated. In almost all scenarios, the weak are at the mercy of the strong. Attackers simply need to pick their spots such that none of society's agents are available to help the defender. And all the defender can do is endure what he must - which could be rape, robbery, a beating, maiming, or any number of horrible things.

And given any sort of rational victim selection process, the agony of these experiences will tend to fall mostly on the old, the small, the weak, and the infirm.

Since we now pretty much know what Case One and Case Two look like, all we need do is compare them and decide for ourselves which seems to have the makings of a better world.

At least that's how I see it. FWIW, some of this was inspired by the writings of Jeffery Snyder.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The individual isn't there for the community, the community is there for all the individuals. The community is for things like the common defense, justice, and comity.

The community should never call for any sacrifice beyond what any individual should ever need to make on his own in his own defense or support.

Woody

Our government was designed by our Founding Fathers to fit within the framework of our rights and not vise versa. Any other "interpretation" of the Constitution is either through ignorance or is deliberately subversive. B.E. Wood

 

[ReadyontheRight]

Adam Smith covered this subject a few hundred years ago.

If we have a free market, an individual pursuing his/her own self-interest also promotes what is best for his/her community through a principle that Smith called “the invisible hand”. Each individual doing the best for for him/herself does the best for society as a whole. He based it on adding up total revenues of individuals in the society, but I believe it also applies to "general welfare".

In The Wealth of Nations Smith provides an example that illustrates the simplicity of the principle:

“ It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."

And as far as personal sacrifice goes:

"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his." -George Patton-

 

[ScottG1911]

Well me being a libertarian type person, I beleive in taking care of my family and I. I do beleive in helping other who are in need of my help. But when it comes down to the communities happiness and MY rights, They will never get a helping hand from me ever again. For I have sworn eternal hostility against anyone who would take my rights

 

[ReadyontheRight]

And to think, I never knew that all our boys actually never died for their country, but rather for me personally, and the neighbor, and Bill, and Manuel, and Shaneequa..., but not for the country, just for everyone, but not everyone together... everyone separately.

They died for a country founded upon and dedicated to your right to live and die how you choose. And the neighbor, Bill, Manuel and Shaneequa.

That's quite different than dying for a country.

 

[JCF]

Ok... I am beginning to better understand the argument. Indeed my perspective is beginning to shift.

There are a few issues that I have yet to reconcile however. Perhaps someone might help me out.

357wheelgun:

I will fight for my country as long as I believe that it is working to advance the ideals of freedom, personal responsibility, and self-determination.

geekwitha.45:

The only way for the community to advance is to support its members in the creation of positive sum operations, and these operations are ONLY available to individuals.

What happens where there is a disconnect between individual perceptions of what constitutes the rational creation of positive sum operations?

For instance; who can be said to be engaged in the rational creation of positive sum operations, those in vocal opposition to the war in Iraq, or those who enlist?

Or are they both?

 

[JCF]

They died for a country founded upon and dedicated to your right to live and die how you choose. And the neighbor, Bill, Manuel and Shaneequa.

That's quite different than dying for a country.

357wheelgun, geekwitha.45:

Do you agree that this is the case?

 

[gego]

"The welfare of the community as a whole is more important than the welfare of any individuals in that community."

Sounds like something one freshly indoctrinated in the Sarah Brady school of self abnegation would believe. Do you enjoy being tied up and beaten also? Where did you get such a preposterous idea? It seems somewhat narcissistic on your part to assume that everyone else shares your thought patterns.

And since when are family and community synonymous?

I might give my life to protect my family, but only because that is in my own best interest and the best interest of my genetic material getting into the future, and because I love them. I don't love strangers, but I do respect their right to live and pursue their own best interests. If given a choice of giving my life for strangers or pushing you in front of a fast moving train, then you better be prepared to taste metal.

The only sane reason an individual is willing to make concessions to a group is if those concessions are in his own self interest. You take good care of yourself and I take good care of myself, and the sum total of good is maximized. If I want to voluntarily be charitable because it makes me feel good, or it sets a good example for others to follow, then that is my choice. If you decide to make good by forcing me to be charitable for the "good of the community" or otherwise give up myself, you are doing evil.

I would say that your statement placing the community (state) above the individual would be well accepted by such like minded proponents of the collective as Hitler, Lenin, Obama, and Bill and Hillary Clinton.

 

[357WheelGun]

What happens where there is a disconnect between individual perceptions of what constitutes the rational creation of positive sum operations?

One person is right and the other is wrong. Unfortunately, history is generally the only reliable judge of which is which.

For instance; who can be said to be engaged in the rational creation of positive sum operations, those in vocal opposition to the war in Iraq, or those who enlist?

Or are they both?

Logically only one can be right. However, history will be the ultimate judge and right now one can only offer conjecture. There are people on both sides who are acting for individual reasons and there are people on both sides who are acting for "community" reasons. Which specific side is right does not have bearing on whether the individual or the community has primacy.

With a belief in the primacy of the individual, it matters only that the individual be free to select his own path and that the choices of any one individual do not infringe upon the freedoms of another. The rightness or wrongness of a given choice is not a concern for anyone other than the individual who is making that choice.

They died for a country founded upon and dedicated to your right to live and die how you choose. And the neighbor, Bill, Manuel and Shaneequa.

That's quite different than dying for a country.

357wheelgun, geekwitha.45:

Do you agree that this is the case?

I would amend it to say, "They died for the right to live and die how one chooses. And the neighbor, Bill, Manuel and Shaneequa."

If the country currently does embody that right, then it can be informally said that they "died for their country", but it would remain properly accurate to say that they died for the principles and not the political entity.

 

[JCF]

One person is right and the other is wrong. Unfortunately, history is generally the only reliable judge of which is which.

Despite the fact that both parties are acting out of what they may rationally perceive to be their own individual interest, and with confidence that doing so will ultimately further their community as a result, and despite the fact that they may be convinced of the fact that the actions of others, those opposed to them, may indeed be a subtractive sum operation?