Nature's Law: Inalienable Rights vs Civil Rights; Constitutional Republic vs Democracy

This is why I enjoy 'Above Politics'.

Please explain to me how the utter incompetence, overt ignorance, and blatant malfeasance in many cases of State and local officials is preferable to a distant, diffused and often dysfunctional Federal government.

That's an interesting way to think of it, that a bureaucrat in hand is worse than two in an office building somewhere.

Gems like these

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Gryphon66

Usually, it isn't a personal beef with an administrator who has you bound and gagged in the shed but, that does happen I suppose. All the more reason to carry a concealed weapon.

Typically, your town or even your state will pass some law which makes your life that much harder through taxes, local ordinance or other interference in the day to day operations of your life. So, you take off and move to another place.

The overall effect of free migration deflates and/or dissipates corruption.

Not if the next State/County/Town is also corrupt ...

Yes, this specifically and primarily has to do with states. When a state institutes an income tax, the citizens move out to another state which does not. It becomes a competition among the states to keep population and investment capital which benefits everybody.

I'm really trying to find a footing to stay in the conversation without merely becoming disputatious and non-productive.

I realize very well that several of us have some very basic differences in understanding, and I understand as well that there's (probably) nothing contributive that will come from highlighting those differences.

On the other hand, you've all revealed yourselves in this discussion to be intelligent and thoughtful folks, as well as very well-informed in your subject matter, so, I'm going to go here next and see what that gets us.

Boadicea said this in the OP:

Our rights are not granted by government, as Mr. Cuomo asserted, nor are our rights endowed by the Judeo-Christian God, as Judge Moore asserted; our rights are granted by our Creator – however one defines “Creator.” Unfortunately, as exemplified in the above exchange, both parties want to identify “Creator” with “God,” despite the well documented efforts of our founding fathers to keep religion and its dogma out of government.

Boadicea rightly references Jefferson in the Declaration as the basis of the matter discussed:

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

I would like to look at similar phrasings in two other related documents:

George Mason had written in the Virginia Declaration of Rights (approved June 1776):

That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

... and a few years later, John Adams [chief author] wrote in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts(1780):

All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

There are further examples which could be presented, but let us move to the point first:

Whatever the Founding Fathers understood "God" or "the Creator" to be, what they did not only believe was that what we have been calling here "natural rights" were somehow deposed from on-high from some otherworldly version of a feudal lord, but were, instead, an inherent, innate, essential condition of birth as a human being (or, I would normally say as "a human being and natural person," but that would surely only lead to conflict).

I will be among those who would fight to the death to preserve this concept as a primary Truth of what it means to be an American.

However.

We must admit that at the time that these words were written, "all men" was NOT equivalent to "all people" or "all human beings." Women were not legally equal to men. Slaves were not legally equal to free men (which basically means that Blacks were not legally equal to Whites) and so forth.

I do not mean to grind the eternal ax questioning whether these facts about the "less than equal" categories of people somehow invalidate what these men did. To me, that is in the truest sense of the word, mooted by the subsequent actions of the American People in the last 226 years or so ...

... except to note that, many of the corrections that allow me to take that stance are rooted in the full body of the Amendments to the Constitution, to wit in this direct reference the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth and Nineteenth.

There has been discussion here of repealing certain Amendments, or, more subtle references to the idea that a "restoration" of the American Constitutional Republic would begin and end with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the repeal of Amendments 11 - 27: I wonder if any of you would be willing to make your positions more clear in regard to reversals of what I consider to be vital corrections to real errors made by the Founders.

Thanks for any answers.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes, I simply think of it as only important that it be universally understood that rights are not granted by government but, that government's only task is to defend those rights.

There may be arguments for repealing other amendments but, the 16th and 17th go directly against the spirit of our constitution and as such should not stand. At least I am not aware of any efforts to repeal other amendments.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes, I simply think of it as only important that it be universally understood that rights are not granted by government but, that government's only task is to defend those rights.

There may be arguments for repealing other amendments but, the 16th and 17th go directly against the spirit of our constitution and as such should not stand. At least I am not aware of any efforts to repeal other amendments.

So, your answer then is that no other Amendments should be repealed other than the Sixteenth and the Seventeenth to restore the American Constitutional Republic?

... and so long as "protecting our rights" includes "insuring the national infrastructure that supports the exercise of those rights" I guess I could go along, in my own opinion, with your first statement ... although I think that is really practically far too narrow to be a working or practical definition of what government "is" in America 2015.

Again, IMHO.

a reply to: Gryphon66

It is a necessary first step toward the diminution of federal power.

You will be able to move to a highly regulated society with exorbitant taxes somewhere among the states I am sure.

I am not sure what "national infrastructure" you are speaking of which supports our exercise of our rights.

a reply to: greencmp

A necessary first step? What are the next steps to diminution and how far should that proceed, in your opinion?

National infrastructure as outlined or stated outright in the Constitution or which follows by advances in technology from same: Roads, Communications and Utilities Networks, National Defense and Security, International and Interstate Relations (Treaties, Commerce, etc.), Standards Establishment (weights, measures, etc.) the Promotion of Science and Investigation for the betterment of American citizens, and Taxation and Legislation needed to continue to support the national infrastructure.

I, of course, would also add the Provision of Universal Healthcare, Education and Basic Living Standards, which to me follows directly from "provide for the general Welfare of the United States" but I do realize that is a matter of opinion.

Greencmp, I have really tried to make the conversation civil and avoid personally-directed comments ... I would appreciate it if you would extend the same courtesy to me. Understand that I find many of your personal beliefs as ridiculous as you find mine, but, also, keep in mind that we are here to rise "Above Politics." Thanks.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I am not trying to be abrasive.

None of what you mentioned above is the responsibility of our federal government except national defense and legislation.

I hope my tone is comparable to yours and appropriate to the efficient communication of some fairly complex ideas. I really am enjoying this discussion and I am paying attention to your arguments carefully.

a reply to: greencmp

If you're not "trying to be abrasive" then simply address the issues and leave your personal comments toward me out of it, please.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Gryphon66

None of what you mentioned above is the responsibility of our federal government except national defense and legislation.

The US Constitution, Article I, Section 8 utterly disagrees with this assertion.

a reply to: Gryphon66

What comment bothered you?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: greencmp

If you're not "trying to be abrasive" then simply address the issues and leave your personal comments toward me out of it, please.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Gryphon66

None of what you mentioned above is the responsibility of our federal government except national defense and legislation.

The US Constitution, Article I, Section 8 utterly disagrees with this assertion.

National infrastructure as outlined or stated outright in the Constitution or which follows by advances in technology from same: Roads, Communications and Utilities Networks, National Defense and Security, International and Interstate Relations (Treaties, Commerce, etc.), Standards Establishment (weights, measures, etc.) the Promotion of Science and Investigation for the betterment of American citizens, and Taxation and Legislation needed to continue to support the national infrastructure.

You are correct, there are certainly things for the federal government to do.

I really didn't read that, I stopped at "Roads, Communications and Utilities Network" disproving my claim to have carefully reviewed your arguments.

a reply to: greencmp

No worries, we all make mistakes.

So, continuing the conversation, what are the next few steps toward the diminution of Federal power and how far do you personally wish to see the Federal Government reduced.

Follow up: Do you see no need for State and local government overreach to be addressed at all?

(or, I would normally say as "a human being and natural person," but that would surely only lead to conflict).

Not conflict, only arguments against that particular status. ‘Person’ [In the corporate/artificial sense] and ‘natural person [in the human being sense] are both inferred from the statutory sense of a ‘person’. As a matter of policy, I default to ‘man’, as man is inherently sovereign and by extension [after suffrage and emancipation] we know this to hold true across the board; even if it may not have been the status quo at ‘founding’.

Yes, I simply think of it as only important that it be universally understood that rights are not granted by government but, that government's only task is to defend those rights.

I will adhere to the simplification that the only task of government is to prevent the [unlawful] conversion of exclusively private property to public property. As we have established rights are property, and we can have both private [unalienable] and public [civil] rights; and the only conversion between the two can be that which is voluntary.

I, of course, would also add the Provision of Universal Healthcare, Education and Basic Living Standards, which to me follows directly from "provide for the general Welfare of the United States" but I do realize that is a matter of opinion.

In the statutory context I agree. ‘Employee’s’ [of the government] should be adequately compensated. And, to those who go that route by all means, pay all encumbrances and receive all benefit. The constitutionalist in me, does not find those inherent and unalienable, and are ultimately the responsibility of any man who chooses that path. And to those who would endeavor to forego ‘assistance’; their resourcefulness should not be penalized.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I want the federal government to tend to only what is expressly delegated to it (or possibly less as you have pointed out, I don't think we need a postal service for instance nor, therefore, post roads).

Not at all, local corruption is what has convinced me of the ubiquity of corruption. In short, everybody is a nepotist so expecting an official not to be is not logical.

Being able to leave that local corruption in your rear view mirror is the ultimate mechanism for its correction.

a reply to: J.B. Aloha

In rough order of your replies ...

For me, to declare or even seriously that a purely statutory entity shares to an equal degree in the natural rights (sui generis) we are discussing here is patently absurd, mostly because of the source of those same "natural rights" as I outlined above.

I support your right to adhere to whatever definitions you believe in, at the same time that I note that, in my opinion, property is also a mere legal fiction. I wasn't aware that we had "established" that rights are property, although I can see that both share the quality of being conceptual.

The Constitution does not address merely employees of the government at any level; it addresses the American nation and the American people, and while those concepts can be considered in the abstractions of statutory law and general philosophy, they also refer to very real and very concrete qualities at any given time.

a reply to: greencmp

Fair enough; thanks for your answers!

a reply to: Gryphon66

I think we are arguing the same point from different sides. I too share the inherent superiority of 'man' over any 'person' [in the artificial sense]. ETA: Unfortunately, the law, does not [usually] make that distinction when it refers to 'person', and the crux of my statement, was; in law, person is both natural and artificial 'persons'.

Poor terminology on my part. I made the argument that Rights are Property and established it in the thread, NOT that we have established an agreement on anything other than the concept.

Again, my muddling and incorporation of the two contexts I previously proposed. I will do better to distinguish which context I am speaking in. As, 'general welfare' [to me] in each context is different.

Enjoyed reading that point of view. What is natural or organic law, I missed that somewhere. I thought the one in the greek scriptures was a good one. Treat others the way you would want to be treated. But then, you can't depend on most humans to abide by any law, natural or government. So, someone has to back down the ones who would take your life and property. No one has the ability to do that alone. Therefore, we have civilization.

Not being religious, I have never been able to grasp the concept of God given rights,
And Natural rights? I guess that makes no more sense to me.

Rights are agreed upon by a collective, that is all there is to it for me.
Calling them “god’s” or “nature’s” is just a way of making them seem sacred, untouchable.

Every culture agrees on certain “rights” allowed to the members, motivating for them to be actively engaged participants in it’s systems, and to make the society attractive to prospective new members. (even to those originating from different cultures).

They are different wherever you go.

Flashback to a French woman I met working in Napa, who was in an angry tizzy, because she didn’t understand that the “rights” she called “universal” or inherent, were not being acknowledged here- I didn’t know how to explain to her there is no such thing- “the rights in your country are not so here.” Sigh With my father soon to visit, he’ll come up against the same problem at some point, and I will have to try to explain.

“Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are extremely vague notions, as we don’t all see those the same way. That just doesn’t mean jack.

“All men created equal”… pfft… yeah, expect the same of me as of Stephen Hawking, or of my mentally retarded sister- that’s fair. NOT.



“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” ― Benjamin Franklin

Yeah… that was applicable when we were just a bunch of new colonies.

Now? We have multinational corporations that are legally individuals. Wolves dressed as lambs, and the lambs not allowed to bond together to defend themselves against it.

The wolves have had the time to figure out how to turn the laws and rights in their favor, to eat as many lambs as they want without a complaint- on the contrary, the lambs worship and lay down sacrifice to them.

The Law of the Land, sounds more reasonable a proposition to me, and yeah, I guess that means the people then can look at it again, see if they wish to revise it. I think it makes more sense for the people to see these not as God given, but that they are responsible for choosing. Now we have a population of highly individualistic minds- they are more likely to respect rights and laws that they feel responsible for.

But…. When debate comes around to touching the sacred, it strikes fear in the hearts of many. That too, is understandable.

a reply to: Bluesma

So, following on the corollaries of what you just said ... as long as your collective decides to take away your right to ... speak your mind, or own your home or work to maintain the lives of yourself and your family ... you'd be okay with that?

Because it was the will of the collective?