On rights and the law.

The incomparable Francis Porretto has written the best post I've read all year HERE.
In it, he quotes Herbert Spencer:
" I asked one of the members of Parliament whether a majority of the House could legitimize murder. He said no. I asked him whether it could sanctify robbery. He thought not. But I could not make him see that if murder and robbery are intrinsically wrong, and not to be made right by the decisions of statesmen, then similarly all actions must be either right or wrong, apart from the authority of the law; and that if the right and wrong of the law are not in harmony with this intrinsic right and wrong, the law itself is criminal."
(bold mine)
Which is the best argument I've seen for all of us to have the legal right to self-defence and to bear arms for that purpose.
(by a right to self-defence I don't mean the watered down, utterly meaningless "right" which is currently all we have. Unless the legal right affords us an effective MEANS then it's a sham, mere window-dressing to preserve the illusion of free citizens going about their business safe from criminals.)

No comments:

Post a Comment

All comments containing Chinese characters will not be published as I do not understand them