Quote of the day—LaciTheDog

I have to admit that I find the US concept of rights to be incredibly biased and ignorant.  It seems that they are stuck in the rut of inalienable rights, natural rights, god given rights, and pre-existing rights. Various definitions of inalienability include non-relinquishability, non-salability, and non-transferability. If one thinks about it, all those terms are gibberish.



Thus these are nice terms, but truly meaningless as any person with a mind can figure out. Society is what grants rights and it grants the rights which enable certain minimum standards which are ‘of the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty.’ It does not grant rights which would create a state of anarchy or otherwise contrary to public order.


LaciTheDog
Rights: Natural and Legal
[I find this rather amusing.


He claims those who were regarded as the best political philosophers of their time spent weeks carefully writing what they knew was the most important document in their lifetime ended up with meaningless gibberish. I have to wonder how he came to achieve such a high state of enlightenment. Or perhaps he should reevaluate his own writings for indications of meaningless gibberish.


Since I doubt that there will be any forthcoming self evaluation I will do my own evaluation of this particular post by LaciTheDog.


In other parts of the post he paraphrases Edmund Burke. It is true Burke argued against metaphysical/natural rights of ordinary men but he leaves out the part where Burke argues that rights are granted by the king who was granted his rights from God.


It appears that LaciTheDog must now argue he is improving upon the philosophy Burke in that some entity with the name of “society” inherited the role of King or God and now is in a position to bestow or withhold those rights as desired. In the absence of a King and/or God(s) one has to wonder why the individual did not inherit this power but perhaps this knowledge comes from great enlightenment.


Overlooking that major gap in his reasoning I would now like to point out that the Declaration of Independence specifically rejected Burke’s philosophy and the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights rejected LaciTheDog’s “improvements”.


But the real meat of the LaciTheDog deficiencies are that he argues rights are granted and can be taken away by government and/or society. Implicit (and nearly explicit in his post) is that force is used as needed to take rights away from the individual. And it must follow that if the force necessary to remove those rights does not exist then the right remains with the original holder. And this is the part I find most amusing.


LaciTheDog is opposed to individuals having the right to keep and bear arms and has specifically stated that no such right exists. Yet the right is recognized by the majority of the people in our society, the courts, most of the legislators, and the executive branch (or at least given lip service). And even if the entire population that does not own firearms were to agree that no such right exists and they held even a moderate majority they would be incapability of enforcing that decision upon the population of gun owners because the tools of applying force would be in the hands of the gun owners—hence by LaciTheDog’s own philosophy the gun owners would still retain the right simply because no societal element was capable of taking the right away.


It boils down to LaciTheDog saying society can forcibly take away the right to keep and bear arms on a whim and society is philosophically entitled to do this because it can forcibly accomplish it.


I say, Molōn labe!—Joe]

35 thoughts on “Quote of the day—LaciTheDog

  1. I really wish that kind of stupid hurt.

    At least he admits he’s someone’s lap dog. I guess he failed reading comprehension in school, the Deceleration was pretty dang clear cut to me.

  2. I guess LaciUnderGarments doesn’t believe blacks’ rights were violated during slavery as it was pretty much majority opinion that they weren’t human. And in his world, as long as you have the votes, gas showers for a segment of the populace is ‘ordered liberty’. Plus, the trains will run on time.

    To say “certain minimum standards” is nothing more than another way to say “inalienable rights”. But that would require admitting there are such things.

    Although it is humorous to see something so pathetic claim I have no right to my firearms and then claim he has the right to demand someone else risk their lives to come and take them. Because I’m pretty sure if Laci was forced to act upon his beliefs, he’d run with his tail stuck between his legs.

  3. Mr. Huffman,

    I think you’re forgetting that, for these people, logic only counts for anything when it supports their argument. When it contradicts them, it magically becomes meaningless and irrelevant.

  4. I read through that post and the comments. Wow.

    Have you read the about page? “Reasoned discourse” is the name of the game for comments.

  5. When it comes to rights theory, I tend to adhere to natural rights theory. But no matter how you philosophize rights, it’s hard to see how a right that 60% or 70% or so of people believe exists, over a long enough time, survives for all practical purposes. I find natural rights theory appealing because I tend to think, at a base level, people tend to be wired similarly enough to want some of the same basic freedoms. But to what extent can people be happily talked out of a right? And to what extent does it still exist if there’s almost universal acceptance that it does not?

    If people in, say, Germany, are less happy for not having their right to bear arms recognized, they certainly don’t’ seem to show it. I think philosophy is important, because these ideas are really what makes us who we are, but at the end of the day, rights a majority of people don’t recognize or don’t view themselves as possessing will cease to exist for all practical exercise.

  6. One important thing to remember when dealing with Laci the Dog is that he* openly wishes all firearm owners would shoot themselves, and “rejoiced” (his word) at the murder of Mealanie Hain – in short, one would be hard-pressed to make an argument that he is approaching the world on an even keel, and the argument that hs is a blood-thirsty bigot pretty much makes itself…

    Robb already beat me to the slavery analogy… given that the majority of the South firmly believed that slavery should remain par for the course, and given that the majority of the North either did not care, or did not want those darkies in their cities, I guess black people’s rights were not being arbitrarily infringed by being forced to be scant more than property. Good to know.

    * – Yes, that is a male writing behind that moniker.

  7. Was there not an argument over this very point back in the 18th century, between the US and our British relations?

    Was the point not settled at that time, in favor of individual rights for US citizens, while only state-granted rights were granted for subjects of the Crown?

  8. Another point (besides the one on Laci’s head) is that the Framers didn’t just write that one document and think “There, that’s perfectly clear and in 200 years everyone will know exactly what we meant”.

    No, they all wrote books, letters, articles for the news, papers, etc. They explained over and over in detail what they meant by rights and bearing arms and being free. They described it in detail in every place that would lend them an ear or an eye. There are countless history books that illustrate this.

    To say they weren’t clear is to ignore history and facts laid before you.

    Which kind of explains things with this chump.

  9. LaciTheDog. This name is, perhaps, Hungarian? Oh? It is a pseudonym? Well! Since the fool hasn’t the courage of his convictions to sign his work, it is worthy of about that much attention.

    OK. Done.

    M

  10. But the real meat of the LaciTheDog deficiencies are that he argues rights are granted and can be taken away by government and/or society. Implicit (and nearly explicit in his post) is that force is used as needed to take rights away from the individual. And it must follow that if the force necessary to remove those rights does not exist then the right remains with the original holder.

    You know, all philosophizing aside, this is basically how rights work in real life. Talk of natural, human, god-given, inalienable rights… It can be useful for talking people into supporting you. But when men with machine guns are loading you onto a cattle car, you can invoke your inalienable rights all you want and see what good it does.

    In the end, we have only two protections for the “rights” that are important to us: consensus and force. Right now, we’re working from a broad American consensus that, despite the death of a thousand cuts we’re letting liberty endure right now, we still generally value the often-messy ideal of personal autonomy over tyrannical ideals of “social justice”. And so, for the most part, society is granting us those rights we argue are independent of their grant. When that situation changes, the only remaining fundamental defense of your rights is the ability every human has to refuse to cooperate through defiance, deception, and force.

    People like Laci want to believe that this debate is between irrational hyperreligious rednecks and enlightened secular urbanites, which makes attacking ideas of fundamental rights very attractive to them. What they don’t understand is that, for nonreligious people like me who don’t believe in a god who can give god-given rights, the right to arms is even more important than it is to the faithful. I ain’t looking forward to an eternal reward for my martyrdom, and don’t believe that if society decides not to honor my liberty, it’s all for God’s higher good. If “society” decides to oppress me here and now, it takes away all I have and will ever have. So I’ll keep that last line of defense as robust as possible, thanks.

  11. This is also the same guy who has had two negligent discharges with blank firing guns and blamed it on the gun both times.

    Not the sharpest tool in the shed. Calling the most important document in U.S. history “meaningless gibberish” is monumentally stupid.

  12. Joe, Thanks for that lengthy rebuttal to Laci’s remarks. Why do you and some of your friends like Linoge have such a hard time getting to the point without putting your readers to sleep? Never mind.

    I think what you guys have decided, if I understand you correctly, is you’ve taken a fairly universally accepted right like “life,” the idea that we all have a right to “life,” and you’ve moved from there to “self-defense.” If we have a right to “life” we must have a right to defend that life. So far so good. But here’s where you lose me and a lot of other people too, If you have a right to “self-defense,” you keep saying, then you have a right to own guns in order to best exercise that self-defense. I say that doesn’t follow.

    How about this? We have a right to life, right? Too many guns in the hands of irresponsible or criminal people are interfering with that right, the right to life. We need proper (strict) gun control laws in order to ensure the ability of people to enjoy their right to “life.”

    Why would your leap of faith that easy individual gun ownership is the best way to exercise our right to life be any more valid than my idea that the best way is to severely restrict and control guns?

  13. See, your problem, Joe, is that you take a fairly universally accepted right like “freedom of thought”, and move from there to “freedom of expression”. If we have a right to free thought, we must have a right to fully inform that thought fully. So far, so good. But here’s where you lose me and a handful of folks I figure are the majority: if you have a right to free expression, you keep saying, then you have a right to an uncensored internet in order to best exercise that freedom. I say that doesn’t follow.

    We have a right to freedom of thought, right? Too many people without the right education spouting off authoritatively on subjects they don’t understand interferes with our right to develop a clear picture of the world. We need proper (strict) regulation of who can say what online in order to ensure the ability of people to enjoy their right to free thought.

    Why is your leap of faith that democratic access to a global conversation by any moron who can afford a computer is the best way to exercise our right to free thought any more valid than my idea that the best way is to severely limit the public discourse to ideas government has endorsed as accurate and reliable?

  14. Mike202000, I’m pretty offended by your post. I’ve tried to read it in a non-malignant way, but I keep coming to the conclusion that you’re saying slaves should be happy to be alive.

    Humans are equal, humans have the right to LIBERTY. Liberty incorporates life, worship, speech, assembly, press, redress, keeping and bearing arms, and due process, among other rights.

  15. Mikeb,

    Gun ownership also falls under the “right to liberty”, “property rights” and the “right to the pursuit of happiness”.

  16. mikeb302000,

    Your concept of rights enables tyranny and oppression; Joe’s concept of rights enables liberty. For anyone who values freedom, it’s clear which vision is correct.

  17. Predictably enough, Laci implemented Reasoned Discourse on the post you linked to, Joe. No great surprise there.

    And I dare say Elmo wins the comment thread here…

    Why do you and some of your friends like Linoge have such a hard time getting to the point…

    If my explaining my position fully and with complete detail means I never have to tolerate another idiotic comment from you, I consider that a win. Thanks for the pointers.

    …if you have a right to free expression, you keep saying, then you have a right to an uncensored internet in order to best exercise that freedom. I say that doesn’t follow.

    Well, thankfully, you are the grand arbiter of… well… nothing, actually.

    That said, it is good to see you finally come out and admit that you would see our society devolve back to the point of the largest, strongest, and meanest individuals getting what they want, no matter what, and the rest of us having to deal with the consequences.

    Why do I think firearms are an essential part of the right to self defense? Because they guarantee all people – no matter their age, infirmity, ailments, disabilities, or size – have the ability to exercise that right. But I guess asking you to be non-discriminatory is just too much…

    We need proper (strict) gun control laws in order to ensure the ability of people to enjoy their right to “life.”

    If those not-so-proper laws actually did what you claimed, you might have a point – they do not, and we can show you that, and have countless times. With that in mind, the answer to your last question is all-too-obvious.

  18. “We need proper (strict) gun control laws in order to ensure the ability of people to enjoy their right to “life.” ”

    It’s their illegal and immoral actions that need controlling, not the weapons. It’s the criminal that violates someone’s right to life, not the gun.

  19. MikeB30200,

    I’m actually somewhat impressed with your response. I think you are wrong and I think I can easily demonstrate that and perhaps do a slightly better job than others have. But I got four hours of sleep last night and I’m running on empty right now. I’ll have more time in the morning.

  20. Joe;

    The short answer to MikeB30200 (YA pseudonym — does NOBODY have the courage of his convictions, even enough to MAKE UP a real-sounding name?): You’re wrong. That is, and this can be statistically proven, fewer firearms in the hands of free, law-abiding citizens DOES NOT result in greater security of life. Learn it. Love it. Live it.

    M

  21. @Linoge:

    And I dare say Elmo wins the comment thread here…

    Why do you and some of your friends like Linoge have such a hard time getting to the point…

    I believe MikeB302CipherCipher said that, not Elmo. Do I misunderstand your reference?

    And maybe I’m in the throes of caffeine deprivation, but I can’t help but think that this

    We need proper (strict) regulation of who can say what online in order to ensure the ability of people to enjoy their right to free thought.

    is sheer irony.

  22. I thank you Joe for the compliment. I hope you feel up to writing that rebuttal soon because all your friends could come up with was double talk, self-serving blah blah blah.

    Your leap that guns are required to properly exercise your right to self defense is the weak point in your argument. I suppose you’re complimenting me was an admission of that, yes?

    One thing I’ll say for the commenters is no one brought up the recent Supreme Court decisions. That’s another frequent weak point in your argument.

  23. Sorry.

    I slept in. I’m almost late for work now. More later perhaps from the airport this afternoon.

  24. @Mark Alger: I have no problem with pseudonyms, so long as the person using one is doing their best to defend their position, without resorting to name-calling and ad hominem attacks. Ok, maybe a *little* bit of name-calling and ad hominem, just to spice things up a bit. In any case, using pseudonyms, and being anonymous, both have a long and distinguished history. Madison, Jay, and Hamilton, for example, defended the Constitution under the name “Publius”, while anti-Federalist Brutus (who, to this day, remains unknown) was startlingly prescient on how the Constitution would be abused to create tyranny. Indeed, John Locke himself published his treatises on government anonymously–and probably had to, to preserve his life.

    As for myself, I chose the name “Epsilon Given” on my blog, mostly because it seemed fitting, considering where I got the name for it.

    @MikeB: I would like to point out that banning guns *does not* secure life. Nazi Germany banned guns, and that did nothing to preserve the life of at least 12 million people (half of which were Jews)–because banning guns gives government all the power. Formerly Great Britain banned guns, and now they are banning knives–and carrying *any* device for self-defense can get you prison time. And even if you can ban all things that you could use as weapons, you cannot ban physically big size, or well-toned muscles–so, by banning guns, you force the weak to be at the mercy of the strong. How does this ensure the right to Life? And it certainly doesn’t ensure the rights to Liberty and Property!

    It seems to me that you assume that, if guns are illegal for private citizens to own, then the government will be able to step in and protect you, when the need arises. That is a dangerous assumption to make, if for no other reason, than how time and time again, government has proven to be *extremely* incompetent, at *everything* it tries to do…except when it comes to taking Life, hampering Liberty, and destroying Property, which are the *only* things that governments seem to consistently do well!

    @Joe: I apologize in advance if I stole any of your thunder. I, too, look forward to your reply! 🙂

  25. tkdkerry – Sorry, I jumped mental tracks without making it clear to everyone else… Insert a, “And now on to Mike B.’s comments…” after the line address to Elmo, and that should be about right :).

    At any rate, once again Mike B. demonstrates that it is perfectly useless to try and hold anything even approximating a conversation with him… Not as though there was any doubt about that to begin with.

    This, however, should be damned high-larious:

    …the recent Supreme Court decisions. That’s another frequent weak point in your argument.

    ORLY? Given that all nine then-seated Supreme Court Justices agreed that the right to bear arms is an individual right (they simply differed on how much governments should be permitted to regulate that right), I am starting to think you are having problems with the definition of “weak”.

  26. Linoge,

    I gave him another read, & Joe is right–Mikeb actually does put forth a subtle and much more profound argument than usual–props to him for that. I can sense there’s a way around it somehow, but I can’t quite find it & I look forward to hearing what other people think on this one. As far as his Supreme Court point, I believe the point he’s trying to make is that it doesn’t matter if 9 people interpret a passage to mean one thing or another, what matters is the fundamental principle at stake.

  27. A point which, I might add, we would all be making had 9 justices ruled instead with a collectivist rights interpretation of the 2A in the Heller and McDonald dases

  28. The troll complains, “How about this? We have a right to life, right? Too many guns in the hands of irresponsible or criminal people are interfering with that right, the right to life. We need proper (strict) gun control laws in order to ensure the ability of people to enjoy their right to “life.” ”

    Since direct experiment has proven over and over again that no amount of laws will keep guns out of the hands of the insane, criminals and the irresponsible (Great Britain: strict control, handgun ban, an island with only one point of direct access and it from France — “gun crime,” is trending UP), why would think disarming law-abiding adults would do anything but put them even more at the mercy of the insane, criminals and the irresponsible and leave them ready prey for any demagogue able to sway the crowd?

  29. I gave him another read, & Joe is right–Mikeb actually does put forth a subtle and much more profound argument than usual–props to him for that.

    And then he follows it up with the playground tactic of shoving his fingers in his ears, jumping up and down, and screaming at the top of his lungs that he cannot hear us.

    Bit ruins the mood, really.

    That is what I was referring to when I said it was pointless to try to hold a conversation with him.

    And you could be right… it could be that he was putting forward the “fundamental principles” argument, and on that, I will actually agree with him – my rights exist independent on his, or the Supreme Court’s, or anyone else’s approval. But he fails at that argument as well…

    *shrug* Something tells me Joe’s response will be worth it, and that alone raises Mike’s comment above his normal, pathetic level… but when taken as an average of the whole… well, one blip is insufficient for me to care about :).

Comments are closed.