[Video] Judge Napolitano: Second Amdt Written To Protect Right To Shoot Tyrants Not Skeet

[Confederate]

Judge Napolitano: Second Amendment Was Written To Protect Right To Shoot Tyrants Not Skeet Shooting


http://youtu.be/JdxjinfEPLo

 

[Confederate]

The Judge reminds us what the Second Amendment was really written for: keeping the government within the confines of the Constitution.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Nice little gem stuffed into the small, unknown corner of the media known as "Fox Business". But he uses illogical arguments from natural law. Those can be easily refuted.

But, the Judge is looking thin! He must be doing the Paleo diet with Tom Woods.

 

[Confederate]

Nice little gem stuffed into the small, unknown corner of the media known as "Fox Business". But he uses illogical arguments from natural law. Those can be easily refuted.

But, the Judge is looking thin! He must be doing the Paleo diet with Tom Woods.

How are his arguments illogical?

 

[Sola_Fide]

How are his arguments illogical?

Arguments from natural law commit the is/ought fallacy.

 

[loveableteddybear]

Duh, why else would it even mention a militia?

 

[Sola_Fide]

A further description of the error:

Other students of Mises have chosen some form of natural law theory as the basis for their defense of a free society. But natural law, whether in its Aristotelian, Stoic, Thomistic, or Lockean form, rests on a logical blunder of the first order, first pointed out by David Hume: Natural law theory violates the rule that conclusions of arguments can contain no more than the premises.

John Locke unwittingly illustrated the naturalistic fallacy when he wrote that persons in the state of nature, “being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions.” If the premises of an argument are descriptive (as in Locke’s statement), the conclusion must also be descriptive. Ought cannot be derived from is. The Marquis de Sade illustrated what happens when one tries to base ethics on nature. It is not surprising that natural law has been used by various natural lawyers to reach various conclusions on such issues as the rights of women, children, and animals; slavery, abortion, infanticide, and marriage. Natural law, being unwritten, is very much a wax nose that can be used to “justify” any conclusion one prefers. Actually, of course, it justifies no action and offers no ethical guidance. Natural law is not a logically competent defense of a free society.

 

[Confederate]

Duh, why else would it even mention a militia?

But it's a regulated militia! Obviously that means only government should have guns!!

/libtard

 

[seapilot]

Natural law is not a logically competent defense of a free society.

Ok what is a logically competent defense for a free society then?

 

[bolil]

A further description of the error:

perhaps not of all facets of a free society, but natural law is certainly a competent defense of self defense. Every organism will defend itself when attacked, and since there can never be a guarantee of not being attacked self defense will always be necessary. Furthermore the organisms means of self defense are also it means of aggression, and each organism will use those means in either case to the best of its ability. Sit on an ant hill, they will defend their hill. Smack a lion, lion will claw your face. Punch a gorilla, gorilla will tear off your testicles. Throw a javelin at elephant, prepare to be trampled. Break into human home and pillage to your desire, until the cops come. Unless your in Chicago in which case just keep on pillaging. Or break into a human home and prepare to be shot.

 

[Sola_Fide]

perhaps not of all facets of a free society, but natural law is certainly a competent defense of self defense. Every organism will defend itself when attacked, and since there can never be a guarantee of not being attacked self defense will always be necessary. Furthermore the organisms means of self defense are also it means of aggression, and each organism will use those means in either case to the best of its ability. Sit on an ant hill, they will defend their hill. Smack a lion, lion will claw your face. Punch a gorilla, gorilla will tear off your testicles. Throw a javelin at elephant, prepare to be trampled. Break into human home and pillage to your desire, until the cops come. Unless your in Chicago in which case just keep on pillaging. Or break into a human home and prepare to be shot.

You are still trying to get a prescription from a description. Your conclusion is an ought, when your premise is an is. It's not a logical argument. The conclusion does not follow from the premises.

To have a defense of a free society, the first order of your defense is to pass the test of logic. Natural law defenses do not do this.

 

[bolil]

The ability to self defense IS. That is all I am trying to say, but it is also closely related to the ability to aggress. Therefore self defense and aggression are the same in means and different in ends. It is the "ought" crowd that says the ability for self defense is, but ought be restricted.

How do you derive an ought from so obvious an is?

Every organism around will defend itself to the best of its ability. Some organisms have more effective means than others. All humans are organisms, some humans are ALLOWED more effective means than others. Some organisms employ static means of self defense, like a turtles shell, which cannot be used for offense. Others, and most, use an active means that can be used for offense.

The ability to defend oneself is self evident, as is the ability to aggress. However, differing ends makes one a right and the other a crime.

You are aware that logic can move from smaller to bigger as well as bigger to smaller. Inductive and deductive... right?

 

[Sola_Fide]

The ability to self defense IS. That is all I am trying to say, but it is also closely related to the ability to aggress. Therefore self defense and aggression are the same in means and different in ends. It is the "ought" crowd that says the ability for self defense is, but ought be restricted.

How do you derive an ought from so obvious an is?

Yes, you are saying it is natural to defend oneself. But in your description, you are also saying it is natural for organisms to attack each other. So if nature is the standard by which we judge the rightness or wrongness of anything, we could never get to the point of rightness or wrongness. It is just as natural to defend oneself as it is to attack each other. Ought cannot be derived from is.

This is the failure of natural law. Natural law can defend anything, therefore it can't defend anything.

 

[bolil]

Yes, but that is where praxeology comes in for the save wouldn't you agree? Allowing us to meaningfully interpret the means and the end?

 

[Sola_Fide]

Yes, but that is where praxeology comes in for the save wouldn't you agree? Allowing us to meaningfully interpret the means and the end?

I wouldn't say that. Praxeology can't give us knowledge about ethics. Every time it attempts to, it commits the fallacy of asserting the consequent. Even in Human Action, Mises admitted the limitations of his axioms. But I applaud Mises for at least understanding that deductive arguments are the only valid ones that can be made. His problem though, was that he had the wrong axioms.

 

[bolil]

Sure it can, the study of human action. What is used and why, which is another more honest way of saying "ethics"? I trade my skills for money so I can buy food, because I am hungry. I use my glock to shoot an intruder because I fear for my safety. Maybe that intruder was just hungry and looking for some soup, in which case he should have knocked. Ethics are a joke, anyways, they are a thing to be personally embraced because they cannot be proven unconditionally to others which is why liberty is a great concept. It sets boundaries to everything, even ethics. You cannot force me to give you money because you want it or need it because it is mine to do with what I will. You cannot force your morality on me, because it is likely I find you morality lacking.

As regards the human realm the only necessary ethic to embrace is the right of a person to themselves. Which is a truism.

I would deal in facts, not ethics, and the fact is that tools are constant, but purpose and end have great variety.

"It is wrong to kill"- only when the slayer is acting aggressively
"It is wrong to steal"- Unless it presents the only way to recover property already stolen from you. If the people decided to take all of citibanks capital and assets it would due and proper. I am sure citibank would call it unethical, but an unauthorized transfer of wealth (theft) preceded that taking back.


This isn't a cave, it is the world. we are not chained up looking at shadows on a wall. No philosopher king is coming to show everyone the truth, the good, the ethical. Best we can do is choose for ourselves and not force our choices on others nor allow them to force their choices on us.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Sure it can, the study of human action. What is used and why, which is another more honest way of saying "ethics"? I trade my skills for money so I can buy food, because I am hungry. I use my glock to shoot an intruder because I fear for my safety. Maybe that intruder was just hungry and looking for some soup, in which case he should have knocked. Ethics are a joke, anyways, they are a thing to be personally embraced because they cannot be proven unconditionally to others which is why liberty is a great concept. It sets boundaries to everything, even ethics. You cannot force me to give you money because you want it or need it because it is mine to do with what I will. You cannot force your morality on me, because it is likely I find you morality lacking.

As regards the human realm the only necessary ethic to embrace is the right of a person to themselves. Which is a truism.

I would deal in facts, not ethics, and the fact is that tools are constant, but purpose and end have great variety.

"It is wrong to kill"- only when the slayer is acting aggressively
"It is wrong to steal"- Unless it presents the only way to recover property already stolen from you. If the people decided to take all of citibanks capital and assets it would due and proper. I am sure citibank would call it unethical, but an unauthorized transfer of wealth (theft) preceded that taking back.


This isn't a cave, it is the world. we are not chained up looking at shadows on a wall. No philosopher king is coming to show everyone the truth, the good, the ethical. Best we can do is choose for ourselves and not force our choices on others nor allow them to force their choices on us.

You are engaging in the same logical error that Mises engaged in. Mises said:

The philosophical, epistemological, and metaphysical problems of causality and of imperfect induction are beyond the scope praxeology. We must simply establish the fact that in order to act, men must know the causal relationship between events, processes, or states of affairs. And only as far as he knows this relationship, can his action attain the ends sought. We are fully aware that in asserting this we are moving in a circle. For the evidence that we have correctly perceived a causal relation is provided only by the fact that action guided by this knowledge results in the expected outcome... (Human Action, 30)

You see, at the end there he commits the fallacy of asserting the consequent. The "expected outcome" cannot establish the truth of the premise. Correlation does not equal causation. This is one reason that knowledge about ethics is impossible from rationalistic foundations.

But you say you are not interested in ethics, only "facts". But as I showed a couple of posts ago, the "facts" of human nature do not establish prescriptions. It is our nature to attack each other just as much as it is our nature to defend ourselves. Ethics can't come from nature.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

The Varney dig at the end almost made me spit out my drink

 

[Confederate]

The Varney dig at the end almost made me spit out my drink

Varney gets teased often by the Judge.