Posted on 08/31/2013 6:12:54 AM PDT by Kaslin
Nearly all of us, at one time or another, refer to our “constitutional right to free speech.” But while this common phrase may seem harmless, it points to a larger misunderstanding of where our rights come from -- a misunderstanding that undermines many of our most fundamental policy debates.
The fact is, the U.S. Constitution protects our God-given rights from government. The government does not (as the phrase above implies) grant those rights to us as citizens. This is perhaps the most widely misunderstood aspect of our system of government.
The idea that the power of government is derived from the consent of the governed was first articulated by John Locke in his 1690 Second Treatise of Government, when he wrote, “Men being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent.”
Locke’s words are the underlying basis of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights, which reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Many people refer to this Amendment, and their right to free speech, as though it is the First Amendment that grants them the right to say what they like. That is looking at it the wrong way.
Were the Constitution the granter of the right to free speech, religion, assembly and so forth, the first Amendment would not start out, “Congress shall make no law.” That part of the sentence clearly states that the government has no rightful authority over those things and is blocked from infringing upon them. This is the concept of negative rights.
A negative right is one that cannot be infringed upon by outside forces. Government is not granting you the right to free speech. That right already exists. Government is expressly forbidden from attempting to infringe on it.
The Declaration of Independence asserts that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. In other words, our rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are God given, not government given.
But if you believe that we are granted our fundamental rights by the government, then you are more likely to seek additional favors from the government. If the government is the grantor of all good things, what is to stop someone from thinking up more good things that could and should be granted by our elected leaders?
Yet our government is not Santa Claus writ large, and our rights are not wish lists drawn up by eager tots on Christmas Eve. Any fair-minded reading of the Constitution reveals that it does not grant us the wonderful rights we embrace. It handcuffs the government from infringing upon them. Or at least it used to be that way.
Our Founding Fathers did not see government as a benevolent Santa Claus guaranteeing an ever-expanding wish list of rights. Rather, they viewed government as a necessary evil -- far preferable to anarchy, but nonetheless a serious threat to liberty.
Liberty was the ultimate goal of our founders, and for its sake, they were willing to lay down their lives. In the famous words of Patrick Henry, “Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
That spirit continues to inspire oppressed people around the world. It should inspire all of us fortunate enough to live here every day. And it certainly should deter us from thinking that our rights come from anyone other than God.
You have nailed it.
The optimal amount of government is zero. We should always strive toward that goal.
When you understand this, it is apparent that there can never be compromise with those who believe in expanding government even slightly.
Except the "unique formulation of the Declaration" is "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", not just "happiness". To mean the same thing the words should be "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Property".
Life and Liberty are inherent to a human being. Happiness and Property are not. They must be pursued and attained. We have a right to pursue them but no guarantee that the pursuit will be successful.
The right to life is the supreme right, intrinsically. Without it, you can never enjoy your rights to liberty or private property. But the latter two are God-given and unalienable too.
I can see that one is born with life and that one is born with liberty to the extent one is able to exercise it, but I can’t see that one is born with property. One must pursue and acquire property.
The right to life is inherent, everyone starts with life.
The right to liberty is inherent, everyone starts with liberty, to the extent they are able to exercise it.
What property does everyone start with that would put the right to property (as opposed to the right to pursue property) on a par with the right to life and the right to liberty?
Nobody said there was a “par.”
“No other rights are safe where property is not safe.”
— Daniel Webster
“The great chief end therefore, of Mens’ uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property.” “Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience,...”
— John Locke, 2nd Treatise of Government, 1690
“[T]he moment that idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the Laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be sacred or liberty cannot exist.”
— John Adams
“Government is instituted to protect property of every sort. . . This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.”
— James Madison
“The central argument is that private or several property serves as a guarantor of liberty, quite independently of how political or collective decisions are made. The direct implication is, of course, that effective constitutional limits must be present, limits that will effectively constrain overt political intrusions into rights of property, as legally defined, and into voluntary contractual arrangements involving transfer of property. If individual liberty is to be protected, such constitutional limits must be in place prior to and separately from any exercise of democratic governance.”
— James M. Buchanan, Property as a Guarantor of Liberty
Are you saying I'm "Nobody"? Never mind, I'll rephrase:
What property does everyone start with as they start with life and liberty, so it can be said there is the right to property (as opposed to the right to pursue property) like there is the right to life and the right to liberty?
Further, if everyone, or even someone, doesn't start with property as they do life and liberty, to what property do they have a right so that it can be said they have a right to property?
That’s just a repeat of your post 16 to which I responded.
Yeah, I know. I’m simply reinforcing the fact that the founders considered the defense of private property rights to be essential to the maintaining of liberty.
“I’m simply reinforcing the fact that the founders considered the defense of private property rights to be essential to the maintaining of liberty.”
I agree. Further, it’s essential to any society/civilization above the level of savagery and chaos.
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.