UK: Pepper spray still illegal

Hampstead & Highgate Express (UK) ^ | 5/27/05 | n/a

[explodingspleen]

Perhaps bad dentistry helps to subdue the temptation? :p

[B Knotts]

I disagree. I'm speaking in terms of morality. The Third Reich, for instance, had no right to murder millions of Jews, Gypsies and other "undesirables." Nor did the U.S.S.R. have the right to starve millions. Nor do the Chinese have the right to suppress religious freedom.

The legitimate rights of the state have limits.

In my opinion, denying people reasonable means of self-defense goes beyond these rights.

[TASMANIANRED]

There is a problem in all nations that evolved from a feudal system.

The people belonged to the land and the land belonged to the lord of the manor. The people farmed and the first fruits went to the lord. The lord was responsible for protecting them.

The result of this is there is a body of law that people belong to the state and not to themselves.

The state is responsible for defending you and it is an offense to defend yourself. You do not own yourself.

[Mark was here]

I disagree. I'm speaking in terms of morality. The Third Reich, for instance, had no right to murder millions of Jews, Gypsies and other "undesirables."

The Third Reich murdered millions not because the had the "right" to but rather because they could.

"Rights" do not exist in the real world, they are merely ideals that should be shared and respected.

[B Knotts]

I don't think you're comprehending what I'm talking about, or perhaps, vice-versa.

[Mark was here]

I don't think you're comprehending what I'm talking about, or perhaps, vice-versa.

In nature a Bluejay may steal a nest from another bird. An Eagle may eat a tiny little bunny rabbit. In both cases the "rights" of the other bird and the little bunny rabbit were extremely violated. If they had rights that is. A woman can murder her aunt, and the sun will still rise in the east. Nature does not care if "rights" are violated, because "Rights" do not exist.

Rights what we call natural rights like the Right to Property, are defined as inherent, as if they were in our being. Rights are an extremely useful and valuable concept, a good base for the game of life to be played upon. Rights only have value when others choose to play by the rules, that is everyone recognizes and respects the rights of others. For your rights to become meaningless all it takes is for others to ignore them.

States receive their marching orders from the consent of the governed, and if the governed are not careful with their consent, the state may do what is in the best interest of the state, and that might mean ignoring the rights of individuals, as what happened under socialist states such as Hitler's.

[BenLurkin]

Magic? No . . . just useful . . . .http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1412252/posts

[D-fendr]

Good points. I think you do not really have constitutional republics there, more like oligarchies.

And, again, the beauty and uniqueness of our constitution.

Nothing like it before or since.

[D-fendr]

"natural rights… defined as inherent, as if they were in our being. Rights are an extremely useful and valuable concept, a good base for the game of life to be played upon. Rights only have value when others choose to play by the rules, that is everyone recognizes and respects the rights of others."

Maybe I'm misundertanding, but "inherent rights" have value no matter what anyone else thinks. Our founders called them inalienable. They can also be termed "absolute" or "endowed by their creator."

Now if you mean these rights can be violated unless "others choose to play by the rules.." then, yes, of course.

States receive their marching orders from the consent of the governed…

Only in America according to our constitution. It is unique. [Whether our constitution has been weakened greatly is another discussion, one that FreeRepublic to a large extent was created to address.]