“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?”

No matter how hard I try, which words I choose, it just seems that some people do not understand the concept of unalienable rights, as proclaimed in our nation’s Declaration of Independence.

People hear me use the terms rights, and liberty, and they assume that I am speaking of the same thing. They are wrong in their assumptions, for rights and liberty are not the same thing.

The dictionary defines a right as something to which one has a just claim, or the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled. While liberty is defined as the quality or state of being free, and the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges. So liberty is the freedom to exercise and enjoy your rights, without interference or restraint.

Where do our rights come from? Some are under the misconception that government grants us certain rights and privileges. Untrue! As John Adams, our second President once said, “You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments: rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the universe.” Our rights are natural, they are given to us by God, not by any President, or an act of Congress.

While our rights are considered unalienable, that is they are not capable of being transferred or taken away, they do come with a certain amount of responsibility. We cannot so freely exercise an individual right, when, in so doing, we infringe, upon the ability of someone else to exercise their rights.

Thomas Jefferson explained that principle in much fewer words when he said, “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.”

In an effort to make certain you understand the concept of rights, and responsibility, allow me to provide you with an imaginary scenario.

Imagine you found yourself stranded on a tropical island. This island had an abundant supply of fruit trees, and wildlife to sustain life indefinitely. As you are the only human being on this island, you have the right to do whatever you please. However, if you decide to do something foolish, and you injure yourself, you alone are responsible for the consequences of your actions. That is the tie that is inexorably tied to a right, the responsibility to take actions for your choices.

Now, imagine that suddenly you find another occupant on your island. You may still enjoy the rights you had before, but they may have to be exercised a bit more prudently. If before, you had chosen to spend your time throwing rocks at whatever you fancied, you would now have to careful as not to throw them in the direction of your new neighbor, as you might injure him.

You also now would be limited in your right to claim dominion over the entire island. If you new neighbor establishes an area and sets up camp, or even builds some sort of shelter, you have no right to trespass on his property. On the other hand, he would be obliged to respect your property as well. Otherwise, both of you would still be free to do pretty much as you please, as long as your action did not prevent the other occupant of the island from enjoying his right to do the same.

Before I continue, where would these rights that you, and your neighbor enjoy, come from? What government entity gave them to you? What’s that you say, there is no government in this imaginary scenario. How could that be if our rights are something granted us by government, instead of them being given us by God?

Now imagine, instead of just the two of you, that there are numerous people who find themselves stranded upon this island. Since there are so many of you, it is decided that someone should be selected to a position where they can settle disputes, and make decisions on your behalves. Does the selection of this person somehow diminish your ability to exercise your rights, as explained by Jefferson? No, as your rights were not given you by him.

Now say that some of you are good at farming, and establish farms to grow the produce required to feed the population of your island. While others are good at hunting and provide the meat needed to feed you. Say their is one who knows how to make weapons, and begins making bows and arrows, so that you can hunt more effectively and defend yourselves. Finally, say that one person knows how to make coconut wine to drink with your meals from the coconuts that grow so abundantly on your island, (and yes it can be done, just ask my wife how).

Your community is thriving, and everyone gets along just wonderfully. You still have the ability to exercise your rights and all is well. Now, say that one occupant of your island spends his time getting drunk on coconut wine and cannot provide food and shelter for himself. Suddenly you have poverty on your island because of the choices made by this individual.

Now, does anyone on this island, particularly the one you select to settle disputes, have the right to come and take from you, or your neighbor, to provide for this drunk? No, they do not. However, if you are charitable, you may of your own free will give them shelter, and food to sustain themselves.

Say some day a person is reckless, or is angered at someone. So they shoot another person with their bow and arrow, killing him. Does anyone have the right to say that you, who did nothing wrong, no longer has the right to own your own bow and arrow? No. However, if you decide that a bow and arrow are dangerous and you do not want one, you have every right to give yours away, or destroy it if that is what makes you happy.

That in a nutshell is what happens when we grant power and authority over us to an individual, or a group of individuals. They often make decisions for the common good that, unfortunately, infringe upon your individual rights. That is what our government has done, and continues to do to our God given rights.

Prior to the Declaration of Independence being written, George Mason drafted the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Section 1 of that document states, “That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”

Our founders believed that the primary purpose of government was the protection of our God given rights. The Declaration of Independence clearly states, “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, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

When the Constitution was being considered by the various states for ratification, there was great fear that this new form of government would infringe upon the rights of the people, rights which they had just fought a war to regain.

Therefore, a Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution, to assuage any concerns that our new government might infringe upon those rights. While most may be aware of the Bill of Rights, few may be aware that these ten amendments had their own Preamble, which states, “THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

In other words, these ten amendments were further restrictions that were to be put in place. They were not grants of rights from our government, but clear, concise, restrictions upon which our government was not to infringe upon, under any circumstance!

There were some that were of the belief that a Bill of Rights was not such a good idea. From Federalist #84, Alexander Hamilton stated, “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?”

What Hamilton said is, that a Bill of Rights might be taken to mean that the rights contained in such a bill were the only rights we had, and that government was free to infringe upon any right that was not listen within it.

Any time your government passes a law, which taxes you, and appropriates that money to someone else, no matter how charitable the cause, that is an infringement of your right to enjoy the fruits of your labors.

It is fine if you willingly decide to give of your abundance to help those less fortunate, in fact that is what the Scriptures tell us. If you care to look, there are numerous references in regards to charity contained within the Scriptures, Isaiah 1:17 being one of them.

Our nation was founded upon the principle of liberty. Our Pledge of Allegiance ends with the phrase, “…with liberty and justice for all.” How can we say that we still adhere to the principles upon which our nation was founded, when in so many instances, our government has openly, and often with the support of the people, infringed upon our God given rights?

John Adams once warned us, “But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.” That is why, almost to a one, the founders believed that our liberty was worth guarding, at all costs.

Daniel Webster once said, “God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it.”

Patrick Henry was even more convincing, “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”

While we may be of the opinion that it is alright to infringe upon someone else’s liberty, especially when that person has proven that they are not respectful of the right of others to freely exercise their rights.

However, Thomas Jefferson even warned against this, “It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case, may, by change of circumstances, become his own.”

A good many people of this country, have forgotten the principles upon which this nation was founded. We have either forgotten, or willingly given up, some of our rights for the security that these restrictions provide us. Their is a quote that is attributed to Benjamin Franklin, that applies to people such as these, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

My fellow countrymen, I care not whether you wish to relinquish your rights to a government that has proven itself all too willing to take them from you. However, I am sick and tired of having my rights slowly chipped away at by endless government regulations.

My rights are not the government, nor yours to take. I would be negligent to the memory of this countries founders, and to my God, if I sat idly by and allowed, the government, or you to take from me, something that was given me by God.

I would urge each you reading this to seriously think about your continued support for a government, be it led by Republicans or Democrats, that continues to show a total disregard for your rights and liberty. As already stated, “Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.” It is up to you to decide whether you wish to live in freedom, or in servitude. I prefer to live as Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty, or give me death.”
 
~ The Author ~
Neal Ross can be reached for comments at bonsai@syix.com. Visit Neal’s Blog at http://www.zombie-slayer.com/neal

The Ross Archive on The Federal Observer