Self Defense and the Welfare State

[staerker]

Last night I was at a party listening to a group of Statists debate politics.

The entire conversation had me furious, and having been demonized by that particular group before I kept my mouth shut.

They were all in agreement: self defense is an unalienable right, but because of the current welfare state, it is an impractical right, and thus should be dismissed entirely. If the government would stop throwing FRNs at those who justifiably defended themselves, then they all would be in favor of self defense.

Spineless pragmatists. :rolleyes:

[BV2]

What? You should bring them a dictionary. But I guess half baked educations lead to half baked ideas.

[staerker]

What? You should bring them a dictionary. But I guess half baked educations lead to half baked ideas.

What I wrote down was satirical of the actual conversation. It was in regard to immigration.

[BV2]

Makes sense, then, that immigration is referenced any where in the op or thread title... besides the analogy doesn't quite hold.

[staerker]

Makes sense, then, that immigration is referenced any where in the op or thread title... besides the analogy doesn't quite hold.

The analogy holds perfectly, because the speakers in the op believed that both the ownership of one's body, and the defense of one's body, are rights.

[BV2]

No analogy is perfect. Many people here believe welfare is predicated on theft. Should a person exercise their self ownership, in this case right to movement, in pursuit of receiving benefits then they're effectively becoming parties to theft. A person who defends themselves does so against aggression, predicated on their to do just that. I'm for open borders, but weak analogies are not the way to make the case.

[staerker]

No analogy is perfect. Many people here believe welfare is predicated on theft. Should a person exercise their self ownership, in this case right to movement, in pursuit of receiving benefits then they're effectively becoming parties to theft. A person who defends themselves does so against aggression, predicated on their to do just that. I'm for open borders, but weak analogies are not the way to make the case.

Immigration does not equal welfare. Guilty until proven innocent.

Immigration allows for a greater potential of theft, no more than preserving ones life does.

In fact, disallowing self defense leaves less people on earth to steal, which is the goal right?

[staerker]

Question: if the government did indeed hand out cash rewards to those who successfully defended themselves against a violent attackers, should we oppose the right to self defense?

Sometimes analogies seem weak because they reveal such large cultural inconsistencies. I simply replaced one right with another.

[nobody's_hero]

I'm totally lost because I'm trying to think of a time when someone got paid money for defending themselves. Most cases I know of involve the defender just being happy to still be alive.

[BV2]

Yes, but the right you substitute have different relationships with your dubious constant. Hypothetical, like your gov paying out claims for successful self defence are ridiculous.

Immigration doesn't equal welfare, but welfare is a possible motivation for immigration. Never for self defense. At least not welfare in the benefits sense lol.

[staerker]

I'm totally lost because I'm trying to think of a time when someone got paid money for defending themselves. Most cases I know of involve the defender just being happy to still be alive.

It is a hypothetical, that reveals the heart of the matter.

The majority of Americans alter their morals, based on governmental policy.

If such a world existed where one got payed for defending oneself, would you still be in favor of self defense? I'm sure they are all leeches anyway. It sounds nice, but it would just be impractical until the government got out of it. Someday.

[staerker]

Yes, but the right you substitute have different relationships with your dubious constant. Hypothetical, like your gov paying out claims for successful self defence are ridiculous.

Immigration doesn't equal welfare, but welfare is a possible motivation for immigration. Never for self defense. At least not welfare in the benefits sense lol.

Why would it be ridiculous? They have already successfully altered the populace's definition of human rights due to this implementation. It has proven highly effective.