Reader PetitionForRedress writes:
As far as I can tell, no country is listed for restricting the natural, civil and human right to self-defense. So, it appears Human Rights Watch doesn’t care that people are prevented by their governments from protecting themselves. Or such restrictions don’t rank high enough on HRW’s list of human rights deserving of mention. Go figure.
Human Rights Watch is a joke. They’re about as legitimate as the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Especially when you click on the United States and it begins by talking about “Michael Brown . . .”
A yup….
Bullshit
They didn’t defend Michael Brown the problem with people like you is that you don’t read…
I would apply that to just about any NGO – all of which, should have everything they say digested with large and plentiful grains of salt.
They need to visit a developing 3rd world country, encounter corrupt police or militia, have them kill your little brother in front of you and then rape you.
That’ll be acceptable if done in accordance with Sharia.
There is no meaningful or magical ‘human right’ except that which humans can guarantee to themselves with force.
Which means that, conversely, you can victimize any one else, as long as you’re stronger than they are. That’s called the law of the jungle and civilized people have struggled against this idea for thousands of years.
Wiser men than you or me have spoken of natural, god given, and unalienable rights. Read up on it some time.
“civilized people have struggled against this idea”
Civilization is itself an illusion.
This was Heinlein’s idea behind the (very poorly named) concept of “Rational Anarchy” (which, for the bazillionth time, has nothing to do with anarchy).
In outlining this very libertarian philosophy, Heinlein correctly states that a person’s behavior is his own choice. Civilization enacts laws to define rules and punishments, but it is ultimately our own choice to follow those rules, accept those punishments or ignore all completely.
Nothing “civilization” can do will, or even CAN, stop a man from doing whatever he wants.
So, the “law of the jungle,” as you say, is the only “law” that ultimately matters in practical terms. We can choose to moderate our own behavior, but there is nothing forcing that moderation.
This is the ultimate fallacy of statism and its various offshoots and why such systems cannot ever be sustained.
See also: The Second Law of Thermodynamics and apply it to “civilization.”
Except, there is one aspect that will allow for civilization: a shared moral code.
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. — John Adams
It is from a shared moral code that natural human rights are recognized, and it is the appropriate role of government to ensure that those rights are protected for all:
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…
In any civilization, liberty hangs in the balance between the anarchy of the lack of a shared moral code, and the tyranny of a government that overreaches the authoritative consent of the governed..
Chip, those are excellent points, but it still remains at a very fundamental level that it is each man’s individual choice to accept those moral codes and abide by them.
What you describe is covered in Sociology 101 courses as well. A society is founded on the values defined in that society. Laws reflect those values and the point that progressives and statists consistently miss is that laws cannot dictate values.
In Sociology, “Value” is defined as “Consensus of belief of what is right and wrong,” which is another way of saying “shared moral code.”
Heinlein’s point was that even with such sharing of values/moral codes, a human being with free will chooses to participate in such a system.
“Criticism of Human Rights Watch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The international non-governmental organization Human Rights Watch (HRW) has been criticized by national governments, other NGOs, the media and its founder (and former chairman), Robert L. Bernstein. Criticism falls into one of two general categories: poor research or inaccurate reporting and (more commonly) bias. Bias allegations include the organization’s being influenced by United States government policy, particularly in relation to reporting on Latin America; ignoring anti-Semitism in Europe, or being anti-Semitic itself; the Arab–Israeli conflict; and the misrepresentation of human-rights issues in Eritrea and Ethiopia. Accusations in relation to the Arab–Israeli conflict include claims that HRW is biased against Israel, demonstrated by its requesting (or accepting) donations from Saudi Arabian citizens. HRW has publicly responded to criticism of its reporting on Latin America and the Arab–Israeli conflict.”
HRW has been known for BS information for some time. The organization is a joke but get a lot of funding from the Left.
It would be easier to take your criticism more seriously if you would source a more legit media outlet. Examples would be: Time, MSNBC, NBC, CNN, Mother Jones, Al Jazeera, etc. . .
There are 99 citations from various media in the wikipedia article if you go look.
I claim absolutely no sarcasm in my comment. 🙂
And my comment wouldn’t have anything to do with articles such as this: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/02/robert-farago/times-ak-anti-gun-agitprop-exposed/
Damnit, you got me!
😛
Almost got me too, but saw the “Motherjones” listed as legit and immediately started laughing.
Don’t put Al Jazeera (America) on the same level as CNN and Mother Jones. It actually stumbles upon journalism.
Al JAzera excuses Hamas, Hezbullah, AQ and ISIS.
F*CK Al Jazeera. They should be banned in the U.S.
So much for the First Amendment.
What?
The same Wiki article notes it’s a Soros front.
I would assume the most basic human right is life; you know, being able to live day-to-day not having to worry that someone or something might decide to take away said life without a cause and not having some recourse against it. So, wouldn’t justified self-defense of life be the next biggest right? Nope, it’s immigration. ‘Cause we all know, those immigrant came here because they lack the weapons they needed to defend their most basic human right to life, and thus, must leave for another country that, hopefully, isn’t as abusive.
That’s the point. HRW doesn’t want people to be able to defend them selves with firearms. From bad guys or oppressive governments.
I have a right, an obligation, to protect myself and others. Firearm, sharp stick, knife, stone, tooth and nail. Tyranny is a dead end, freedom is a never ending fight. I could care less about any “media” left or right. I do not want freedom to rule, to abuse, to dictate. I do not want power over all. In this part of Texas we still call each other “sir” and “ma’am”. We are civil, regardless of what we might think. Not that I ever take anyone for granted. Once anyone gets behind the wheel of a vehicle and the phone in their ear, all bets are off. Can’t shoot them for being stupid, it’s a rule.
“Can’t shoot them for being stupid, it’s a rule.”
We can’t? Dammit!
Yes, I know. Being stupid is subjective. Been there.
Are you kidding, if they ever repeal that rule I’m gonna mount some congresscritter heads on the wall… 😀
If being stupid was ever made a crime, we’d all be in the slammer; and politicians would get the needle.
Never trust an NGO aligned with the UN or the United States’ Federal Government. They are tools of diplomacy and even espionage, which renders anything they put out suspect at the very best.
For example, Barack Obama’s mother was a long time employee of the Ford Foundation and a probable spook. It is not a pleasant thought, I know. Governments lie… Especially our own and these lies are often perpetrated through NGOs associated with the UN.
Barry Soetoro may be the ultimate Manchurian Candidate. And it ain’t paranoid if it’s true. Rights watch is a joke…
I will never trust ANY government, period.
I grew up in Italy and I still remember vividly what happens there. Self defence is forbidden. They make it so hard that it’s actually forbidden. It’s a freaking JOKE.
Perhaps TTAG should make its own human rights map for armed self defense.
Wow. I didn’t realize that an organization, composed of self-elected individuals who have probably never had any human rights denied to them, was allowed to tell me what my human rights are.
+1,000
I’d love to see someone do a world map with each of the states carved out as well and their respective gun rights listed as a color code.
That would be very excellent.
Sorry “Human Rights Watch” but you wonky wonks obviously don’t comprehend the principle this country was founded upon. Try reading The Declaration of Independence first. Then look at some of the State Constitutions that predate the U.S. Constitution. Then read the B.O.R. The pursuit of life, liberty & happiness, inalienable rights and all that . . .
I’d rather donate money to INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE MISSION.
Jussayin’.
HRW is a giant fraud. Nothing mentioned about arrests for exercising free speech or the seizure of private property without compensation mentioned in the UK chapter. Nor the surveillance state environment of London and other major UK cities. Also not mentioned is the convoluted Italian justice system and their laws that criminalizes criticism of their police.
I invite you all to read my: J’accuse Human Rights Watch
Daniel Wedi Korbaria
Is it a human right to have homosexual sex but not to have a gun? I know it is a provocative question. Some people fight for one right and against the other.
Comments are closed.