Reply #148: would that be [View All]

the equal right of everyone to defend themselves using the most effective means available.

... kinda like the equal right of everyone to use his/her property in the way most likely to benefit him/her (and to hell with laws that require everyone not to discriminate against tenants or customers on the basis of race, religion, etc.), or to earn a profit in the way most likely to benefit him/her (and to hell with workplace health and safety laws), or to earn a living in the way most likely to benefit him/her (and to hell with consumer protection regulations) ...?

Why should landlords not be able to restrict their occupancy to married white protestants? Why should employers have to spend their profits to protect their employees' health? Why should anyone who wants to not be able to practise medicine, or sell snake oil?

Hell, everyone would have those same rights to do exactly what they want, so where's the problem??

Why should WE interfere in anyone's choice as to the "most effective means available" for exercising whatever right s/he might want to exercise?

Ah, the "libertarian" way. Well, some of us would call it, rather, the neo-liberal way (although those in the US would probably call it neo-conservative).

And yup, all I see is ME ME ME. And I see it just as much in the words of those who demand to be permitted to wander around toting firearms as I see it in the words of anyone who wants to abolish the minimum wage, or deregulate business, or eliminate anti-discrimination measures, or do any of the myriad other things that people who care only about themselves and not about people who are more vulnerable than themselves to harm and exploitation can be counted on to want to do.

No matter what they call themselves.

.