The world did not begin on the day of your birth.
Simply being born does not entitle you to anything more than your inalienable Natural Rights.
That's it. Inalienable Natural Rights. Mister Jefferson articulated the concept as "Rightful Liberty".
In America, a group of pretty sharp guys proposed a system of governance designed - for the first time in Human history - to protect the Natural Rights of the individual, particularly against the heavy hand of Government. This happened a few hundred years ago. Other men of that time put their heads together and agreed with the proposal, and by a very large margin of support, this became the law of the land. It was ratified because people thought it was a good idea - no one had a gun to their head. The people in the states could have simply voted "No" if they didn't want it.
The system of governance, called republicanism, is supposed to be implemented through our Constitution. Our Constitution, as ratified and intended, does not provide any mechanism for "The Federal Government" to put their hands upon any Citizen, except in a very select set of circumstances for enumerated crimes. It is only through perversion of the Constitution that abuses of Natural Rights occur.
Over the years Bad People have corrupted the system, as we were warned they would do, for in every age of Man there will be those who mean to be Masters. You were never promised a rose garden, and you were never guaranteed a life in which Bad People would not try to do Bad Things to you. If you were promised a rose garden or a life free of the schemes of evil men, you need to find that person and bitchslap him. He lied to you.
I say this as kindly and gently as I am able: You are not special.
More @ III Percent Patriots
"by a very large margin of support"
ReplyDeleteThis is debatable. The States holding out lead to the Bill of Rights. NC didn't ratify until 1788 and RI rejected the Constitution by popular referendum and didn't ratify until 1790.
According to http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/constitution-day/ratification.html
"For 2 days, September 26 and 27, Congress debated whether to censure the delegates to the Constitutional Convention for exceeding their authority by creating a new form of government instead of simply revising the Articles of Confederation. "
The same site goes on to say,
"Beyond the legal requirements for ratification, the state conventions fulfilled other purposes. The Constitution had been produced in strictest secrecy during the Philadelphia convention. The ratifying conventions served the necessary function of informing the public of the provisions of the proposed new government. ... Also, by bypassing debate in the state legislatures, the Constitution avoided disabling amendments that states, jealous of yielding authority to a national government, would likely have attached."
The federalists launched a coordinated propaganda campaing to counter the more individual efforts of the anti-federalists.
According to Clyde N Wilson writing in Chronicles magazine, "As soon as the U.S. government went into operation, Hamilton and his Yankee friends, claiming that they were acting in behalf of "good government," began to turn the government into a centralised power and a money-making machine for themselves by banks, tariffs, government bonds, and other paper swindles that would be paid for out of the pockets of the farmers, who produced the tangible wealth of the country."
A cynical man could be forgiven for thinking the Constitution was a coup against the several States. Seeing the outcome, he might be right.
Sorry for the rant.
Agreed. We should have stayed with the Articles of Confederation.
Delete