Tag: right to bear arms

There’s no such thing as rights – only what you negotiate: Anam Paiseanta

Anam Paiseanta explains his ideas on why rights don’t exist, and why keeping firearms can be so important – especially when negotiating with violent gangs.

Transcript

Anam Paiseanta: To have maybe an educated opinion about [gun control], we have to look at some of the other ideas we’ve inherited. It seems natural for anarchists to be pro-gun, because we understand that there are no such things as rights, right. There’s only what you negotiate.

The idea of rights – who gave us this idea of rights? Like there’s a package of benefits that you just ‘get’. Who gave us that idea? There’s not, that’s an illusion. And if we just started to see the world as – there’s just this playing field and then the results are whatever you negotiate.

Like a soccer team or a football team enters. There’s a field, it’s level, there’s a goal on either end. There’s lines that segment the field. There’s a team that opposes you, this could be seen as the obstacles in life. Then there’s the ball, there’s your effort, and there’s the network of people you can form who support you in your goals – literally in your goals – there’s a metaphor for you.

Which team has the rights to a goal? The idea doesn’t even make sense. There’s no goal unless you negotiate one. As we’re going through life, there are no rights, there’s only what you negotiate. When you’re negotiating with people in voluntary relationships, you have to come by adding value. And when you’re negotiating with gangs, even really organized gangs, that all wear the same color clothing, and have insignias that they all belong to the same gang, and they all have guns, and they come to the negotiation not with words, not with pieces of paper that are promises – they come to the negotiation with guns. And a lot of times, they act to take away your right to your body, your right to your product, your right to your free movement. So these are the three aspects of the self – your present, your future and your past self, right. Your body, your movement, and your product – things you spent labor or time on yesterday in order to acquire.

So how do you negotiate with these people? Because there’s no rights – there’s only what you negotiate.
So although I am all for peace, and I seek to contribute to a society that generates peace because it’s just, and it’s just because it’s voluntary – I recognize that, we don’t yet live in that society. And just like every eagle has claws and every gazelle has horns, and the ability to run away from its predators, and every animal on Earth has some kind of mechanism or apparatus to defend itself, I think that humans should not be the only animal

*Holds up rifle*

that gives away its ability to defend itself to its only predators – which would be other humans.

Episode 66 – Guns and the Law

The Episode: Guns and the Law

To download the audio, right click and press “save as”.

Remember to subscribe on iTunes or subscribe on Pocket Casts.

If you enjoyed the episode, don’t keep it a secret! Feel free to share it on Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook, Reddit, or your office bathroom wall.

The Cash:

We really appreciate all of your contributions! Every cent and satoshi we receive lets us know that we’re doing something worthwhile, that you are entertained by our program, and that you’re starting to question what you know more and more. Please be generous. Donate to The Paradise Paradox. Or buy some stuff on Amazon using this link.

The Story:

The simplest argument against gun control is an argument for justice, an argument that a person who has harmed no-one should not be punished. If you accept as a premise the maxim of law that the burden of proof falls on him who claims, not on him who denies, then likewise you will accept the principle of the presumption of innocence, because in the absence of evidence of guilt, one must be assumed to be innocent. Then, if you accept the premise that innocent people should not be punished, then you must draw the conclusion that gun-owners, weapons manufacturers and retailers should not be punished unless there is evidence of their guilt. That means there should be no violence or threats of violence against them, no fines imposed, no restrictions on their liberties, and certainly no imprisonment, unless there is evidence of wrong-doing.

If you formulate a law that says everyone who owns a certain model of firearm should be arrested, then you have made a declaration contrary to justice, for even if a single person possesses that model and only ever uses it responsibly, you have declared that that innocent person should be punished. You might make the argument that, even an excellent court system is not going to be absolutely correct, 100% of the time, and that doesn’t make it a bad court, and likewise, the failure of this law does not make it a bad law. I agree no court system is perfect, however, that is a failure of implementation, not a failure of principle. If a court is good, then the intent of the court was to provide justice, whether they do or not in any individual case. However, the intent of this hypothetical law, and all gun control laws, is to punish people – whether or not they’re guilty, and there is no way that it can ever improve the state of justice.

In this episode, Kurt explores some of the ideas about gun control, why some people think control of firearms is a good idea, and why they are very wrong. Join us in a transcendental journey to freedom, in the next explosive, on-point, hollowpoint episode of … The Paradise Paradox!

The Links:

The Most Dangerous Superstition

The Iron Web

How to Be a Successful Tyrant (The Megalomaniac Manifesto)

Anatomy of the State

Freedom!

The Law

More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition (Studies in Law and Economics)

The Law by Frederic Bastiat

Monash University Shooting on Wikipedia

The Truth About Gun Control by Stefan Molyneux