Are "God Given" Rights the Pervue of the Government?

[Guest semiautots]

I have been thinking about this issue lately.  Are rights affirmed by the Bill of Rights our "God Given" rights, or are they under governmental control, to give or take at the whim of the government?

 

Case in Point:  If a right, say the right to self defense, the right to possess a firearm, is God given, why does the state (government) inject itself?  Does the Constitution say "Shall not be infringed, unless you are convicted of a felony?"  What right does the government have to restrict gun ownership, or remove a "God given right", from a citizen due to legal process?  If a right comes from God, and only God can bestow it, what ability does man have to remove it?

 

If we allow government to determine who can exercise their "rights", then are they "rights"?  Or, are we subjected to the government?  As many of you know, it is a slippery slope.  We have now been informed that if we are convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence offense, then our "right" will be taken away.  If your spouse files an untrue restraining order against you, you can have your "right" removed by the state.  Can you see that each successive government can simply pass more onerous laws that make more and more "crimes" the reason to remove our "rights"?

 

If we have a God given right, then no man can remove that right; no collection of men, and no government of men.  Anything less would make government the arbiter of "rights" and subject us to their whim.

 

What say you?

[Guest ThePunisher]

You're screwed if you live under communist, fascist, nazi, socialist or welfare type regimes based on the government's unlimited power, b/c statist governments don't believe in God given rights, or for that matter, any kind of liberty and freedom not granted by the state. Now ask yourself how long our country has been under statist control, and that is how long we've surrendered our God given rights.

[Oh Shoot]

...Now ask yourself how long our country has been under statist control, and that is how long we've surrendered our God given rights.

 

Well, we lost God given gun rights in 1934 I reckon, not to mention crapping on the Second Amendment the first major time.

 

- OS

[sigmtnman]

..Now ask yourself how long our country has been under statist control, and that is how long we've surrendered our God given rights.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VShpcqd3zE

[Spiffy]

I have often wondered how they got everyone to accept that if your convicted of a felony that you should have no say in how the government is ran. The right to Vote is batted around so much and if you even think about having to show id to vote you get lynched. But hey felony's can't vote is no big deal.

[JayC]

Because it's in the 5th Amendment, and back when they started blocking felon's rights there were very few felony's.  You had to do something bad, and you often spent your entire life in prison....  Rape, Murder, Armed robbery...  all of which were life without parole or death sentences back in the day.

 

I keep asking the question, if we don't trust them enough to own a firearm, why on earth are they loose on the streets with us?

 

I have often wondered how they got everyone to accept that if your convicted of a felony that you should have no say in how the government is ran. The right to Vote is batted around so much and if you even think about having to show id to vote you get lynched. But hey felony's can't vote is no big deal.

[Guest semiautots]

The point I'm trying to get to is the continual raising of the bar for firearms ownership.  States issue Firearm Ownership ID's, states tell you how to store your arms within your own home, the Feds state that a misdemeanor will cause your rights to be lost.
 

It's this incrementalism that troubles me.  They will try to exclude mental disease from gun ownership, then they will decide what mental disease is.  It could be PTSD, it could be depression, or it could be membership in a Tea Party.

 

What will you do when they find a "law" that excludes you?

[Guest ThePunisher]

 
What will you do when they find a "law" that excludes you?

Ask yourself why do you think everybody bought high capacity evil black rifles before, during and after the panic?

[RobertNashville]

God given (or natural for those who prefer) are the rights of every human being. However, the mere existence of a government body will usually mean that "someone" is going to have one or more rights infringed as governments always seem to naturally grow in size and power which is generally at the expense of the individual.

 

That said, the "rights" we have lost and/or that have been infringed have been infringed because of the laziness or stupidity of the governed...the governed elected the people who enacted the legislation that we now find objectionable...it is we, collectively, who are ultimately to blame for the condition of our "rights".

[East_TN_Patriot]

If you believe in the Enlightenment era philosophy that inspired political theorists like Locke, Rousseau, and Voltaire, and also the Founders, then it's understood that we are born with Natural Rights and unlimited liberty while living in a "state of nature" meaning in a complete system of wild anarchy with no organized social structure to protect you or your rights. Based on social contract theory, it is assumed that at some point in human history that humans agreed to come together and organize societies under governmental authority in order to collectively provide a more peaceful and orderly existence while relying on each other to help defend individual rights. Under this agreement, the social contract, we agree to voluntarily give up some portion of our unrestricted liberty and allow some degree of restriction of our natural rights in order to maintain an orderly society and benefit from what civil society offers. Under this concept, government cannot infringe upon those rights any more than what we voluntarily allow as part of our acceptance of the social contract. It was also assumed that the government did not have the authority to claim any more authority than was necessary to preserve our rights and assure the survival of civil society.

Philosophically, the idea of freedom and liberty vary, which is visible in the differing ideologies between the American and French Revolutions. Americans emphasized individual rights and liberty (freedom of choice) while the French tended to emphasize collective rights and liberty (freedom from want). The difference is subtle, but highly significant. When you say that government exists to protect our rights, and it is believed that those rights are collective within society, that means the government has the authority to use force against any individual that is deemed a threat to collective liberty and rights. This is one of the reasons that the outcome of the French Revolution was violence and genocide. When the collective body can lay claim to rights, then no individual is safe. In the United States, we emphasize individual rights, meaning that the freedom of the individual ultimately trumps the will of the collective and the majority cannot vote away the rights of the minority. This is why we say that we live in a constitutional republic and not a democracy.

Now, to the original question. The philosophical statement of this perspective is found in the Declaration of Independence:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

The legal framework constructed to carry out that philosophical statement is the U.S. Constitution. The rights listed in the Bill of Rights are not an exhaustive list of protected Natural Rights, but is a list of rights that were recognized as especially important, indeed essential, for preserving those Natural Rights and restrain the power of government. Contrary to what many people believe, these rights are not absolute as is explained in social contract theory. If they were absolute, then the social contract would be dissolved and we would return to a state of nature.

The challenge in all of this is in determining to what extent the people have the ability to yield liberty to the government in order to preserve the social contract and civil society. The reason this has become a bigger issue is due to a qualitative shift in the belief that rights belong to individuals toward one of collective rights, as illustrated by FDR's list of freedoms that included "freedom from want." In fact, that "Four Freedoms" speech is a very interesting statement of collective rights over individual rights. By saying that we have a freedom from want, government now claims the authority to pursue and use force to secure that freedom, which includes restricting your freedom of choice. This works the same way, whether you are talking about economic want or moral want. Basically, what we have today is a government that has adopted this philosophy and policies driven by the desire to control people's freedom of choice in favor of collective rights favored by those in power at that time. Whether it is freedom from wanting healthcare or freedom from wanting a decline in moral values, the end game is the same. It is restricting your individual choice to live your life as you want under the rules of a civil society where we are restricted from doing direct and tangible harm to one another.

I think I'm done now. Edited November 19, 2013 by East_TN_Patriot

[Guest Bonedaddy]

Well said. There is quite a lot in our past that allowed the current goobernut situation and most is by design with control as it's purpose. The Constitution and Bill of Rights has plenty of holes in them that allow all this alteration to the original intent (or was that "the" intent in the first place). I don't have a lot of respect for none past Washington and not real damn sure of him. I sit and I wait.

[daddyo]

The Bill of Rights affirms our birthright as human beings and places limits on the government, not the other way around.

 

Unfortunately, the criminals in Washington DC don't really care about that.

Edited November 19, 2013 by daddyo

[Wheelgunner]

The legal framework constructed to carry out that philosophical statement is the U.S. Constitution. The rights listed in the Bill of Rights are not an exhaustive list of protected Natural Rights, but is a list of rights that were recognized as especially important, indeed essential, for preserving those Natural Rights and restrain the power of government. Contrary to what many people believe, these rights are not absolute as is explained in social contract theory. If they were absolute, then the social contract would be dissolved and we would return to a state of nature.

The challenge in all of this is in determining to what extent the people have the ability to yield liberty to the government in order to preserve the social contract and civil society. 

Agreed.  Thus, we have answered the OP's first question as to the definition of the concept of rights..

 

The next question, implied by the first sentence in post number 7 (and also by the last sentence by East_TN_Patriot that I quoted above), is this:

 

Accepting for the sake of this discussion that the rights secured to the people in the Constitution are not absolute and in fact are subject to regulation due to the social contract, what degree of government regulation of individual rights is legitimate regulation?

 

This question (how much regulation of rights is legitimate) is difficult to answer because we must first decide what the standard is by which to measure legitimacy.  If the standard is fluid and changes with the times or the desires of the people, and if the people themselves favor collective rights, then the standard would be quite lax.  Consequently, a thorough degree of government regulation of individual rights might be legitimate.  

 

On the other hand, if the standard is a fixed one and relates to the philosophical views of the Founders, then because the Founders favored individual rights, the standard would be stricter.  As a result, considerably less government regulation of individual rights could be said to be legitimate.

 

So which is it?  Or do you define the standard in a totally different way?

[JayC]

Interesting youtube video which talks about this:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjlzIBSFl0E

 

We fall into a trap when we discuss restrictions on natural rights...  because it's an unfair trade.  My rights belong to me individually and I've not agreed to those rights being infringed...  How can men born 275+ years ago condemn me to a lifetime of servitude and slavery to the majority?  I've not signed any social contract giving away my rights...  have you?

[Chucktshoes]

Interesting youtube video which talks about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjlzIBSFl0E

We fall into a trap when we discuss restrictions on natural rights... because it's an unfair trade. My rights belong to me individually and I've not agreed to those rights being infringed... How can men born 275+ years ago condemn me to a lifetime of servitude and slavery to the majority? I've not signed any social contract giving away my rights... have you?

Exactly. Not only is my signature not found on Rousseau's fictional social contract, I do not consent to the abrogation of my rights simply because some group of folks got together and took a vote on the matter as if it meant something.

[Smith]

Exactly. Not only is my signature not found on Rousseau's fictional social contract, I do not consent to the abrogation of my rights simply because some group of folks got together and took a vote on the matter as if it meant something.

Actually, it is incorporated in the state of being a "citizen". You are by birth under the contract that is assumed by your parents. You can at any time remove yourself from said contract.

[Chucktshoes]

Actually, it is incorporated in the state of being a "citizen". You are by birth under the contract that is assumed by your parents. You can at any time remove yourself from said contract.

Once again, in what way did I consent to this? Your position of my parents assuming this obligation for me seems an awful lot like when folks take out credit cards and utilities in their kids name 'cause their credit has already been ruined. Oh wait...

[JayC]

That would be a 'corruption of blood', which is specifically prohibited in Article III Section 3 of the US Constitution.

 

If rights are mine, and mine alone, given to me by my Creator, then my parents have no ability to give my rights away for the rest of my life.  I'm not suggesting that parents don't have the free ability to restrict my rights as a child, but they have no ability to bargain my rights away for the remainder of my natural life.

 

And your suggestion that giving up citizenship frees you from those infringements is a false suggestion.. you're still subject to taxes, and all laws...  so there is no way to 'opt out' of this so called 'social contract' even if you go flee to the far sides of the earth you are still subject to the federal and state laws.

 

The truth is in many ways we're slaves, forced to serve the whims of the majority with no respect whatsoever for our natural rights.  We're born into this servitude and there is no 'legal' way to escape.  Tennesseans today are much less free than a freed slave in 1867 let alone a freeman, isn't that sad?

 

Actually, it is incorporated in the state of being a "citizen". You are by birth under the contract that is assumed by your parents. You can at any time remove yourself from said contract.

Edited November 19, 2013 by JayC

[Just2Honor]

"The God that gave us life gave us liberty at the same time"  Thomas Jefferson    Pretty much says it for me.

[Smith]

Once again, in what way did I consent to this? Your position of my parents assuming this obligation for me seems an awful lot like when folks take out credit cards and utilities in their kids name 'cause their credit has already been ruined. Oh wait...

 

You consent to it by living under it. You are assumed under the protection of you parents until of age and then assumed to the obligation by virtue of not nullifying or rejecting the contract. This is civics 101.

That would be a 'corruption of blood', which is specifically prohibited in Article III Section 3 of the US Constitution.

 

If rights are mine, and mine alone, given to me by my Creator, then my parents have no ability to give my rights away for the rest of my life.  I'm not suggesting that parents don't have the free ability to restrict my rights as a child, but they have no right to bargain my rights away for the remained of my natural life.

 

And you're suggestion that giving up citizenship frees you from those infringements is a false suggestion.. you're still subject to taxes, and all laws...  so there is no way to 'opt out' for this so called 'social contract' even if you go flee to the far sides of the earth you are still subject to the federal and state laws.

 

The truth is in many ways we're slaves, forced to serve the whims of the majority with no respect whatsoever for our natural rights.  We're born into this servitude and there is no 'legal' way to escape.  Tennesseans today are much less free than a freed slave in 1867 let alone a freeman, isn't that sad?

Not in any way related to the question Chuck asked nor my response. The question was in relation to the idea of social contract. The debate of state sovereignty and man's free will is a very complicated and never ending debate. Much in the same way our fore fathers struggled with that balance and how those two seemingly independent ideas can and should live in unison. 

 

It is actually based on the theological debate of God's sovereignty and man's free will. I can tell you that in Religious circles this debate will not end and it is hotly contested from all angles. So it is with the spin off debate of Government and individual rights.

[Chucktshoes]

You consent to it by living under it. You are assumed under the protection of you parents until of age and then assumed to the obligation by virtue of not nullifying or rejecting the contract. This is civics 101.

Not in any way related to the question Chuck asked nor my response. The question was in relation to the idea of social contract. The debate of state sovereignty and man's free will is a very complicated and never ending debate. Much in the same way our fore fathers struggled with that balance and how those two seemingly independent ideas can and should live in unison.

It is actually based on the theological debate of God's sovereignty and man's free will. I can tell you that in Religious circles this debate will not end and it is hotly contested from all angles. So it is with the spin off debate of Government and individual rights.

I get what you are saying, I am rejecting the very premise it is built upon. I'll allow JayC to defend his own posts, but he was not unrelated in his points, he understood the point of what I wrote very well. You cannot separate state sovereignty from the idea of the social contract, especially since our government was built on social contract theory. I reject it in as much as I do not consent to surrender my rights either implicitly or explicitly. I do not consent. That actually plays into why I rent as opposed to own my home. As a renter I am under no illusion that I own the land my home stands on. If anyone thinks they own any land, try not paying the government its demanded rents (property taxes) and see what happens.

To return to point, if your suggestion that the way to remove myself from this particular contract is to leave, my only question would be, "Why should I leave? They're the ones who suck." Edited November 19, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[Smith]

I get what you are saying, I am rejecting the very premise it is built upon. I'll allow JayC to defend his own posts, but he was not unrelated in his points, he understood the point of what I wrote very well. You cannot separate state sovereignty from the idea of the social contract, especially since our government was built on social contract theory. I reject it in as much as I do not consent to surrender my rights either implicitly or explicitly. I do not consent. That actually plays into why I rent as opposed to own my home. As a renter I am under no illusion that I own the land my home stands on. If anyone thinks they own any land, try not paying the government its demanded rents (property taxes) and see what happens.

I'm with you on the principle. The problem is you have to ask what the alternative is. Anarchy is not the answer. Anarchy creates a vacuum in which those with the power to enforce their will dominate through force those who can not or will not resist. This is why our government decided to go the social contract route. Anarchy and Socialism both fail to account for human nature.

 

That being said we are definitely relinquishing far to much personal liberty in favor of the collective. There is perfect balance that resides on the preverbal head of a pin. It's just not as easy as a with or without position.

[JayC]

It is, what you're describing is a corruption of blood, a punishment, restriction of rights or other infringement based solely on being born to a parent.  It's clearly prohibited under all circumstances in the Constitution, not even allowed for Treason.

 

I'll stay away from religion on this, because my religion and it's interpretations may contradict yours.  I respect your right to believe in what you want, up and until you try to use those beliefs to take away or restriction my natural rights 'for the good of others'.

 

Further your argument that by not taking action on your 18th birthday to refute any such infringements you automatically agree to all of them for the remained of your life is wrong and immoral.

 

At the end of the day, the government we live under is tyrannical, and immorally and unlawfully infringes on virtually all of our natural rights with no due process of law...  We've allowed this to happen over the last 3 or 4 generations...  nothing can fix it from within because the system by it's very nature and premise is corrupt and unfixable.

 

I leave you with this quote from Jefferson about the soon to be ratified Constitution:

 

God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

 

Jefferson saw the only solution to the problem, the only way to prevent the death of liberty.

 

Not in any way related to the question Chuck asked nor my response. The question was in relation to the idea of social contract. The debate of state sovereignty and man's free will is a very complicated and never ending debate. Much in the same way our fore fathers struggled with that balance and how those two seemingly independent ideas can and should live in unison. 

 

It is actually based on the theological debate of God's sovereignty and man's free will. I can tell you that in Religious circles this debate will not end and it is hotly contested from all angles. So it is with the spin off debate of Government and individual rights.

Edited November 19, 2013 by JayC

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="Smith" post="1066102" timestamp="1384885928"] I'm with you on the principle. The problem is you have to ask what the alternative is. Anarchy is not the answer. Anarchy creates a vacuum in which those with the power to enforce their will dominate through force those who can not or will not resist. This is why our government decided to go the social contract route. Anarchy and Socialism both fail to account for human nature. That being said we are definitely relinquishing far to much personal liberty in favor of the collective. There is perfect balance that resides on the preverbal head of a pin. It's just not as easy as a with or without position.[/quote]I would disagree. I think that anarchy IS the answer, hence why I philosophically am an Anarcho-Capitalist (AnCap), though my realistic and pragmatic nature allows me to accept libertarianism even if I find it a bit too authoritative for my tastes. Edited November 19, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[JayC]

Democracy has the exact same problems you ascribe to anarchy...  The majority dominate through force those who can not or will not resist.  Our government is supposed to the servant of all people, not just the majority of people...  or today for the minority of the people...  Democracy fails just as poorly as anarchy and socialism.

 

Thats why our founding fathers wanted a representative republic, where both the states and federal government were limited in the powers they contain, where we had no standing army and the populace was well armed.

 

I'd suggest you watch this video about the dangers of us crazy libertarians :)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbNFJK1ZpVg

 

I'm with you on the principle. The problem is you have to ask what the alternative is. Anarchy is not the answer. Anarchy creates a vacuum in which those with the power to enforce their will dominate through force those who can not or will not resist. This is why our government decided to go the social contract route. Anarchy and Socialism both fail to account for human nature.

 

That being said we are definitely relinquishing far to much personal liberty in favor of the collective. There is perfect balance that resides on the preverbal head of a pin. It's just not as easy as a with or without position.