Government gives rights? [Archive] - Ron Paul Forums / Liberty Forest

PDA

View Full Version : Government gives rights?

Danke

10-21-2008, 10:43 PM

Jeremy

10-21-2008, 10:44 PM

Was it Kade in the thread about the Slate article?

Kludge

10-21-2008, 10:44 PM

Here's a peculiar excerpt of a rant I shared with one of my instructors online...

I believe that a "right" is only a right when society (government) recognizes, guarantees, and protects the right. People of the present United States may say they have a right to healthcare, but that obviously isn't true since they aren't receiving the healthcare they believe themselves entitled to, even if God is claimed as a source of that right. It only becomes a right when the government grants and protects it. This is most evident in anarchy, where it is most observable that are no natural rights at all. My neighbor could shoot me and there would be no guarantee (nor likelihood) that the murderer would even be sought. Especially in modern times of small lethal guns, potent poisons and devastating explosives, life would definitely be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" if government didn't at least try to grant and protect "rights" since at least Locke, Hobbe and I agree that people are inherently selfish (not that it is necessarily bad).

The "rights" Jefferson chose are valuable to any society and worth protecting, but I don't believe that they were granted by God or nature but rather humans themselves. I think the Bill of Rights shows that at least some of the Framers didn't believe in Natural Rights either, as the Bill of Rights isn't a decree by God or Nature that government must follow, but a directive by people who established the (new) rules of the government. If Jefferson (and all other Framers) truly believed the rights he listed to be inherent, there would be no point in re-establishing that on a written document of rules government must follow.

Most strange is that the fifth amendment guarantees that " ... private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation". Aren't representatives then violating the Consitution every single time they spend taxpayer (or "printed") money on something not of value to the taxpayer directly? Giving an extravagant "last meal" to a "Death Row" inmate certainly gives me no benefits. So even when rights are supposedly guaranteed by the government, they don't follow through. The entire concept of "rights" may be useless and flawed since no being, collective, or object can truly guarantee them. The government doesn't always protect "rights", God doesn't always protect "rights", and surely people (many, at least) aren't capable of respecting "rights".

Instead, maybe they (government/God[god/gods]/people) merely grant privileges and then try to protect them. I have the privilege of living until someone/something takes it away. I have the privilege of healthcare until I can no longer afford it. I have the privilege of eating until I can no longer obtain it.
In a Communist (or any other) society, I would be granted (ideally though very unlikely) those same privileges until a revolution occurs, seeking different privileges or until the government crumbles under its own policies/corruption/etc. The same would be true with a Church organization. Let's say they give food and drink to those unable to obtain it themselves. The church is then merely trying to protect my privilege to eat, drink and live. Even other people try to protect others' privilege to eat/drink/live when they give to charity or feed/house the person directly.

If it were truly a right, isn't it the duty of those with extra to give all they can to those without? Isn't Communism or some other radical form of socialism the only logical outcome if a society believes in rights? I see now why some may view Communism as a Utopia, those who truly believe in "rights" anyways... If "rights" were considered only as a privilege, then selfishness could be justified. In a society which "guarantees rights" though, it would just be immoral and a violation of rights if someone has excess and doesn't give to someone without enough because the duties of society (the governed individuals) and government cannot be different.

nate895

10-21-2008, 10:45 PM

If government doesn't exist in a natural situation without creation by man, how can it grant us anything?

Alawn

10-21-2008, 10:48 PM

Jeremy

10-21-2008, 10:48 PM

Rights: life, liberty property
Function of government: protect those rights

nodope0695

10-21-2008, 10:50 PM

Rights are not given. We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights....we are born with them. Anyone who thinks otherwise, that they are "given," is wrong. They aren't "interpreting" anything their way...THEY ARE WRONG.

The People GRANT government with certain authorities and duties...the government does not (or rather, should not) grant anything. By the constituition, the government acts at the behest of the governed, not the other way around.

nate895

10-21-2008, 10:51 PM

Rights are not given. We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights....we are born with them. Anyone who thinks otherwise, that they are "given" is wrong. They aren't "interpreting" anything their way...THEY ARE WRONG.

To think otherwise is legal positivism, which basically means that you couldn't punish Hitler for what he did because it was perfectly legal at the time he did it, considering he made the laws.

Danke

10-21-2008, 10:55 PM

It is late now, but tomorrow I will reread all of which you gentlemen have written. Thanks for the responses. Very interesting indeed.

yongrel

10-21-2008, 11:01 PM

The only compelling argument I know of goes as follows:

In order for society to function, there must be boundaries between individuals in order to prevent them from interfering with each other. An efficient society is one in which murder, theft, etc do not occur between individuals, because these actions are to the detriment of society's order.

In order to best secure order between individuals, government grants rights based on faculties. In being granted rights as a result of being self-aware and sapient, one becomes obligated to respect the rights of others as given by the government. Individuals coexist best when violating each others rights least, so the individual has an obligation to society to respect the rights of others. This obligation comes from society/government's respect for the individual's rights, but that respect is conditional on the individual respecting the rights of others.

In this way, government can ensure a free and efficient society by properly assigning rights to individuals.

*******

That's an extremely condensed version of a philosophical argument I make in a few Parliamentary debate cases I run. The scary part is that when I ran a case containing this reasoning against a West Point team, they came up to me afterwords and told me they agreed with me, on the condition that the rights were assigned by the military. *shudder*

slothman

10-21-2008, 11:04 PM

Here's my theory.
Everyone has rights of which can be taken away from the gov't.
The gov't can also grant privileges to people.

Rights such as voting or living can be taken away if you are too young or committed a bad enough crime, respectively.

In an anarchy you have all rights and no privileges, while in communism(insert bad gov't type here) you have no rights and all privileges.

In most gov'ts you have some of each.

FreeMo P48

10-22-2008, 01:44 AM

Rights are inherent to the individual exclusively. Each has his own mind, organs,etc. Government is a cooperative effort by individuals to secure and protect those rights. Society suffers when murder occurs, but it is not for societies sake that murder is prohibited. Society is not murdered, individuals are. Without individuals, society does not exist!

Health care, as an example, can not be a right. If it were, whose right would it be to provide it? Health care can be provided only if some individual decides to offer it. If health care is forcibly provided, it could only be done by a slave. I personally would not care to be treated by a slave Doctor!

TruckinMike

10-22-2008, 04:58 AM

nodope0695

10-22-2008, 05:41 AM

...just a little thought about Rights -- read with an open and fair mind.

Natural Rights (Rights in Nature):

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:mlOr4XL54oCgyM:http://bp3.blogger.com/_EgJ91-yaf5A/R3wrmSik1oI/AAAAAAAAAds/weV9COWtviw/s320/BearAttack.jpghttp://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/sharemed/targets/images/pho/00123/00123ecf.jpg
http://www.runofplay.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/roman-4th-century.jpghttp://www.maniacworld.com/Crocodiles-vs-Gazelle.jpg

The only Rights man has under nature is his right to eat or be eaten. The only fair and just thing in nature is the concept of the strongest shall survive. Without that precept, we would still be pond scum...wouldn't we? We all know Darwin, if you subscribe to his line of thinking how can one derive the theory proclaiming Natural rights protect the weaker from the strong? Nature doesn't work that way. Thats life, thats nature. If an over bearing tyrant wishes to lop your head off - thats his right as the stronger party.

Natural rights are eat or be eaten. PERIOD.

================================================== ====

Note: Most of our founders knew where YOUR rights came from and it wasn't from nature.

Just a little thought...

TMike

To some extent, I agree. Humans do have basic insticts. The need to eat, shelter, procreation, social needs. However, I DON'T subscribe to darwinism, and believe humankind to be ABOVE the animals. We humans are motivated by more than just instinct. We are driven by a myriad of feelings, emotions, and needs not found in the animal world. Therefore, we do enjoy certain rights animals do not.

Life, Liberty and Property.
To Live securely in our persons and papers.
To not self incriminate.
To bear arms and thus protect ourselves.
The right of habeas corpus, and due process.

None of these rights are afforded to, or desired by animals. They are uniquely human.

FreeMo P48

10-22-2008, 06:47 AM

A man can be eating or beat over the head with a club, he is certainly not the most physically strong animal in the field.

Rights come from the fact that man is man. His mind is his means of survival. Man is really quite vulnerable and has no defense facility other than his mind. He has to make choices that no other creature need do. Man is a moral being by virtue of the fact that he can and must consciously make choices.

Man has his own mind, it is "right" that he use it to further and sustain his life. A right does not guarantee he will survive, but to the extent he is capable, his only means of survival is to use his mind. That is why our forefathers implemented the Constitution of this United States. They recognized that ever human being has a right to exist for his own sake. They created this document in order to protect man from forces that violated his basic means of survival. Man was to be protected from violence against him from any source, be it repressive governance, other members of society or any other institution or entity.

Slavery is the ultimate violation of rights and morality because the use of the slave's own mind is negated. A slaves means of survival are constrained by the slave master. A slave is reduced to little more than a head of cattle, certainly not a human being. I think that any person who could sanction slavery must not be a human being themselves. They must have forfeited their own means of survival (their own mind) and hence their claim to the title human, thereby becoming dependent on the efforts of others for their own survival.

Brian in Maryland

10-22-2008, 07:53 AM

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, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Kade

10-22-2008, 08:05 AM

Kludge started echoing this in a more noticeable way. Although this has always been my position.

The most recent conversations have been in private messages, but I was able to find these:

Because even if they inherently exist, they are useless unless recognized by others capable of force. You cannot have any rights of worth unless they are recognized by the government. Anarchy can not protect the "rights" of the defenseless. Until men are angels, a tyrannical force is necessary to maintain whatever rights it can for the minority and otherwise defenseless.

I began stopped believing in absolutism. Kade got to me :(

Other relevant conversations:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=154154

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=155145

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=146096

micahnelson

10-22-2008, 08:38 AM

But I remember someone recently said in a convincingly way that they are given by government. Anyone have a link to that thread or any such articles?

Unless you believe in the Divine Right of Kings, it is hard to understand how a government could be the source of rights- when governments are established by men. It reminds me of pagan gods crafted from stone and clay and worshiped by the hands that formed them. The power of government comes from the consent of the governed, and not just in a republic. Authority can be claimed from many sources, but power comes from consent. Only the collective consent of the people enables a government to rule. If collective consent is the source of power, than collective consent is the only valid source of authority.

The consent, of course, is to surrender rights. I surrender my right to vengeance in order to promote a system of laws. I surrender my right to claim all property I can physically obtain in order to have a system of trade that protects the rights of all individuals. I surrender my right to use my property in any manner I see fit in order to have safe travel, quiet neighborhoods, etc.

The "rights" we have are things that the government is not allowed to ask of a person. Our freedom to protect ourselves, assemble, and speak is necessary for all other freedoms to exist. For instance, A city might decide that they want strict noise pollution laws because they wish to maximize the comfort of serenity by surrendering the right to blast a radio. The freedom to express themselves and assemble are necessary for the town to come to this decision.

Kind of rambly, but all rights come from people. The people empower the state.

moostraks

10-22-2008, 08:40 AM

*******

That's an extremely condensed version of a philosophical argument I make in a few Parliamentary debate cases I run. The scary part is that when I ran a case containing this reasoning against a West Point team, they came up to me afterwords and told me they agreed with me, on the condition that the rights were assigned by the military. *shudder*

:eek:

Kade

10-22-2008, 08:47 AM

Unless you believe in the Divine Right of Kings, it is hard to understand how a government could be the source of rights- when governments are established by men. It reminds me of pagan gods crafted from stone and clay and worshiped by the hands that formed them. The power of government comes from the consent of the governed, and not just in a republic. Authority can be claimed from many sources, but power comes from consent. Only the collective consent of the people enables a government to rule. If collective consent is the source of power, than collective consent is the only valid source of authority.

The consent, of course, is to surrender rights. I surrender my right to vengeance in order to promote a system of laws. I surrender my right to claim all property I can physically obtain in order to have a system of trade that protects the rights of all individuals. I surrender my right to use my property in any manner I see fit in order to have safe travel, quiet neighborhoods, etc.

The "rights" we have are things that the government is not allowed to ask of a person. Our freedom to protect ourselves, assemble, and speak is necessary for all other freedoms to exist. For instance, A city might decide that they want strict noise pollution laws because they wish to maximize the comfort of serenity by surrendering the right to blast a radio. The freedom to express themselves and assemble are necessary for the town to come to this decision.

Kind of rambly, but all rights come from people. The people empower the state.

The government = the people. At least, that was what a democracy intends. It took me a year here on these forums to realize people didn't realize that... that the GOP is a monarchy, and they believe a few elite people ought to rule in order to reduce the amount of influence the "government" has... in other words, reduce the amount of influence the people have...

I declare my rights, and I pursue and act upon them until someone physically stops me. Authority grants rights. It's very simple. Do you have a "right" to walk on my property at any time? If not, why not?

You answer will involve physical force in some way as the inevitable line of reasoning concludes.

I can grant you the right to my property. A stronger force than I can also grant you right to my property.

Is this in essence ethical, moral, or righteous, or any other word that might mean "good"? Of course it's not... not to us... which is why we, as the governed, demand more influence and power over this authority, to weaken it, and to subvert it to our consent.

How we the people react is different. Some of us believe we have a right to use this authority to stop actions that don't affect us directly, some of us believe this authority ought to have the absolute minimal power, some of us believe that this power should be there as a mediator only...

All the manifestations of this power, this authority changes nothing. It is still an authority, and without, there will be a short moment of anarchy, before it is replaced with a more authoritative, less limited power, which will "grant" you even fewer rights..

This is the nature of our reality. We must fight for the rights we believe in, and we must do so by demanding a limitation on the power that exist, enough that the barbarians at the gates do not replace it, but just short of anything resembling the restriction of the most well defended and rationalized rights.

moostraks

10-22-2008, 08:48 AM

Rights: life, liberty property
Function of government: protect those rights

QFT you would be amazed how many folks disagree with this and will fight you tooth and nail on this issue.

I am on a certain religious web board and was flamed because I made this exact statement and was told the church was such a horrible failure at aiding their congregation (and society at large) through hard times that it was the governments responsibilty to make sure those less fortunate were cared for in times of need. I then posed what exactly was a church's responsibilty then? I was informed solely to worship. They neglect the commision to care for the less fortunate. She also was rather adamant there was nothing wrong with McChurches and big screen televisions used for worship, much less the chandeliers and luxurious accoutrements found in many churches nowadays which I said could be money used for the less fortunate she wanted society at large responsible for...Why have people lost faith in spiritual organizations????

Kade

10-22-2008, 09:02 AM

Always the attempt to make something more simple, when in reality it is monstrously complex.

Take for instance the idea that the Government protects rights. I don't disagree, but what does that mean?

Who's rights? The individuals? What individuals?

History shows us the nature of this fallacy. The government did not protect men and women from becoming property of other men. Surely any definition of rights would begin with a right to your own personhood....

We have progressed in this country, in a liberal way, with the troglodytes of regressive thinking kicking and screaming along the way. You know them by their content, whining about socialism, pitching a fit about abortion, decrying the country as a Christian Nation, Muslims are all terrorists, and pluralism is a malignant cancer on society.

These people have existed in majority throughout time, and they exist on these boards in an overwhelming flood. I don't need to speak to them, only rebut them, and the good, real, liberty minded people will see that I speak the truth, and that I speak of the nature of men's rights and freedoms, at a fundamental level.

We, the Promethians of our age, demand a greater respect to the newly realized rights of our time. We find ways around the current powers, the current struggle, to demand these freedoms, these rationalized liberties for all men, including the brooding majority that makes up the uninformed and ignorant masses.

Each successive generation, the greats of our time, were, simply put, the most liberal people, the most radical in their defense of individual rights.

We are losing it in this country, because the opposition has found a loophole, one that was explained readily by Bernay in the 20s, and nearly 80 years later, has come to be used against us... who ironically, fight for you, with your spit in our eyes, and your vitriol nonsense lies stapled on our backs.

Think about what you are doing, and who you are talking about... you are a fledging breakoff group from the main beast, the beast you don't realize you support, the real tyranny.

Open your eyes.

powerofreason

10-22-2008, 09:57 AM

Government grants rights? I think they're too busy stealing from us, killing us, imprisoning us, and enslaving us to worry about granting rights. Rights have been protected under anarchies (they are always there, imo) so thats pretty much proof government is not necessary to protect our rights. Only you can take your rights away from yourself. If you take the view that government grants us rights, then they can never infringe on them right? Because they decide which rights we ought to have and to what extent. Sorry jews in 1940's europe. Your rights weren't infringed upon and your slaughter was entirely legal and legitimate. :rolleyes:

itsthepathocrats

10-22-2008, 11:09 AM

eom

Kludge

10-22-2008, 01:18 PM

Kludge, is this your writing that you refer to here or are you pasting someone else's writing?

Mine, feel free to attack it mercilessly.

RockEnds

10-22-2008, 01:59 PM

There seems to be a lack of distinction here between rights granted by the Creator through Nature, and the duty of government to protect those rights.

John Locke, from his Second Treatise of Government:

C H A P. I I I.

Of the State of War.

Sect. 16. THE state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man's life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the commonlaw of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.

Sect, 17. And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a design to take away everything else, that freedom being the foundation of all the rest; as he that, in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.

Sect. 18. This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.

Sect. 19. And here we have the plain difference between the state of nature and the state of war, which however some men have confounded, are as far distant, as a state of peace, good will, mutual assistance and preservation, and a state of enmity, malice, violence and mutual destruction, are one from another....

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke2/locke2nd-a.html

Sect. 123. IF man in the state of nature be so free, as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and controul of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates, which I call by the general name, property.

Sect. 124. The great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property. To which in the state of nature there are man y things wanting.

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke2/locke2nd-c.html#CHAP.%20IX.

mediahasyou

10-22-2008, 02:15 PM

I, mediahasyou, believe in one natural right. That is the right of self-ownership. All others rights stem from that right.

No government needs to tell us what natural law is or what rights we have.
http://www.voluntaryist.com/classics/naturallaw.php

itsthepathocrats

10-22-2008, 02:15 PM

eom

Kludge

10-22-2008, 02:20 PM

I don't see any way in being able to justify having true rights unless you believe in God. I don't happen to and nature obviously doesn't grant rights as we know them (see TMike's post).

Realistically (that is, if you remove "inherent morality"), people don't kill others out of self-interest and fear that they themselves would be murdered if society didn't protect them (it's thus very ironic that the gov't is given the privilege of executing people). The "Golden Rule" is not a rule so much as a declaration of human reasoning.

RockEnds

10-22-2008, 02:25 PM

Kade

10-22-2008, 02:34 PM

That's kind of the kicker. If you don't believe you have inalienable rights, you don't.

Rights must be defended, not just spoken of as truth. It isn't the kicker. People are willing to disallow certain rights, and those people ought to be fought, hard.

Those people exist on these forums under the guise of Ron Paul supporters.

Just go look at a TONES post.

powerofreason

10-22-2008, 02:40 PM

]I don't see any way in being able to justify having true rights unless you believe in God. I don't happen to and nature obviously doesn't grant rights as we know them (see TMike's post).

Realistically (that is, if you remove "inherent morality"), people don't kill others out of self-interest and fear that they themselves would be murdered if society didn't protect them (it's thus very ironic that the gov't is given the privilege of executing people). The "Golden Rule" is not a rule so much as a declaration of human reasoning.

Thats not true at all. Read the first part of For A New Liberty by Rothbard. He lays out a very convincing case for natural rights (granted by nature). Although I do believe in a higher power, just not in the way most people do.

Kludge

10-22-2008, 02:41 PM

Thats not true at all. Read the first part of For A New Liberty by Rothbard. He lays out a very convincing case for natural rights (granted by nature). Although I do believe in a higher power, just not in the way most people do.

Instead of waiting a week and paying $20 for something I doubt I'll read again, could you summarize his reasoning?

RockEnds

10-22-2008, 02:48 PM

Rights must be defended, not just spoken of as truth. It isn't the kicker. People are willing to disallow certain rights, and those people ought to be fought, hard.

Those people exist on these forums under the guise of Ron Paul supporters.

Just go look at a TONES post.

:) No argument from me.

I am, perhaps, not in the right state of mind to effectively argue my point today. My point, however, is simply that if one is willing to lay down for the lion, one cannot expect the government to intervene on one's behalf. That in itself should be a major consideration in the notion that our rights are granted by government.

powerofreason

10-22-2008, 02:58 PM

Instead of waiting a week and paying $20 for something I doubt I'll read again, could you summarize his reasoning?

Mises has it in pdf format.

http://mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf

The part you're looking for starts at ch.2. If you're really want to get to the point skip to page 28.

powerofreason

10-22-2008, 03:04 PM

This was good too, from page 27:

Natural law theory rests on the insight that we live in a
world of more than one—in fact, a vast number—of entities, and that each
entity has distinct and specific properties, a distinct “na ture,” which can be
investigated by man’s reason, by his sense perception and mental faculties.
Copper has a distinct nature and behaves in a certain way, and so do iron,
salt, etc. The species man, therefore, has a specifiable nature, as does the
world around him and the ways of interaction between them. To put it
with undue brevity, the activity of each inorganic and organic entity is
determined by its own nature and by the nature of the other entities with
which it comes in contact. Specifically, while the behavior of plants and at
least the lower animals is determined by their biological nature or perhaps
by their “instincts,” the nature of man is such that each individual person
must, in order to act, choose his own ends and employ his own means in
order to attain them. Possessing no automatic instincts, each man must
learn about himself and the world, use his mind to select values, learn
about cause and effect, and act purposively to maintain himself and
advance his life. Since men can think, feel, evaluate, and act only as
individuals, it becomes vitally necessary for each man’s survival and
prosperity that he be free to learn, choose, develop his faculties, and act
upon his knowledge and values. This is the necessary path of human
nature; to interfere with and cripple this process by using violence goes
profoundly against what is necessary by man’s nature for his life and
prosperity. Violent interference with a man’s learning and choices is
therefore profoundly “antihuman”; it violates the natural law of man’s
needs.

raystone

10-22-2008, 03:09 PM

http://www.archive.org/details/Michael_Badnarik

Badnarik does an excellent job of laying out our rights in Part 1 of his constitution class - video

1000-points-of-fright

10-22-2008, 03:30 PM

Rights are natural and exist without government and cannot be taken away.

Really? Bang! You're dead. I just took away your right to life, government or no government, God or no God.

Our rights are what we agree they are. The only argument is which set of rules creates the most orderly and free society.

powerofreason

10-22-2008, 03:35 PM

Really? Bang! You're dead. I just took away your right to life, government or no government, God or no God.

Our rights are what we agree they are.

What you've done is infringed on that person's right to life. What you've also done is remove your own right to life. Thats how I see it. If I steal your money, I haven't removed your right to own that money. You can still reclaim it for yourself. If i removed your right to own that money then you would have no business going after me to get it back, right?

1000-points-of-fright

10-22-2008, 03:43 PM

What you've done is infringed on that person's right to life. What you've also done is remove your own right to life.

Ah but if there is no government, who is going to take my life? Rights only exist if they are enforced.

powerofreason

10-22-2008, 03:52 PM

Ah but if there is no government, who is going to take my life? Rights only exist if they are enforced.

I would say that anyone can take your life at that point, presumably on the person you murdered's behalf. Your heirs would not be able to seek restitution from free market common law courts. Thats how it worked in Somalia (their version of common law is the Xeer), when they had no government (and probably still now, seeing as the government is weak and no one pays attention to it), thats how it worked for a few hundred years in Iceland when they had no government, and thats how it worked in medievel Ireland when they had no government (until being conquered by the British scumbags).

Kludge

10-22-2008, 03:52 PM

Mises has it in pdf format.

http://mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf

The part you're looking for starts at ch.2. If you're really want to get to the point skip to page 28.

Again, Rothbard is just repeating the same idealistic theory which is disproved time and time again in the real world.

No person/thing is able to truly guarantee anything we've claimed we are entitled to in either anarchy or governance, thus they do not exist. Only with outside force can we secure (to a point where a society is "civilized") privileges.

You (almost?) always sacrifice liberty for security. ANY form of government is a compromise of liberty.

We can't say we are entitled to life, or else we must concede that we must live for each other and provide for each other to secure the "right" to life. If you believe in rights, Communism (or socialism, at least) must be the Utopia.

RockEnds

10-22-2008, 03:58 PM

We can't say we are entitled to life, or else we must concede that we must live for each other and provide for each other to secure the "right" to life. If you believe in rights, Communism (or socialism, at least) must be the Utopia.

When and how did life become an entitlement? Life is individual, personal, private property, and its individual private owner has the right to defend him or herself in an effort to retain ownership. The government either aids that endeavor, or it hinders it.

Mattsa

10-22-2008, 03:59 PM

I have been of the belief that rights are god (your creator) given or nature given.

And the Constitution secures these rights, not gives us these rights.

But I remember someone recently said in a convincingly way that they are given by government. Anyone have a link to that thread or any such articles?

All modern law is commercial, based on UK Admiralty and Maritime salvage

This is the law of the SEA rather than Common Law, which is the law of the LAND
Common Law is your God given rights of liberty, freedom and all that good stuff. Admiralty Law is the law of commerce and contract. In the UK, laws created by the Government are called STATUTES or ACTS. The Patriot Act is a STATUTE. It is NOT a law.

Strange how this came about huh!???

America is still a Crown dependency you see. The Declaration of Independence was signed by attorneys who represented the British Accredited Registry or Temple Bar. Because contracts need to be bilateral to be legally enforceable, the Declaration of Independence was always null and void because the signees were both in the employ of the same corporation. It took until 1913 for the European Bankers to sneak the Federal Reserve Act through Congress and take control of all commerce in America.

All modern law is contract law. When you are issued a birth certificate, a private corporation is created in your name and a contract or bond is created between YOU and the STATE. This bond is invested and when you reach employable age, the bond matures, a Social Security Number is created in your name. This serves as the basis for your contract (citizenship) with the state/government and your liability for taxation and any felonies or misdemeanours you commit.

Thus, when you are summoned to appear before a court, it is because you are alleged to have broken contract (You have broken a STATUTE).

If you look at any documentation you receive in correspondence with the US government, (or the British Government), including letters from the IRS, driving permits, gun licensing documents, property taxes or court summons, your name will ALWAYS be spelled IN CAPITAL LETTERS.

This is because, in contract law, capital letters are always used for the parties involved.

Now!

This is where things get very interesting!

Contracts require CONSENT from both parties to be legally enforceable BUT the contract or bond that exists between you and the state was created when you were just a few weeks old.........and thus there was no consent. All you were thinking about was sucking mummy's nipples right????

So there is a big debate going on in the Freeman movement as to whether any Statutes we are forced to live under are enforcable because you never gave consent for the State/government to engage you in contract. It was all done without your knowledge or consent.

So we have been tricked into contract with our respective governments without our knowledge.

This is a very important concept to understand.

If you are called John Smith, there exists a corporate fiction called JOHN SMITH, spelled in capital letters. This corporate identity is a STRAWMAN. It isn't you John Smith, a living human being created by God, it is JOHN SMITH, a private corporation.

The relationship between you and the state is between this corporate identity, not the living human being.

Thus, all interactions with government are commercial and corporate

This is an excerpt from Mary Elizabeth Croft's excellent book which is available free on the internet at:

http://www.hackcanada.com/canadian/freedom/mary_croft.pdf

Registration vs. Recording
“Registration” comes from Latin “rex, regis” etc. meaning regal. So think about what occurs to whatever you ‘register’ – you hand legal title over to the Crown. When you register anything with the public, it releases legal title to the government corporation and leaves you with only equitable title – the right to use,
not own, and for that use you will pay a ‘use’ tax which is every tax, be it income, sin, sales, property, etc. as opposed to lawful taxes – excise and impost. So that it doesn’t appear that the government now owns the property which you have registered they put it in a name which so much resembles your own that you won’t suspect it, however, the NAME is owned by the government. If you choose rather to record your legal title to your property with the public, you maintain your status as Title Owner. This is one of the most important things you can ever learn for the sake of your commercial affairs.

The best example of the effects of registration is the birth certificate. A bankrupt entity – city, state/ province, country – cannot operate in commerce. So how do they manage? Since USA/CA have been bankrupt for decades, having no substance such as gold and silver to back it, the only asset it has are men and
women and our labour. We are the collateral for the interest on the loan of the World Bank. Each of us is registered, via the application for a birth certificate. The Treasury issues a bond on the birth certificate and thebond is sold at a securities exchange and bought by the FRB/BoC, which then uses it as collateral to issue
bank notes. The bond is held in trust for the Feds at the Depository Trust Corporation. We are the surety on said bonds. Our labour/energy is then payable at some future date. Hence we become the ‘transmitting utility’ for the transmission of energy. The USG/CAG, in order to provide necessary goods and services, created a commercial bond (promissory note), by pledging the property, labour, life and body of its citizens, as payment for the debt (bankruptcy). This commercial bond made chattel (property) out of us all. We became nothing more than ‘human resources’ and collateral for the debt. This was without our knowledge and/or our consent, via the filing (registration) of our birth certificates. When mums apply for a birth certificate, the application is registered. The legal title of her baby is then transferred from mum to the State. Mum is left with equitable title of her baby whom she can use for a fee – a ‘use tax’ – and since the property does not belong to her, she has to treat it in the manner which the owner wants.
Colonel Edward Mandell House is attributed with giving a very detailed outline of the plans to be implemented to enslave the American people. He stated, in a private meeting with Woodrow Wilson (President 1913 – 1921),

Very soon, every American will be required to register their biological property (that's you and your children) in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will affect our security as a charge back for our fiat paper currency.

Every American will be forced to register or suffer being able to work and earn a living. They will be our chattels (property) and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering
the bills of lading (Birth Certificate) to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debts to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud, which we will call “Social Insurance.” Without realizing it, every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and we will employ the high office (presidency) of our dummy corporation (USA) to foment this plot against America. – Colonel Edward Mandell House

So you see, things are very different from what you have been led to believe.

By entering into contract with the government, you become THEIR property.

You think you are free, but in reality we are all bonded slaves and chattel of the Government.

Scary stuff!!!

For information on how to live under Common Law and FREEDOM, visit:

www.thinkfree.ca

Kludge

10-22-2008, 04:00 PM

When and how did life become an entitlement? Life is individual, personal, private property, and its individual private owner has the right to defend him or herself in an effort to retain ownership. The government either aids that endeavor, or it hinders it.

Government cannot "aid" in protecting life unless it is something guaranteed as a "right" by society.

powerofreason

10-22-2008, 04:02 PM

Again, Rothbard is just repeating the same idealistic theory which is disproved time and time again in the real world.

No person/thing is able to truly guarantee anything we've claimed we are entitled to in either anarchy or governance, thus they do not exist. Only with outside force can we secure (to a point where a society is "civilized") privileges.

You (almost?) always sacrifice liberty for security. ANY form of government is a compromise of liberty.

We can't say we are entitled to life, or else we must concede that we must live for each other and provide for each other to secure the "right" to life. If you believe in rights, Communism (or socialism, at least) must be the Utopia.

Sounds like we have a fundamental disagreement.

RockEnds

10-22-2008, 04:04 PM

Government cannot "aid" in protecting life unless it is something guaranteed as a "right" by society.

The government does not give life. When did life become an entitlement?

1000-points-of-fright

10-22-2008, 04:04 PM

I would say that anyone can take your life at that point, presumably on the person you murdered's behalf.

But there's no guarantee that someone will do that. What if nobody gives a shit about the person I killed? The only reason we care when someone is murdered is because we agree that murder is bad. We agree that humans have a right to life because it reduces conflict and helps maintain an orderly society.

powerofreason

10-22-2008, 04:15 PM

But there's no guarantee that someone will do that. What if nobody gives a shit about the person I killed? The only reason we care when someone is murdered is because we agree that murder is bad. We agree that humans have a right to life because it reduces conflict and helps maintain an orderly society.

Well, if no one cares about you I guess thats pretty sad. You've hit upon the loophole. If no one cares the murdered person enough to carry out retribution (with the power of law behind them) then the crime may go unpunished. That doesn't make it right. I don't claim to be promoting a utopia where nothing can go wrong. So I guess don't be a hermit? :p

When you ignore the law, you lose your protection under the law. I can't imagine you'd do too well after that.

1000-points-of-fright

10-22-2008, 04:26 PM

Well, if no one cares about you I guess thats pretty sad. You've hit upon the loophole. If no one cares the murdered person enough to carry out retribution (with the power of law behind them) then the crime may go unpunished. That doesn't make it right. I don't claim to be promoting a utopia where nothing can go wrong. So I guess don't be a hermit? :p

When you ignore the law, you lose your protection under the law. I can't imagine you'd do too well after that.

What law? We're talking about the idea of rights existing on their own without government. For the purposes of this discussion, I'm assuming there is no law and no agreed upon set of ethics.

The only pre-existing natural laws are biology and physics. Last time I checked the laws of biology and physics do not prevent anyone from stealing or killing. Nor to they punish anyone for committing those acts.

The only thing that prevents or punishes those acts is an agreed upon set of rights or ethics and a system to punish transgressions. None of which exist without human thought and action.

Ben2008

10-22-2008, 04:37 PM

Kludge

10-22-2008, 04:45 PM

The government does not give life. When did life become an entitlement?

A right isn't an entitlement? the government doesn't secure life?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right%5B2%5D

2.a: the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled

RockEnds

10-22-2008, 04:58 PM

A right isn't an entitlement? the government doesn't secure life?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right%5B2%5D

2.a: the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled

and the next phrase is <voting rights>. Okay, the government can authorize an election. But the government is as dependent upon life for its survival as is the individual. Without life, there is no government.

Modern thinking is backwards. A 'right' to vote may well be considered an entitlement granted by government. Life is not.

Andrew-Austin

10-22-2008, 05:01 PM

Mattsa

10-22-2008, 05:12 PM

Perhaps.

If government is an extrapolation of "the people" / individuals, as human beings of course existed before government, then that means governments can only sanction rights when the people view them as legitimate.

You guys just don't get it do you.

You don't have any rights. You are under contract to the state.

The Constitution says you have the right to bear arms

BUT

If for example you wish to own a gun, you have to register the firearm. This is a statute and you have to obey to certain conditions or you are in breach of contract.

If you wish to drive a vehicle or register a vehicle, you have to apply for a license and register the vehicle. You have to obey certain conditions or you are in breach of contract. If you drive too fast, they issue a ticket because you have breached contract.

You are chattel of the government. You are their property. They ascribe you your rights to certain things but they are always conditional.

This is commerce or contract law by statute. It is not God's law or Common Law

It's as simple as that.

powerofreason

10-22-2008, 05:12 PM

What law? We're talking about the idea of rights existing on their own without government. For the purposes of this discussion, I'm assuming there is no law and no agreed upon set of ethics.

The only pre-existing natural laws are biology and physics. Last time I checked the laws of biology and physics do not prevent anyone from stealing or killing. Nor to they punish anyone for committing those acts.

The only thing that prevents or punishes those acts is an agreed upon set of rights or ethics and a system to punish transgressions. None of which exist without human thought and action.

Government is not a prerequisite for law. History proves this.

Kludge

10-22-2008, 05:15 PM

Without life, there is no government.

Not in a Robocracy!

RockEnds

10-22-2008, 05:18 PM

Not in a Robocracy!

Yeah. Or a Clonocracy. :eek:

Mattsa

10-22-2008, 05:20 PM

Does anyone listen to me on this bloody forum anymore?

RockEnds

10-22-2008, 05:26 PM

Does anyone listen to me on this bloody forum anymore?

Yes. But America was founded on the principle that there is a deeper reality than that which appears on the surface.

Andrew-Austin

10-22-2008, 05:30 PM

You guys just don't get it do you.

You don't have any rights. You are under contract to the state.

The Constitution says you have the right to bear arms

BUT

If for example you wish to own a gun, you have to register the firearm. This is a statute and you have to obey to certain conditions or you are in breach of contract.

If you wish to drive a vehicle or register a vehicle, you have to apply for a license and register the vehicle. You have to obey certain conditions or you are in breach of contract. If you drive too fast, they issue a ticket because you have breached contract.

You are chattel of the government. You are their property. They ascribe you your rights to certain things but they are always conditional.

This is commerce or contract law by statute. It is not God's law or Common Law

It's as simple as that.

I understand I'm left with little option today but to follow the laws passed by the government. Thanks for pointing out the obvious, even though it didn't sound like a reply to my post.

I was more referring to what government ought to be, instead of what it is today.

If the particular laws in this case had never been passed, I would have had the right to drive a car without license and registration. Which came first, the invention of the automobile or the law that required me to have a license in order to drive? The car came first. Really it seems in this case the government has just taken away my right to drive, instead of granting it to me.

Mattsa

10-22-2008, 05:37 PM

Yes. But America was founded on the principle that there is a deeper reality than that which appears on the surface.

You're right. There is!

But you've been fooled into contract with government. That's what I'm trying to explain dummy!

Your Common Law or GOD given rights to freedom and liberty have been denied to you.

They still exist

But they DO NOT exist inside the legal framework you are forced to live under.

You are forced to live under Admiralty and maritime salvage jurisdiction but you're never told that by your government. They trick you into commerce.

RockEnds

10-22-2008, 05:42 PM

You're right. There is!

But you've been fooled into contract with government. That's what I'm trying to explain dummy!

Your Common Law or GOD given rights to freedom and liberty have been denied to you.

They still exist

But they DO NOT exist inside the legal framework you are forced to live under.

You are forced to live under Admiralty and maritime salvage jurisdiction but you're never told that by your government. They trick you into commerce.

:rolleyes:

Do you believe you are providing me with information that is new to me?

Mattsa

10-22-2008, 05:43 PM

I understand I'm left with little option today but to follow the laws passed by the government. Thanks for pointing out the obvious, even though it didn't sound like a reply to my post.

I was more referring to what government ought to be, instead of what it is today.

If the particular laws in this case had never been passed, I would have had the right to drive a car without license and registration. Which came first, the invention of the automobile or the law that required me to have a license in order to drive? The car came first. Really it seems in this case the government has just taken away my right to drive, instead of granting it to me.

BINGO!!!

EXACTLY!!

Now apply the same scenario to your children.

When you bear a child, social services (a government agency) requires that you register the birth. If you refuse, they kidnap your child.

By agreeing to register a birth, you are singing over title of that child to the government. Now the government OWNS your child and you have right of ownership under contract. If you don't bring up your child the way the state wants it brought up, vaccinate it, educate it in a government approved school, social services come and take your child away.

All your rights are ascribed to you by government.

They have tricked you into the laws of commerce.

mitty

10-22-2008, 06:04 PM

Mattsa

10-22-2008, 06:11 PM

rights are natural rights. whether these right are given by god or by human rationality, they are inherent. the government's sole purpose is to protect them. governments don't grant rights. unfortunately, the human rights movement has made rights into legal rights, instead of natural rights.

Government doesn't protect them. That's the problem

Government forces you into contracts with the state and your 'rights' are ascribed to you conditionally, under THEIR terms.

BUT, and this is the crux of my arguement, if you do not consent to contract, their terms are not enforceable.

The secret to 'freedom' is knowing how to game the system by denying them CONSENT.

Without consent, bilateral contracts are NOT enforceable.

So, you all need to do some reading.

www.thinkfree.ca is a good starting point.

mitty

10-22-2008, 07:01 PM

Government doesn't protect them. That's the problem

Government forces you into contracts with the state and your 'rights' are ascribed to you conditionally, under THEIR terms.

BUT, and this is the crux of my arguement, if you do not consent to contract, their terms are not enforceable.

The secret to 'freedom' is knowing how to game the system by denying them CONSENT.

Without consent, bilateral contracts are NOT enforceable.

So, you all need to do some reading.

www.thinkfree.ca is a good starting point.

i said the governments sole purpose is to protect our natural rights. i never said it actually does

maybe YOU need to do some reading. lets start by reading my post

but thanks for the link

powerofreason

10-22-2008, 07:09 PM

i said the governments sole purpose is to protect our natural rights. i never said it actually does

maybe YOU need to do some reading. lets start by reading my post

but thanks for the link

http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/831/410754nouturnroadtraffiht9.jpg
jk

heavenlyboy34

10-22-2008, 07:19 PM