Posted on 10/21/2004 6:30:24 AM PDT by mattdono
Did you catch John Kerry's gaffe in the third debate?
No, not the one about Mary Cheney being born a lesbian. That abusive and cynical outburst produced gasps in living rooms around the nation and certainly cost Kerry votes.
But there was a more serious gaffe in the debate. It revealed how Kerry's vision of government is at odds not just with that of George Bush but with that of America's founders. In answer to a question about gay marriage, Kerry said: "Because we are the United States of America, we're a country with a great, unbelievable Constitution, with rights that we afford people, that you can't discriminate in the workplace. You can't discriminate in the rights that you afford people."
"A gaffe," as columnist Michael Kinsley once wrote, "is when a politician tells the truth." In this case, Kerry's gaffe is an inadvertent statement of what he -- and many on the left -- believe is the truth but is actually false and dangerous.
The key phrase was "rights that we afford people." This was no mistake. He said it twice.
Kerry believes that the United States government, through the Constitution, "affords" rights to Americans. My dictionary defines "afford," in this context as "give, grant, confer." In other words, we fortunate, benighted Americans have a country, a government that grants us rights.
That's an utterly inaccurate reading of the great documents of the founding of this nation. Our government does not grant us any rights at all. On the contrary, Americans start off with rights, and it is we who grant the government certain limited powers to protect those rights.
Where do our rights come from if they don't come from government? They come from God -- which may be why John Kerry doesn't get it.
The Declaration of Independence makes the relationship between citizens and government crystal clear. "We hold these truths to be self-evident," it says, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." (In other words, God gives us rights that can't be taken away.) "Among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" -- which is to say, everything.
Now, what's the job of government? The Declaration says that it is "to secure these rights." And, to make sure there's no misunderstanding, the document emphasizes that governments "are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
This is no small matter. Alexander Hamilton, who is being honored in a wonderful exhibition here at the New-York Historical Society, wrote in 1774, "That Americans are entitled to freedom is incontestable upon every rational principle. All men have one common original: they participate in one common nature, and consequently have one common right."
Hamilton was 19 at the time. Kerry, who is 60, has another view, befitting the senator rated farthest left by the National Journal.
Kerry sees government as a great benefactor, bestowing gifts on us (paid for with our own money), as long as we behave in ways that government approves.
Bush, on Oct. 13, eloquently expressed the opposing vision: "I believe the role of government is to stand side by side with our citizens to help them realize their dreams, not tell citizens how to live their lives." The founders would agree.
From these two different visions come different policies. Bush wants lower taxes because "it's your money." Kerry wants higher taxes so he can build, for example, a nationalized health care system.
Bush will preserve Social Security for people now getting benefits, but he thinks "younger workers ought to be allowed to take some of their own money and put it in a personal savings account." In an "ownership society," people are free to control their own assets, their own destiny. Government guards that freedom.
In the debate, Kerry offered no plan to save Social Security. Instead, he blasted Bush's reform as "an invitation to disaster." He doesn't think that Americans can make decisions about big things; he wants government to grant rights and benefits.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think government should be passive. George Washington's Farewell Address, which Hamilton largely wrote, states, "In a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable."
Government's job is to keep us free, which is what George Bush has been trying to do -- in foreign policy and domestic.
THIS IS IT!
Thanks for posting it. Its a duplicate post but I couldnt recall the title from when it was posted earlier
I did a search. No result. But, I'm glad I posted it. Hope everyone likes it.
Well dang. Now I cant find it. I could have sworn I read it on here yesterday and even replied to it. Hmmmm.
You know, I forget sometimes what day it is. Not a surprise if you forgot about the posting.
Good article.
It is unfortunate that today fewer and fewer understand that the Constitution protects existing rights, and it does not create rights.
Many FReepers would disagree vehemently. They seem to believe that no government is necessary or proper.
THANK YOU! Found it.
Our true rights of life, liberty and property are inherent in human life, under Natural Law. They are not conferred by any state and they cannot be repealed by any state. They can only be crushed by coercive state power. In the long run, that is what all states tend to do.
"Civil rights" -- again, these are state privileges, not real rights -- are usually at odds with our real rights of life, liberty and property. For instance, you cannot have a "right to a job" without enslaving the person forced to give you that job.
The kind of Constitution and government that John Kerry advocates is precisely the recipe for tyranny.
THE SOURCE OF RIGHTS
By Frank Chodorov
The axiom of what is often called “individualism” is that every person has certain inalienable rights. For example, individualism holds that property as such obviously has no rights; there is only the inherent right of a person to his honestly acquired property…
The axiom of socialism is that the individual has no inherent rights. The privileges and the prerogatives that the individual enjoys are grants from society, acting through its management committee, the government. That is the condition the individual must accept for the benefit of becoming a member of society. Hence, the socialists (including many who do not so name themselves) reject the statement of rights in the Declaration of Independence, calling it a fiction of the 18th century.
In support of his denial of natural rights, the socialist points out that there is no positive proof in favor of that doctrine. Where is the documentary evidence? Did God hand man a signed statement endowing him with the rights he claims for himself, but denies to the birds and beasts who also inhabit the earth? If in answer to these questions you bring in the soul idea, you are right back where you were in the beginning: how can you prove that man has a soul?
Those who accept the axiom of natural rights are backed against the wall by that kind of reasoning, until they examine the opposite axiom, that all rights are grants or loans from government. Where did government get the rights which it dispenses? If it is said that its fund of rights is collected from individuals, as the condition for their membership in society, the question arises, where did the individual get the rights which he gave up? He cannot give up what he never had in the first place, which is the argument of the socialists.
What is this thing called government, which can grant and take away rights? There are all sorts of answers to that question, but all the answers will agree on one point, that government is a social instrument enjoying a monopoly on coercion. The socialist says that the monopoly on coercion is vested in the government in order that it may bring about an ideal social and economic order; other say that the government must have a monopoly on coercion in order to prevent individuals from using coercion on each other. In short, the essential characteristic of government is power. If, then we say that our rights stem from government, on a loan basis, we admit that whoever gets control of the power vested in government is the author of rights. And simply because he has the power to enforce his will. Thus, the basic axiom of socialism, in all its forms, is that might is right.
And that means that power is all there is to morality. If I am bigger and stronger than you and you have no way of defending yourself, then it is right if I thrash you; the fact that I did thrash you is proof that I had the right to do so. On the other hand, if you can intimidate me wit ha gun, then right returns to your side. All of which comes to mere nonsense. And a social order based upon the socialistic axiom – which makes government the final judge of all morality – is a nonsensical society. It is a society in which the highest value is the acquisition of power – as exemplified in a Hitler or a Stalin – and the fate of those who cannot acquire it is subservience as a condition of existence.
The senselessness of the socialistic axiom is shown by the fact hat there would be no society, and therefore no government, if there were no individuals. The human being is the unit of all social institutions; without a man there cannot be a crowd. Hence, we are compelled to look to the individual to find an axiom upon which to build a non-socialistic moral code. What does he tell us about himself?
In the first place, he tells us that he wants to live. He tells us this even when he first comes into the world and lets out a yell. Because of that primordial desire, he maintains, he has a right to live. Certainly, nobody else can establish a valid claim to his life, and for that reason he traces his own title to an authority that transcends all men, to God. That title makes sense.
When the individual says that he has a valid title to life, he means that all that is he, is his own: his body, his mind, his faculties. Maybe there is something else in life, such as a soul, but without going into that realm, he is willing to settle on what he knows about himself – his consciousness. All that is ‘I’ is ‘mine’. That implies of course, that all that is ‘you’ is ‘yours’ – for every ‘you’ is an ‘I’. Rights work both ways.
But, while just wanting to live gives the individual a title to life, it is an empty title unless he can acquire the things that make life liveable, beginning with food, raiment, and shelter. These things do not come because you want them; they come as the result of putting labor to raw materials. You have to give something of your self – your brawn or your brain – to make the necessary things available. Even wild berries have to be picked before they can be eaten. But the energy you put out to make the necessary things is part of you – it is you. Therefore, when you cause these things to exist, your title to your self, your labor, is extended to these things. You have a right to them simply because you have a right to life.
That is the moral basis of property. ‘I own it because I made it’ is a title that proves itself. The recognition of that title is implied in the statement that ‘ I make so many dollars a week’. That is literally true.
But what do you mean when you say that you own the thing you produced? Say it is a bushel of wheat. You produced it to satisfy your desire for bread. You can grind the wheat into flour, bake the loaf of bread, eat it, or share it with your family or a friend. Or you can give part of the wheat to the miller in payment for his labor; the part you give him, in the form of wages, is his because he gave you labor in exchange. Or you sell half the bushel of wheat for money, which you exchange for butter to go with the bread. Or you can put the money in the bank so that you can have something later on, when you want it.
In other words, your ownership entitles you to use your judgment as to what you will do with the product of your labor - consume it, give it away, sell it, save it. Freedom of disposition is the substance of property rights.
Interference with this freedom of disposition is, in the final analysis, interference with your right to life. At least, that is your reaction to such interference, for you describe such interference with a word that expresses a deep emotion: you cal lit ‘robbery’. What’s more, if you find that this robbery persists, you lose interest in laboring. The only reason you work is to satisfy your desires; and if experience shows that despite your efforts your desires go unsatisfied, you become stingy about laboring. You become a ‘poor’ producer.
Suppose the freedom of disposition is taken away from you entirely. That is, you become a slave; you have no right of property. Whatever you produce is taken by somebody else; and though a good part of it is returned to you, in the way of sustenance, medical care, housing, you cannot under the law dispose of your output; if you try to, you become the legal ‘robber’. Your concern in production wanes and you develop an attitude towards laboring that is called a slave psychology. Your interest in yourself also drops because without the right of property you are not much different from the other living things in the barn. The clergyman will tell you that you are a man, with a soul; but you sense that you are somewhat less of a man than the one who can dispose of your production as he wills. If you are a human, how human are you?
It is silly, then to prate of human rights being superior to property rights, because the right of ownership is traceable to the right to life, which is certainly inherent in the human being. Property rights are in fact human rights.
A society built around the denial of this fact is, or must become a slave society – although the socialists describe it differently. It is a society in which some produce and others dispose of their output. The laborer is stimulated not by the prospect of satisfying his desires, but by fear of punishment. When his ownership is not interfered with, when he works for himself, he is inclined to develop his faculties of production because he has unlimited desires. He works for food, he begins to think of fancy dishes, a tablecloth, and music wit his meals. There is no end of desires the human being can conjure up, and will work for, provided he feels reasonably sure that his labor will not be in vain. Contrariwise, when the law deprives him of the incentive of enjoyment, he will work only as necessity compels him. What is the use in putting out more effort?
The economic decline of a society without property rights is followed by the loss of other values. It is only when we have a sufficiency of the necessaries that we give though tot nonmaterial things, to what is called culture. On the other hand, we find we can do without books, or even moving pictures, when existence is at stake. Even more than that, we who have no right to own certainly have no right to give, and charity becomes an empty word; in a socialistic order, no one need give a thought to an unfortunate neighbor because it is the duty of the state, the only property owner, to take care of him; it might even become a crime to give a ‘bum’ a dime. When the denial of the right of the individual is negated though the denial of the right of ownership, the sense of personal pride, which distinguishes man from beast, must decay through disuse…
Whatever else socialism is, or claims to be, its first tenet is the denial of private property. All brands of socialism, and there are many, are agreed that property rights must be vested in the political establishment. None of the schemes identified with this ideology, such as the nationalization of industry, or socialized medicine, or the abolition of free choice, or the planned economy, can become operative if the individual’s claim to property is recognized by the government
It sure is refreshing to read that someone other than a handful of Americans understand that the Constitution NEVER gave us a single right!
This is why I get Sooooooooooooooooo damn mad when I see the socialist cut, purposely misinturpet, and actually rewrite the second amendment of the Const. Then stand and fight with all that they have in defending the first amendment!!!!!!!!!! To these socialist, the first counts, the second does not, the third may, and so on and so on.
Very good post!
Had to stop reading when I got to "inalienable". The word used in the Declaration of Independence is "unalienable".
I don't know who Glassman is, but he immediately loses credibility with a mistake like that.
imo
Insightful and important. A must read for all interested in political truth. Probably destined for the ash-heap of America's newsrooms.
Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations:
First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit;
second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use;
and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.
BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
But as a politician (and a lawyer) he can't admit that government actually has very little control over the people.
He needs that power to feed both his ego and his wallet!
That's one of the best distinctions between natural and civil rights I've ever read. What many folks don't realize is that we "voluntarily" relinquish some of our rights when we request a "license" from a particular gov't. entity. A license in effect turns a right into a gov't. granted privilege which then is regulated by the gov't. This explains how the state can come in and seize a child from a family which is due to the fact that "marriage license" created a three way contract between the man, woman and state thus giving the state part ownership of their "property" (the child). This whole relationship between natural, living souls and artificial entities (gov't. agencies, code enforcers, etc.) is very insidious.
No, not everything.
We do have certain inalienable, God-given rights, and among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These rights cannot be taken away without individual due process (eg., conviction of murder).
But we have other natural or fundamental rights which may be regulated by government without individual due process. Free speech, for example. Ownership of arms. Drugs.
Many of our "rights" are regulated and/or attenuated (eg., you must be 16, or 18, or 21 years old) without individual due process, impossible with a God-given right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.