Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-------------------------------
I am not a "member" of any political party. I am not registered as a Republican or a Democrat. I have never donated any money or time for any political campaign, to any political candidate, or for any political cause whatsoever. I am not a Republican and I am not a member of the Tea Party or Libertarian Party...I have no party affiliation...
So, what am I?
I am a Constitutionalist. At the very base of my beliefs are individual freedom, individual liberty, and individual private property rights. I believe these are inalienable rights, not granted by deity or some supreme being, but agreed upon by social contract and social constructs with one-another. (That puts the writer at odds with the Declaration, upon which the the Constitution is founded. Thus, the writer cannot be a Constitutionalist. His concept of the nature of rights reduces them to "things we agree on," or "stuff government does." These are not rights, they're opinions. They're laws that are passed, modified, or rescinded at will. They're what's popular right now.
And when the winds of culture change, so do the "social contracts" and "social constructs." The author reduces the concept of rights to a fleeting moment in time where on a certain day we all agreed that free speech is good, but tomorrow it might not be.
True rights cannot exist without objective, transcendent standard. Thus, the author negates rights altogether. But of course, it is necessary for him as an atheist to do so. Because the atheist cannot acknowledge God, he cannot acknowledge the true nature of rights.
Interestingly, the Left uses the same reasoning as the author, just to different ends.)
These rights must exist at all times and be respected and protected at all times. (The author gives us a moral imperative, but upon what basis does he appeal to it? His opinion? Some sort of morality? Why should his opinion about unalienable rights be accepted by us?)
It is very fragile and easily broken because it is a mere agreement we have with one-another... (Ah, he swerves into the truth. Indeed, under his scheme as to the nature of rights, they are quite fragile. That is because they can be created, taken away, and modified at the whim of legislators and/or society.
However, if rights are endowed by our Creator, rights are not fragile. They are robust, timeless, enduring, and universally applicable. This brand of rights can only be secured [made safe], or violated. )
What protects these individual freedoms, individual liberties, and individual private property rights? We (each sovereign individual) protect them by agreement we have with each other and the government we democratically select. The agreement is written in the United States Constitution. That social contract, or constitution, outlines the vast and myriad of significant limits placed upon the government's power while protecting the sovereign individual and the individual's inalienable rights outlined above. Without it, there is no protection, no agreement, and there would be tyrants, chaos, anarchy, and despotism. (Which is what we have today. Can we ask the author, what might be missing from the equation?)
What I have outlined above is crucial right now. It is crucial because neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party, as they exist today, hold these beliefs. Both parties have taken the United States away from the social pact of the United States Constitution. We are unmoored and adrift and in the midst of a severe constitutional crisis. If we do not recognize this crisis, we will allow the tyrants, the chaos, the anarchy, and the despotism to take over 'we the people'. We will allow entry into dystopia where a massive centralized totalitarian government rules over the sovereign individual with an iron fist and at the barrel of a gun.
Will we allow this to happen? We are there at the threshold of a decision. Will 'we the people' keep our social pact with one-another and our government, or will 'we the people' allow dictatorship?
No comments:
Post a Comment