|
|
|
Rights, Authority and Power
Of Rights, Authority and Power
Three words or terms that are used almost everyday by Americans are rights, authority and power. Another word that is in frequent use is government, yet, although used extensively, these words are some of the least understood of words in common use in America. This, as I believe, is based upon my observations of the American people in general today, somehow avoid knowledge based in facts and truth in favor of their 'beliefs' which seem to be founded on their opinions and for the most part their opinions are founded upon their emotions on a given subject. It appears to me that little or no common sense and logic is applied by most people of today, the effect of which gives evidence of their frenzied emotional state on any given subject.
As people tend to act according to their beliefs there is a danger involved in forming one's belief system upon their opinions which are founded in emotion on particular issues instead of upon reasoned logic, facts and the truth. I submit that if one claims to believe a certain thing, yet acts contrary to what their stated belief is on that subject, they, in truth and fact, probably really do not believe what they say they believe, otherwise why act to the contrary. For example, if one asserts their belief against any form of communistic or socialistic system, why then would that same person, turn a blind eye to, be a proponent of and even support such a system? I believe that in most cases, examination would reveal that the individual actually seeks or receives benefit from some program offered under such a system, therein the danger lies.
Politicians today speak using escoteric words such as, for example, democracy. These politicians know what attributes they mean when using the term democracy and it does not necessarily mean what the general population believe it to mean. While most people get some sort of mental picture when politicians use the word democracy today, the wiley politician generally is applying his escoteric definition, meaning "global socialism", and leaving people to hear what they wanted to hear and attributing their own meaning. The actions of these type of politicians speak louder than their words from which they draw their needed support to implement their true agenda and they obtain that support from those whose beliefs are founded in their opinions of what 'democracy' is to them, tugging at their emotional heartstrings. This is why I feel that the most difficult obstacle to overcome the incremental socialism that in fact exists in America today is the people at large. I don't think that they will willingly surrender any of their perceived benefits obtained through the programs offered under the present system of socialism.
Looking historically at the legitimate functions of American government from the perspective of the statesmen contemporaneous with the American experiment, it can be readily understood that they believed that the sole benefit derived from the formation of government was the protection of individual liberties and freedom, and not in that government's existence being predicated upon offering programs to the people at large for the taking of the fruits of one's labor for the benefit of another. Thus, these statesmen dealt in depth with the words or terms, rights, authority and power in various writings.
Their viewpoints supposedly were to carry over through subsequent generations of Americans through their public and private written documents. Today we find that these laudible goals have fallen short of their intent and the masses of people are ignorant of the most simple concepts of government, rights, authority, and power.
Examining the terms rights and authority together and applying reasoned logic may provide the framework for understanding at least one method to preserve and protect individual liberty, freedom of speech, and so-called "gun rights." This examination can be performed by simple questions and answers and the application of common sense and logic to whatever "issues" anyone can propound.
First question: - Does your next door neighbor have an "inherent" right to control and direct your private affairs, your property or the protection of either your life or your property? Most people would agree that your neighbor was not born with such an "inherent" right of control over you and thus, is also without 'authority' to control your personal life in any manner whatsoever, likewise, equality applied, you are without rights and authority to dictate to your neighbor just how he should conduct his life and what property he can and cannot possess. Neither you or your neighbor were born with or inherited the right or authority over another man or woman.
Now, can you or your neighbor exercise a power to take another's property or someone else's life, probably so. Your neighbor may exercise a power and come over to your house and shoot you dead, yet this power is without the right to do so and, therefore, absent authority. The exercise of such a power constitutes a wrong against you done by your neighbor, which is generally known as murder and commonly punishable. It may be seen then that the exercise of a power without an associated authority may result in punishment. Looking at this concept in more simple terms it can be readily seen that your neighbor cannot prohibit your free exercise of your right to speek freely. By extension, your neighbor cannot prohibit your free exercise of your life and the right to protect your life by whatever means possible. If your neighbor asserted naked power in order to deprive you the free exercise of your right to protect your life he could then effectively altogether stop your exercise of free speech by killing you.
Second question: - From where do those elected to office, specifically legislators, come from? In the American system of government, those who would be legislators, have a place they call home and that place usually encompasses neighbors, after all it is their constituent neighbors, not subjects of an aristocracy, that legislators pander to for the votes necessary to obtain and hold elected office. Does any neighbor of yours, specifically those whom you would elect to office, have any greater rights, authority, or powers than those of your other neighbors or yourself? Common sense and reasoned logic declares that your neighbor, the would-be legislature, has no more or less rights, authority, or lawful powers than any of your other neighbors or yourself.
Third question: - Based upon the foregoing premise, then from where do we "the people" believe that any legislative body, comprised of members, who, each and every one of them in themselves, have no more rights, authority, or lawful powers than those people they were elected by to serve, their neighbors?
Simply by the election process can a member of any legislative body acquire from those who elected him or her, any right, authority or power that the electors do not first possess in order to convey? The answer is quite simply a resounding NO!
If any legislative body is comprised all of members who in themselves do not possess any greater or lesser right, authority, or lawful power, elected by their constituents who themselves are without greater or lesser rights, authority and lawful powers, than anyone else, then from what source do "we the people" believe that any legislature, whether local, state or national derive any authority to legislate concerning anyone's rights to disarm anyone and thus strip them of the right of self-protection.
Legislators simply don't have that authority. It cannot be delegated to them from people who do not first possess that authority nor right. Legislators can however make use of the people's ignorance in these matters, and create what only appears to be law, a statute which undoubtedly will be enforced by naked power, all without lawful authority and the right to do such an act.
Last question: - Can Rosie, having no inherent right or authority, lawfully walk into her neighbor's house and seize his private property, in this instance maybe a gun? If reason dictates that she cannot, without committing a trespass or tort and being punished for those wrongs, then is it possible for Rosie to convey powers and authorities to legislators to do what she is prohibited by law from doing? If Rosie uses the gun of her bodyguard to go in and take her neighbor's private property, then she does so by exercise of power, the power of threats at gunpoint.
Such an act would be, of course, theft and by extension in the case of stealing someone's firearm which might used to protect them from loss of life, condemning that person to death without due process of law. Simply put, Rosie does not feel that her neighbor has any right to life, liberty or property and therefore she can exercise naked power of agression against them so that their right of self-defense is denied, all without due process of law. The only error in this is that bigmouth Rosie has not got the guts to exercise unlawful powers herself, instead she wants legislators to do it for her. Mobocracy in action.
In conclusion, I submit to you that all the bodies of legislature of the world cannot legitimately obtain from anyone on this earth, rights, authority or powers that those people in the first instance do not possess in order that they be conveyed. If this major premise is correct, an undisputable fact and true, then the only means by which anyone can be deprived of their natural right to the protection of their life, liberty and property, is by the use of force, or in the alternative the ignorance of the people and their desire to believe the lie for whatever selfish reasons they might have.
Respectfully submitted,
Mike
|
|
|
