Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Weapons of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Do People have a natural right of self defense?
RockyMTNClimber    8/19/2007 4:19:29 PM
Many of the genocides that the world has reported have dealt directly with this question. One religious, political party, economic, or racial group, sets out to eliminate a competitor by destroying the offender outright. By murder. This question relates to old fashion criminal acts as well. Do these victim groups have a right of self defense? or, is their only redress through organizations like the UN. Do people have a natural right of self defense?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
RockyMTNClimber    For me the answer is yes. Absolutely.   8/19/2007 4:20:31 PM
 
Quote    Reply

kirby1       8/19/2007 4:33:11 PM
Creep through my door and find out....:)
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       8/19/2007 4:54:40 PM
I hope I'm not presuming too much, but this looks like one of those 'traps' set by people who would call themselves 'Republican' or 'Conservative' to ensnare 'liberal', 'leftists' or 'wishy-washy peaceniks'. By setting an absolute position with a bundle of assumed conditions, the only other recognised position tends to be the diametric opposite which is assumed to be associated with the rejection of any of the assumed conditions. 

We'll see how it pans out, but that is my initial prediction.

I would say that any group, or groups have a right to self-defence. The real issue, to me, is the level of force that is permitted. British Law states that the response must be propotionate, which is a position that I agree with, but can be extremely hard to judge in violent confrontation, either before, during or after the fact. Where groups are involved, level of force can be more accurately determined, as you are likely to rapidly acquire precedent that does not involve the whole group. Future levels of defensive force can then be readily determined.

However, when groups are involve, one starts to involve strategy, so offensive action as part of a defensive strategy might become necessary. Here the problem of determining proportionate force resurfaces, which is dependent on cultural values.

The question of natural rights is, IMHO, ridiculous, as there is clearly no natural rights. All rights are societal constructs. One might say, with a good deal more accuracy, that there are natural conditions inherent in a society that can be modified by shifts of power due to cultural changes. The current condition prevalent across the world is still 'might is right', whether the might be held by government or the population.
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    FK reply   8/19/2007 5:50:57 PM
The question of natural rights is, IMHO, ridiculous, as there is clearly no natural rights. All rights are societal constructs.<FK
 
No hidden agenda here FK. I am wondering why things like Rwanda and Darfur happen. Civilized people complain, but allow the killing as a cost of doing business. I want to know why.
 
Since all rights are societal constructs, does that mean that no one form of rights is any more valid than another?
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       8/19/2007 9:03:54 PM

I hope I'm not presuming too much, but this looks like one of those 'traps' set by people who would call themselves 'Republican' or 'Conservative' to ensnare 'liberal', 'leftists' or 'wishy-washy peaceniks'. By setting an absolute position with a bundle of assumed conditions, the only other recognised position tends to be the diametric opposite which is assumed to be associated with the rejection of any of the assumed conditions. 

We'll see how it pans out, but that is my initial prediction.

I would say that any group, or groups have a right to self-defence. The real issue, to me, is the level of force that is permitted. British Law states that the response must be propotionate, which is a position that I agree with, but can be extremely hard to judge in violent confrontation, either before, during or after the fact. Where groups are involved, level of force can be more accurately determined, as you are likely to rapidly acquire precedent that does not involve the whole group. Future levels of defensive force can then be readily determined.

However, when groups are involve, one starts to involve strategy, so offensive action as part of a defensive strategy might become necessary. Here the problem of determining proportionate force resurfaces, which is dependent on cultural values.

The question of natural rights is, IMHO, ridiculous, as there is clearly no natural rights. All rights are societal constructs. One might say, with a good deal more accuracy, that there are natural conditions inherent in a society that can be modified by shifts of power due to cultural changes. The current condition prevalent across the world is still 'might is right', whether the might be held by government or the population.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I think you seriously need re-education. You think too much like a SLAVE.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

longrifle       8/19/2007 9:27:01 PM
Herald,

You beat me to the quote.  Agreed.  That's pretty much the first and last word on it as far as I'm concerned too.

 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Do these people have a right of self defense?   8/20/2007 10:38:25 AM

Sudan: Darfur refugees say Arab militias attack camp daily


By Opheera McDoom
RIYAD CAMP, Sudan, Oct 6 (Reuters) - Arab militias attack the Riyad camp in the Sudanese region of Darfur daily, beating residents and raping women with impunity, camp residents said.

Many said African Union (AU) forces monitoring a shaky ceasefire in the region have not done enough to stop violence against around 15,000 refugees at the Riyad camp, just outside West Darfur's capital el-Geneina.

"Daily they come in and beat our people. But no one does anything," said Darfuri Yehya Ahmed. "They come on horses and camels. They rape our women and try to scare us away to force us to go home," the elderly camp resident told Reuters.

"They (the AU troops) just come and write reports which don't go anywhere," he said. "They have been here now for more than a year and still we live in terror -- we cannot go home."

Aid workers confirmed that armed men, often drunk, regularly come into the camp to rape women and beat up camp residents.

Fighting has escalated in Darfur in the past few weeks despite AU-sponsored peace talks in the Nigerian capital Abuja.

During the 2-1/2 year-old revolt by mostly non-Arab rebels in Darfur tens of thousands have been killed. The rebels accuse Khartoum of neglect and of monopolising power and wealth.

The Sudanese government has said it would disarm pro-government militias including the Janjaweed, accused of a campaign of rape, killing and burning in non-Arab villages.

Hundreds of makeshift camps like Riyad shelter more than 2 million people who fled their homes during the fighting.

"They (the AU) need to be disarming the Janjaweed, otherwise there is no use," said camp resident Mahmoud Moussa. "Even the aid workers are attacked by the Janjaweed."

Aid workers in Darfur who number almost 11,000 have in the past few weeks been confined to the remote town of el-Geneina town near the Chad border because of increasing violence.

British Minister for Africa David Triesman who is visiting Darfur said there was little evidence anyone had been disarmed but that disarming all sides was essential to stop the violence. Britain is the second largest donor to Darfur.

Why are these people not given the means to defend themselves? Because their govt troops are supportive of the attacks.
 
The private aid organizations should be bringing guns along with the food and water. The UN should be issuing arms to these people instead of keeping them helpless.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    If I exist, do I not have the right to guarantee my existence ?   8/20/2007 12:18:23 PM
How far down the ladder does this debate go?
 
Does a gazelle knowing it's being preyed upon by a cheetah have the right only to run, or also to turn and face its adversary, horns first?
 
How are people any different?
Are a majority of us no better than prey animals, having little recourse in life but to evade and flee when we're being preyed upon by a physically stronger (or intellectually more deceptive) predator?
In the case of people, have we no recourse to protect ourselves from those who would seek to exploit us, rob us, molest us, rape us, or commit some other intentional aggressive act against us?
 
Just because a given individual decides to let their guard down in their home, on their own property, does that justify the right of some other person to prey upon them (robbery, rape, etc) ?
 
Now don't get me wrong,
I don't see it that everybody has the right to run around armed to the teeth, relying on some hunch or cold tingly feeling that the guy following them is suspicious and that justifies attacking him (or her),
but shouldn't there be some measure of self-preservation allowed by every living thing, moreso than always running away from threats?
 
Seems to me that, until the predators amongst mankind are show by the weaker folk that they will not tolerate being preyed upon (taken advantage of sexually, financially, physically beat up just for the thrill of it, etc), the problem of violence in human society will only get worse, as more and more people think they can aggress against someone without thought of consequence (but then again, that happens now anyway).
 
Some predators will only ever understand force,
and so be it that force is used to suppress them.
(who was it that wrote something to the effect of : "it is the evil man of the world who oppresses the righteous; it is the righteous man who suppresses the one of evil" ?)
 
Or is the difference in definitions of oppression vs suppression only in the eye of the beholder?
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       8/20/2007 1:48:50 PM
I wonder if this will stay civil?

I had suspected that someone would trot out the inalienable rights. They are certainly laudable, but hardly natural rights. As with all of these things they are societal constructs. The strong language is necessary to remind people that these are especially valuable rights and not to be given up easily, which many probably would out of paranoia (well, the second two anyway). 

Rights may not be natural, but they are fundamental to any given society. Thus the viability of a particular set of rights can be determined by the success of their parent society. 

Out of interest Herald, which is more akin to the thinking of a slave; someone who seeks to understand the values of society and how they are obtained or the one who quotes them automatically?

Back to Darfur, arming up the refugees would, in all probability, be a bad idea. To assume that they would only act defensively or in pursuit of a defensive strategy is, IMHO, hopelessly naive. Where the balance is tipped, there could well be a role-reversal, with the other ethnic group forced into refugee camps as the former victims take revenge. This is the main reason I can see for preferring peacekeepers over letting the conflict play out in a welter of bloodshed, since an external authority has no emotional stake. However, peacekeepers are frequently not trusted and have their hands tied, making it impossible for them to act effectively.  Furthermore, they tend to be committed reactively rather than proactively. If there is clear evidence of support of one side by a government, that government should be removed (IMHO). That, however, brings up the tricky situation of upsetting the balance again.

Most western legal systems account for this by censuring revenge since the vicious circle that this creates can rapidly spiral out of control. Revenge is a significant problem in the issue of self-defence. How far is too far?  

Do people have a natural right to defend themselves? Not specifically. They have a natural right to do whatever they damn-well like. Society imposes the rules that limit this.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       8/20/2007 1:59:26 PM

I wonder if this will stay civil?

I had suspected that someone would trot out the inalienable rights. They are certainly laudable, but hardly natural rights. As with all of these things they are societal constructs. The strong language is necessary to remind people that these are especially valuable rights and not to be given up easily, which many probably would out of paranoia (well, the second two anyway). 

Rights may not be natural, but they are fundamental to any given society. Thus the viability of a particular set of rights can be determined by the success of their parent society. 

Out of interest Herald, which is more akin to the thinking of a slave; someone who seeks to understand the values of society and how they are obtained or the one who quotes them automatically?

Back to Darfur, arming up the refugees would, in all probability, be a bad idea. To assume that they would only act defensively or in pursuit of a defensive strategy is, IMHO, hopelessly naive. Where the balance is tipped, there could well be a role-reversal, with the other ethnic group forced into refugee camps as the former victims take revenge. This is the main reason I can see for preferring peacekeepers over letting the conflict play out in a welter of bloodshed, since an external authority has no emotional stake. However, peacekeepers are frequently not trusted and have their hands tied, making it impossible for them to act effectively.  Furthermore, they tend to be committed reactively rather than proactively. If there is clear evidence of support of one side by a government, that government should be removed (IMHO). That, however, brings up the tricky situation of upsetting the balance again.

Most western legal systems account for this by censuring revenge since the vicious circle that this creates can rapidly spiral out of control. Revenge is a significant problem in the issue of self-defence. How far is too far?  

Do people have a natural right to defend themselves? Not specifically. They have a natural right to do whatever they damn-well like. Society imposes the rules that limit this.
My knowledge is out of experience. When you lose your freedom you appreciate it when you get it back, the more so when it is you, yourself, that retrieves your freedom.
 
I do not think like a slave.  
 
I never quote automatically or sloganize thought. I know what freedom is. 
 
Herald
 

 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics