|This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.|
|Locked on 02/23/2013 12:20:01 PM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:|
Skip to comments.The Nature of Rights: The Debate We Have to Win, Otherwise We Lose the Country
Posted on 02/23/2013 12:13:58 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Recently a discussion of this story about DC Comics being pressured by homosexual activists to fire one of its writers because hes on the board of the National Organization of Marriage prompted vigorous debate on my Facebook wall. While perusing through the various comments, it was obvious there still exists much confusion in our country today about the term rights.
There are two types of rights: unalienable and contractual.
Sometimes referred to as a natural right (i.e. the Laws of Nature and Natures God reference from The Declaration of Independence), an unalienable right is a right that comes from God and thus can be accessed in your natural state without consent from another party because it existed before you were born, and will still exist in nature after you die. Its inherent to being made in the image of God.
Should another party attempt to stop you from accessing your unalienable (or natural) rights they are guilty of a crime, oppression, tyranny, or all of the above. For example, I do not require anyones consent to breathe air for it is foundational to my natural state of being. However, should you attempt to stop me from breathing then you are guilty of assault, battery, manslaughter, or murder if youre ultimately successful.
If it requires consent from another party to access it then it is not an unalienable (aka natural) right, because you have to impose upon someone elses unalienable (aka natural) rights in the process. Taking someone elses person or property without their consent is what we call a crime.
Nowadays some are claiming unalienable (or natural) rights that dont exist.
For example, you do not have an unalienable (or natural) right to marry or have sex with whomever you want, because partaking of each of those activities requires consent from another party. We call people who believe they can have sex (aka physical intimacy) with whomever they want rapists and put them in prison whenever we can. We call people who believe they can marry whomever they want cult leaders, sultans, kings, and tyrants because theyre acquiring harems and concubines.
Likewise, you also dont have a natural right to live where you want as Ive heard some claim on issues like immigration. To believe that requires you to believe that private property doesnt exist. You cant have it both ways. If you believe I have the right to defend my own property (which our founders absolutely did), then you also have to believe that we the people have the right to defend our own property as well. In a government by the consent of the governed that property in this case are the borders and lands of these United States of America. We own them and they are our private property. Therefore, we have a right to possess and police them accordingly.
Rights that require the consent of another party are contractual rights.
A good example of contractual rights would be the U.S. Constitution, which begins with the words, We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union. Immediately the parties involved in the contract are established: the people, the states, and the federal government (or union). From there each party states in the contract the terms, jurisdictions, and liabilities each are responsible for and permitted to perform. Some of the rights in the Constitution are unalienable (natural) rights like the freedom of speech and the freedom of worship, because you dont require consent to access them. Thats why the Constitution says Congress shall make no law prohibiting or establishing those things, because Congress has no power to either establish or take away that which the Law of Nature and Natures God alone bestows.
However, other rights in the Constitution are purely contractual, but where people get confused here is they fail to understand this language is intended to bind the government and not the individual. For example, the government consents to saying it has no right for unlawful search and seizure as other governments in human history have indulged. It is not saying you as a private person have a right to therefore store crack cocaine in your locker or illicit pictures of children on your computer. This is the government contracting with its citizens to limit its own means, not the other way around. In fact, that is the theme of the entire Bill of Rights. Just because the state promises not to exceed its authority over the individual does not give the individual the right to exceed his authority over the Laws of Nature and Natures God.
That is always the highest authority.
For example, should the U.S. Federal Court hear a civil suit between two murderous drug cartels because one failed to deliver the promised narcotics to the other and thus violated the contract? Of course not, because their very activity violates the Laws of Nature and Natures God, therefore the proper response is to arrest them as criminals instead.
Similarly, just because someone consents to having sex with you doesnt mean that suddenly you have a contractual right to have sex with them. Is the person just a child and therefore unable to make a mature decision? Is that person mentally unstable or disabled, and thus unsure of what it is theyre really consenting to? Is that person married to someone else?
In conclusion it comes down to this, if our rights first and foremost come from the Laws of Nature and Natures God, then anything we do to indulge or claim those rights that violates that law isnt a right. Its a transgressioneven if the other party(s) consents to it. That simply means theyre just as guilty as you are.
You have no right to do that which God says is wrong. Never have, never will, and should an earthly authority contradict this and permit your fallen nature to manifest itself, the God the father of the Constitution James Madison referred to as the Governor of the universe will ultimately adjudicate your case in eternity.