02-26-2017, 03:54 PM
I think that Rights need to be enumerated specifically, even if not granted by any form of government. A Bill of Rights itself will not protect or stop a government who is completely intent on Tyranny, but is useful when smaller factions of the government want to infringe upon specific rights when other parts of the government are at least semi-functional. Once a government is entirely corrupted, any form of a Bill of Rights is practically useless as there is no one left in government to enforce consequences for violations of the Rights of the People.
Sadly, I think that is very close to where we stand today. Most of our politicians get into politics with the intention of exploiting the powers of the offices that they hold to subvert most protections of the law in order to achieve personal gain. Some are honest, but those who who can be bought, manipulated, or controlled seem to have financial backing that allows them to crush any voted competition at every level.
It was once said the best business to be in is the business of government. With that, you can pass laws that prohibit competition in order to entrench a status quo. Local laws can be passed that requires any new competition to apply for licenses while retroactively granting licenses to those already established. This prevention of competition prevents financial mobility upwards for people looking to start new businesses. Another thing that happens is our Bill of Rights is quite broad in its definitions, while the laws that are passed are very very specific. Think of Free Speech vs Hate Speech. Hate Speech Laws tend to be rather specific by identifying specific words or phrases which could be construed either in or out of context as Hate Speech. For example, one could talk about Muslims negatively in general, but if any speaker makes specific statements about referring to all Muslims as Radical Insurgents, it is suddenly prohibited by law.
That is what the Chinese referred to as "Death By A Thousand Cuts", or the slow but cumulative incrementalization of passing laws that infringe upon Free Speech. Every year, we have hundreds of thousands of new laws that are passed that slowly but cumulatively infringe upon our rights. There are several ways to actively destroy Enumerated Rights. First is Passive. Ignore any infringements. Next is Active. Pass legislation that repeals Rights "granted". Things like "Constitution is SUSPENDED during times of Martial Law." Mistake there is Rights do NOT come from government. Leaders can either choose to respect our Rights, or to Ignore them, but do NOT have the power to repeal Rights that they did not grant. Third is Cumulative Subversion, which is the slow cumulative nature of most laws against individuals.
Lastly, there is a BIG problem with Exchange of Definition. The two terms "Rights" and "Permissions" are literal polar opposites. Rights are Inherit, Permissions are Granted. Rights can NOT be summarily revoked, only ignored. Permissions can be revoked. Rights you have by default. Permissions by default are not granted until specific conditions are met. Rights recognize you as being Self Soverign, the highest authority unto your self above all other human beings. Permissions do NOT recognize you as Soverign. Now, if you look at the application of the words "Rights" and "Permissions" in most legalese today, you'll see what I see; authors tending to use the word "Right" or "Rights" when the word "Permission" should have been used. Such as "we hereby grant you the right to observe the material contained herein, but do not grant you the right to transfer said right to any other party". And for the record, LICENSE means Permission. Again, Rights are NOT granted, they are INHERIT with the human condition as they do not come from other men.