[Vigilanteman]

One of the best summaries I’ve ever read . . .

[KrisKrinkle]

He didn't define "right".

According to Websters 1828 dictionary:

"RIGHT, n.

1. Conformity to the will of God...

2. Conformity to human laws..."

Going down to:

"10. Just claim; immunity; privilege. All men have a right to the secure enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty and property. We deem the right of trial by jury invaluable, particularly in the case of crimes. Rights are natural, civil, political, religious, personal, and public." (Emphasis added.)

He especially didn't define "the right to property" and what that right might or might not include.

He writes that "...a government that does not follow the rules we set for it has no authority to make rules for us". That's true enough, as are his words "The current regime will not even obey its own laws, much less the laws of God or the Constitution". However, to over simplify, the rules we set for government have to do with voting on issues, directly or indirectly through representatives who are put in position by voting. That's how the civil-political-public rights from the definition above come to exist. Our problem is that we have been losing "votes" for a very long time.

I've over simplified some here to keep this short, but I think he over simplified too.

[andyk]

This is excellent. Even some FReepers have a tough time grasping the vast difference between feel-good man-made rights and real rights. One of the best summaries I’ve read.

[dearolddad]

Does this mean that I can go into a Muslim restaurant and order a ham sandwichand and sue him if he refuses to sell me one?

[usconservative]

Agree, good read worth the time. A good display of common sense too.