Granting Rights & Taking Them Away

[Cary C-Troll]

from G. Edward Griffin's The Chasm.

All can be read at http://freedomforceinternational.org...ion=issues#fic

The view of individualism was expressed clearly in the United States Declaration of Independence, which says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men….

Nothing could be clearer than that. The dictionary tells us that inalienable (spelled differently in colonial times) means “not to be transferred to another.” The assumption is that rights are the innate possession of the people. The purpose of the state is, not to grant rights, but to secure them and protect them. By contrast, all collectivist political systems embrace the opposite view that rights are granted by the state. That includes Nazis, Fascists, and Communists. It is also a tenet of the United Nations. Article Four of the UN Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights says: The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment of those rights provided by the State … the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law. I repeat: If we accept that the state has the power to grant rights, then we must also agree it has the power to take them away. Notice the wording of the UN Covenant. After proclaiming that rights are provided by the state, it then says that [B]those rights may be subject to limitations “as are determined by law.” [/B]In other words, the collectivists at the UN presume to grant us our rights and, when they are ready to take them away, all they have to do is pass a law authorizing it. Compare that with the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution. It says Congress shall make no law restricting the rights of freedom of speech, or religion, peaceful assembly, the right to bear arms, and so forth – not except as determined by law, but no law. The Constitution embodies the ethic of individualism. The UN embodies the ethic of collectivism, and what a difference that makes.

[Cary C-Troll]

(Conditioning: not noticing or not caring that the Libertarian Party & Constitution Party have been excluded from the Presidential Debates. Ron Paul was blocked from the RNC)

If the state is powerful enough to give us everything we want, it is also powerful enough to take from us everything we have. Therefore, the proper function of the state is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens; nothing more.” (Likewise, if the state has the power to determine what share we should have, it can also determine to take that share away.)

For most of history, it has been the habit of men to focus on personalities rather than principles. They have thought that the problem was with the man who rules, not with the system that sustains him. (or the fault of the LEFT or RIGHT) So, they merely replace one despot for another, thinking that, somehow, the new one will be more wise and benevolent. Even if the new ruler has good intentions, he may be corrupted by the temptations of power; and, in those rare cases where he is not, he eventually is replaced by another who is not as self-restrained. As long as the system allows it, it is just a matter of time before a new despot will rise to power.

To prevent that from happening, it is necessary to focus on the system itself, not on personalities.

[Cary C-Troll]

The Creed of Freedom expresses the core ideology in terms of broad principles that do not change over time and that are not focused on specific issues at all. If these principles are followed, then most of the vexing political and social issues of the day can be quickly resolved in confidence that the resulting action will be consistent with justice and freedom. This is not like the platform of a political party that typically is a position statement on a long list of specific issues and which changes from year to year to accommodate the shifting winds of popular opinion.

THE CREED OF FREEDOM:
INTRINSIC NATURE OF RIGHTS
I believe that only individuals have rights, not the collective group; that these rights are intrinsic to each individual, not granted by the state; for if the state has the power to grant them, it also has the power to deny them, and that is incompatible with personal liberty. I believe that a just state derives its power solely from its citizens. Therefore, the state must never presume to do anything beyond what individual citizens also have the right to do. Otherwise, the state is a power unto itself and becomes the master instead of the servant of society.
SUPREMACY OF THE INDIVIDUAL
I believe that one of the greatest threats to freedom is to allow any group, no matter its numeric superiority, to deny the rights of the minority; and that one of the primary functions of a just state is to protect each individual from the greed and passion of the majority.
FREEDOM OF CHOICE
I believe that desirable social and economic objectives are better achieved by voluntary action than by coercion of law. I believe that social tranquility and brotherhood are better achieved by tolerance, persuasion, and the power of good example than by coercion of law. I believe that those in need are better served by charity, which is the giving of one's own money, than by welfare, which is the giving of other people's money through coercion of law.
EQUALITY UNDER LAW
I believe that all citizens should be equal under law, regardless of their national origin, race, religion, gender, education, economic status, life style, or political opinion. Likewise, no class should be given preferential treatment, regardless of the merit or popularity of its cause. To favor one class over another is not equality under law.
PROPER ROLE OF THE STATE
I believe that the proper role of the state is negative, not positive; defensive, not aggressive. It is to protect, not to provide; for if the state is granted the power to provide for some, it must also be able to take from others, and once that power is granted, there are those who will seek it for their advantage. It always leads to legalized plunder and loss of freedom. If the state is powerful enough to give us everything we want, it is also powerful enough to take from us everything we have. Therefore, the proper function of the state is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens; nothing more. That state is best which governs least.
The Creed of Freedom is based on five principles. However, in day-to-day application, they can be reduced to just three general codes of conduct. I consider them to be The Three Commandments of Freedom:
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
Does not sacrifice the rights of any individual or minority for the assumed rights of the group.
EQUALITY UNDER LAW
Does not endorse any law that does not apply to all citizens equally.
FREEDOM OF CHOICE
Do not use coercion for any purpose except to protect human life, liberty, or property.

[Robert M]

The Constitution embodies the ethic of individualism. The UN embodies the ethic of collectivism, and what a difference that makes.

No offence but you're not exactly comparing like with like are you? The Constitution is a document, the UN is not.

For most of history, it has been the habit of men to focus on personalities rather than principles. They have thought that the problem was with the man who rules, not with the system that sustains him. (or the fault of the LEFT or RIGHT) So, they merely replace one despot for another, thinking that, somehow, the new one will be more wise and benevolent. Even if the new ruler has good intentions, he may be corrupted by the temptations of power; and, in those rare cases where he is not, he eventually is replaced by another who is not as self-restrained. As long as the system allows it, it is just a matter of time before a new despot will rise to power.

Says who? In any case, do you really think we in the West are at risk of a new despot?! We are virtually incapacitated by political deadlock and gridlock thanks largely to the drive for votes in the centre. There's much to be said for the concept of benign dictatorship - doesn't happen very often but beats democracy hands down in my book.

If the state is powerful enough to give us everything we want, it is also powerful enough to take from us everything we have. Therefore, the proper function of the state is to protect the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens; nothing more. That state is best which governs least.

This is classic misdirection imho. Of course the state is not that powerful - by definition, therefore, the rest of the declaration is redundant. Plus, think about it, if you or I form a community watch group, are we the state or individuals? Answer: neither. Life just isn't that simple.

[Cary C-Troll]

All above is from Ed Griffin.

The like & like or contrast rather is between the covenant of the UN and the US Constitution/Bill of Rights. The former represents collectivism, the latter ~ individualism. I think he explains it well on his website if you decide to read into it~ link above in the thread. The Chasm is a long essay, but I think of valid points and a worthy read.

This is also from The Chasm re: democracy from pages 15-16
“REPUBLICS VS DEMOCRACIES
We are dealing here with one of the reasons people make a distinction between republics and democracies. In recent years, it is commonly believed that a democracy is the ideal state structure. Supposedly, that is what was created by the American Constitution, and the justification for invading other countries and overthrowing their tyrannical governments is, we are told, to spread democracy throughout the world. But, if you read the documents and the speech transcripts of the men who wrote the Constitution, you find that they spoke very poorly of democracy – and if you look at the reality of life in those lands where democracy has been delivered, you find little difference between the old and new regimes, except that the new ones often are worse.
In colonial America, Samuel Adams, a prominent leader of the movement for independence, expressed the common view of his colleagues when he said: “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”
This understanding of the dark side of democracy was not unique to the American colonists. European historians and political writers of the period had come to the same conclusion. In England, Lord Acton wrote: “The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the party that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.” In Scotland, a history professor at the University of Edinburgh, Alexander Tyler, wrote: A democracy is always temporary in nature – it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy – usually followed by a dictatorship.
Those who drafted the American Constitution believed that a democracy was one of the worst possible forms of government; and so they created what they called a republic. Unfortunately, that word no longer has the classic meaning it did in 1787. Today it is used indiscriminately for everything from military dictatorships, such as The Republic of Angola, to collectivist dictatorships such as the Republic of China. But, when the American Republic was created, the word had a precise meaning and it was understood by everyone.”

Robert, you may favor a dictatorship, but I do not. A dictator makes decisions for you and may use coercion or force to ensure that you are compliant with the laws set in place for you, not by you. It says that you are not valid enough to decide for yourself or what is best for you. You have no right to contest it. That is not freedom. But if you are content with that and it works for you, and it is indeed benign, then I am glad for it. But I agree with Griffin, that it would be a gamble. Your next ‘ruler’ might and could abuse that position and power with full authority to do so, to make changes without regard of you and without your consent. That is the core issue.

[shoeman]

Interesting that Mr. Griffin includes a link to "The New World Order." I saw a fascinating documentary about that recently, including mysterious suggestions concerning the death of Aaron Russo. Did he die of bladder cancer or was he murdered after he refused to buy in to "NWO" leanings? Also notable was the connection in that doc to membership in Free Masonry by prominent framers of the US Declaration. And how (in theory? in fact?) the Masons relate to "NWO."

It's all about CONTROL. Who has it?


A lot is at stake here. Human rights. Due process. Much more.


However, I don't put my faith in any government system.
I have a different set of values, based on the Will of The Creator.


Nor do I take the mainstream media seriously.
They tell you what THEY want you to know, in general.


Money and quest for power will drive people to all manner of injustice.
Is that a fair statement?



John

[Cary C-Troll]

Shoeman, if you have not already seen America: Freedom to Fascism, it's a film by Aaron Russo and features interviews with Ed Griffin. Ed is also on FB. Another you might be interested in on FB & YT would be Aaron Hawkins of Storm Clouds Gathering. They're not 'spreading fear and conspiracy theories' in an Alex Jones way. They're proactive beyond presenting history and ideologies. I think both Griffin, Hawkins and others like them have more credibility than someone like A Jones~ he seems a little sensationalist to me.

If this link doesn't work, you can copy & paste it to watch Freedom to Fascism.

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6ayb02bwp0

[shoeman]

Yes Cary, that link did not go through; however, I went to YouTube and found the video with that same exact code. Since the film is 2:26:41 in length, I will plan to go back later and view it in its entirety. But the first few moments are truly captivating.

Even before this thread was started, it occurred to me that governments and mainstream media are quite often guilty of deception and spoon-feeding. As if they thought people were unintelligent.


So I will see if this film confirms my suspicions.
Nevertheless, I will approach this with a willingness to learn.


I do appreciate the study you've put into this....

[Robert M]

Robert, you may favor a dictatorship, but I do not. A dictator makes decisions for you and may use coercion or force to ensure that you are compliant with the laws set in place for you, not by you. It says that you are not valid enough to decide for yourself or what is best for you. You have no right to contest it. That is not freedom. But if you are content with that and it works for you, and it is indeed benign, then I am glad for it. But I agree with Griffin, that it would be a gamble. Your next ‘ruler’ might and could abuse that position and power with full authority to do so, to make changes without regard of you and without your consent. That is the core issue.

Cary, may I first echo Shoeman's thanks for your efforts and considered thoughts. Also, I would like to apologise for not looking further into this before posting my initial reactions.

Having read over The Chasm and having also looked over the Freedom Force website, I find much that I would agree with. Mr Griffin is certainly an interesting man and his ideas are, for the most part, well grounded. I find much to ponder and also to question about my own preconceptions and that is always a positive thing imo.

It would appear that we agree on the limitations of democracy - I don't favour any 1 system of government, I sought mainly to highlight a particular flaw. Societies, global and local, will always be in flux and to my mind it is how we adapt and respond that indicates how much we are or are not learning.

Nevertheless, there are fundamentals. I do not agree that "collectivism" is the enemy of "freedom". Both are necessary imo and I put both in quotes because I am increasingly uncertain of how they are used and for what agenda. I am also suspicious of conspiracy theories - to me it is self-evident that the rich will take decisions that suit them. I doubt very much whether they actually consider the philosophical impact of these decisions - being rich they don't need to.

I have a lot more to say about this but need to think about it first. Again, thanks and best wishes.

[Cary C-Troll]

I appreciate that, Robert, and Shoeman, too for taking an interest in E. Griffin’s writing. None of this is ever short & sweet and easily explained, but he has a way and is certainly knowledgeable.

This is a link to a video re: collectivism and individualism. Part 1 of 3 It has some of the same points as in The Chasm, but I still hope anyone else will read that, too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3MELsBchFs may need to copy & paste that link into your browser

I don’t mean to be so dismissive of Alex Jones either. I have much respect for anyone like Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, and others moving from the background forward to bring awareness to unconstitutional laws, the Trojan horses & seemingly innocuous legislation that strip away freedoms.
They advocate downsizing government to do away with unnecessary bureaucracies/government agencies that have spent the US into a trillion dollar deficit. This is a huge threat to our national sovereignty (the biggest threat), and I have to wonder if it isn’t actually an ‘intended consequence’, considering the movement toward a NWO.

I have one more link on Federal spending. I don’t think we can ignore the issue any longer and keep perpetuating the same big government format, when essentially, it’s just a mechanism for regulating every single aspect of our formerly free lives.

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...e-numbers-2012

I really hope these links work...the second is a real eye-opener for anyone lost in all the 'talking points' and BS fed to us in the political ads.

Thanks again.

[Robert M]

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...e-numbers-2012

"The federal government has closed out its fourth straight year of trillion-dollar-plus deficits, and the imperative to rein in spending has never been greater. Because all government spending gets paid for through either taxes or borrowing—both of which burden the economy—spending reduction is an essential condition for promoting economic growth."


But actually collecting taxes due isn't?! There's a lot in Griffin's writing and associated links stating that spending is the problem - there's next to nothing about taxes other than the suggestion that they are unconstitutional. Now, I'm no expert on the US tax system but, from a UK perspective, when Starbucks pays ZERO tax in the last 3 years (and a historical rate of 0.3% since 1998), I think it's fair to say we can't establish what we can or cannot afford until corporations and the super-rich PAY WHAT THEY OWE!!!

Now, you may be thinking "typical European socialist" but no - I agree that government is too big, prone to waste & corruption and self-serving. I also believe in a flat tax and, indeed, a cap on maximum liabilities (both personal & corporate). These things are achievable but must start from a position where taxes are accepted and paid without question. Will this ever happen? I doubt it. Those who argue for a flat tax etc tend to be those who have a hidden agenda and that agenda has little to do with responsibility, morality or anything other than a minimal commitment to the poor, weak or dispossessed.

One other thing for now - you mention "our formerly free lives" Cary. When was this? In the UK, since Margaret Thatcher's time, it has been the case that the Victorian era has been held up by right-wingers as some mythical bygone age of values since lost. It was anything but. Is there an equivalent in the US that you're referring to or am I missing something? Regards.

[Cary C-Troll]

He and the others advocate low taxes, excise tax. It is income tax that is unconstitutional, and that is fully expanded in the film America: Freedom to Fascism featuring Griffin. In short, the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution was not ratified by the required ¾ majority of the states.

Robert, I am not an anarchist or speaking of ‘free’ in the sense that I don’t think we need civil laws. Clearly, we do. When I speak of freedom, it is in the context that federal government has limitations~ the spirit outlined in the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution by the framers in the Bill of Rights...outlines the limitations & role of government to prevent tyranny, abuse of power and authority. The Constitution defined a limited federal republic, but we’ve more or less morphed into an unlimited bureaucratic oligarchy.

In the Declaration of Independence~ government derives its power from the consent of the governed. Primary role: to protect our rights to be free and civil.

~ link to the Declaration of Independence. http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

I wouldn't brand you a socialist or label you, period. We all favor some areas in black, white and gray. I doubt anyone is categorically anything. And I’m not utopian about any form of government, but believe as many do, we had great ideas by the framers of the Constitution. I am not defeated in spirit, but still inspired by the ideals in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. We’ll always have a problem with abuse of power, so even with an ideal frame of government, you’re right, imperfect people will corrupt it. But if you have laws to work with and follow, and officials or citizens break those laws, then by due process, they are accountable and punishable. That’s the frame of a free society. Accountability~ there's the issue with the 17th Amendment with the loose representation of states in the senate (and no term limits). Prior to 1914 senators were appointed by the state legislatures. States would send the senators to Washington to represent them. If a senator started voting against the best interests of the state which he represented, he could be immediately recalled.

The Patriot Act, drones, NDAA are more recent examples of federal laws that have the markers of a police state, not of freedom. When the laws become so ridiculous it intrudes in our lives, into private matters OR when federal government dips into matters that should be left to the states, it’s crossing that line, takes us further away from the ideals set by the framers of the Constitution.

[Cary C-Troll]

Something more on the 16th Amendment. The argument on whether income taxes are unconstitutional is not something I’d recommend taking up with the IRS. I pay mine, and it’s also my job to pay and report the payroll taxes where I work. I’m compliant Even if the 16th wasn't properly ratified, it is recognized by the Feds as valid and you certainly will not win the ‘unconstiutional’ argument in any federal court. The argument stems from here: Article V of the Constitution states that in order to ratify an amendment, 3/4 of the states in the union must ratify the amendment. At the time of the 16th amendment (1913), there were only 48 states in the union, so 36 would need ratify it. Secretary of State Philander Knox claimed to have 38 states ratify the amendment. But according to William J. Benson , there were 4 states (Kentucky, Oklahoma, California, and Minnesota) who had either not ratified the amendment, or had done so in a manner that violated their own state constitutions. He goes on to state that upon investigation, including traveling to each and every state capital, he discovered that in fact only 2 states had ever truly ratified the 16th amendment. Regardless, as you'll see in Russo's film, the IRS wins b/c the amendment is recognized in federal court.
Having said that I believe the 16th should be repealed and the Feds should have to return to the founders original intent on federal taxation....duties, imposts etc. I suppose this would be the position of Griffin and any others~ since to my knowledge they have not been imprisoned for failure to pay.

[shoeman]

"Typing like a troll." Nyuk-nyuk-nyuk.


You slay me, My Friend....

[Cary C-Troll]

Hey Shoeman

I wish I could catch all my typos, but with each edit I see MORE

I bring Tidings of Ugh...there's talk that Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are getting out of politics. I hope not.

Hey, Ed Griffin turned 81 this week...man, I love that guy.