Rights, Authority, Power and Representation
After doing some extensive research into the writings of the
founders of the American system of government in this country, and listening
to virtually everyone on talk radio shows, I have reached my conclusion
that our people presently don't really have a clue about rights, authority,
power or representation, in the American scheme of government. I
will try to relate what I have thus learned.
The foundations of the Second Amendment to The Constitution for these United States of America, lie not in The Constitution itself but it some elemental and reasonable concepts, chiefly but not solely, the right to self-defense. This is a basic principle the world over. I tend to believe that one would not find anyone across the globe who would not, given enough time, reach the proposition that another human does not have the right to protect their own life. The reason I believe this is simple, anyone who could possibly reach a contrary conclusion would assert against themselves, that they individually have no right to protect their very life, limb and property. Almost a preposterous conclusion for anyone to assert against themselves, yet, I suppose, there may be a minority that could reach this conclusion and belief. I would call their sanity into question, but that is probably just me.
Supposing you really believe that no human, yourself included, has the right of self-defense, carrying it to its full extent, there could be no wrong in killing any human, with pickaxes, baseball bats and the infamous semi-automatic assault hammers, the word genocide and homicide would no longer be used. I tend to think that most people would reason it out that anyone who believes in the proposition that no human has a right to self-defense, probably shouldn't put up to much resistance or complaint should they be accosted by someone intending on taking their life, limb, liberty or property. For purposes of this writing I will presume the fact that no sane human in truth holds such an irrational belief that no one has the right of self-defense.
Based on this presumption it can then properly be concluded that everyone does posess the right to self-defense, that is defending their life, limb, liberty and property, from any would-be criminal. Now, looking at this conclusion as having established what we think of as a "right", try to see, with the minds eye, unfettered by emotions and unfounded opinions, how authority relates to the right of self-defense. If, everyone has the basic right of self-defense, reason dictates that no other human can impair, deny, or infringe on another's right to self-defense. In other words, no human can exercise their individual authority to take the life, limb, liberty or property of another. Let me restate the foregoing, "no man, woman, or child, possesses the authority to take the life, limb, liberty or property of any other man, woman, or child." If this fact were contrary to what is presumed here, then anyone can take from anyone, whatever they want, at any time they want, without the liability of repercussion, that is, absence of law prohibiting such acts.
Where would such authority come from? Is one born with such authority? If not, can such authority be delegate from one to another? If so, how did the delegator derive the delegated authority to the delegatee? Can such authority be purchased and from whom?
Applying reasoned thinking, the question may be asked, "if no human has in their possession the authority to deprive another human the right of self-defense, can any individual or group, each of whom are without such authority, then collectively authorize other individuals or groups, they themselves without this same authority, to deny others the right of self-defense? Reason again dictates that no one has such an authority to deny another the right of self-defense or their property, they weren't born with that authority, they haven't been delegated that authority from anyone else not having the authority, and they have not purchased from another such authority. Summing this up, no one has either the right or authority to take the life, limb, liberty or property from anyone else or the collective rights to defense of life, limb, liberty or property. This should dispense with contrary arguments proposed by the anti-gun crowd from this standpoint, if no one has the right of self-defense, then the anti-gunners also are without the right of self-defense, by whatever means possible, be it gun, baseball bat, or any other inanimate object which can be used as a weapon of self-defense.
Another application of the foregoing reasoned logic in dealing with what is termed "property rights." From the writings of the predecessors of the founding fathers of this country a general theme can be derived as applied to property rights. I will attempt to relate their foundational thinking in terms of our contemporary language. The foundation of property rights in this country as was viewed by the framers of American government is simple to understand. The thinking of the framers, which is reflected in many of the documents of that day, leading up to and including The Constitution involves "private property rights." It was believed then that mankind possessed the right to hold private property and that right extended to the exclusion of all interests of anyone else, otherwise that property could not be held to be private property. Private property is just that, privately held, exclusive to only the one possessing the rights in said property.
Again, most would agree to the proposition of private property rights, but what does that mean fully. Simply put, think about it from this standpoint, if one cannot possess and hold to the exclusion of all other people, private property, then they can be moved from that property by anyone else having a superior interest in that property. That same individual that is without the private property right, removed from their former property because it truly was not privately held by the individual, would then have to search for and obtain property in which they might have superior interest to the exclusion of all others. If that individual cannot find and obtain any private property in which they alone are vested with superior interest, then they can be moved from any and all properties they find or obtain. Taken to its farthest extremes, the individual unable to possess private property to the exclusion of all others, and even so-called government, could be forced from all property altogether. In other words, kicked off all land and into the sea. Everyone knows that unless you have some means of living permanently on the sea, which mankind is not suited for, that mankind must have dominion over private property as it relates to his land.
One of the old Supreme Court cases states the following: "the power to tax is the power to destroy." As applied to private property, the power to tax a man's land establishes a superior interest, which by extension, if the man fails to pay the tax assessed by party having the superior interest, the government, is the power of the government to ultimately destroy the man. The man has been condemned to death (banished off the face of the earth into the sea and he can't tread water forever) without due process of law. The great object then was to establish and keep private property rights inviolate.
Now from the first part of this discussion, apply the principles contained therein. You know that you were not born with the right or authority to impose and collect a tax on your neighbor's properties, likewise, he has no right or authority to do the same to you. Now, how can either you or your neighbor, having no inherent right or authority to tax your fellow neighbors delegate a right or authority you don't possess individually or collectively, to anyone else? Those people you elect as your representative in your government come from your community also, each of whom born with no greater or lesser rights or authority than you. These representatives cannot be conferred or delegated by you or your other neighbors with rights or authorities that you nor they do not possess. So, if you have no right or authority to impose taxation on one or all of your neighbors, and they are equal to you in their limitations of power and authority, from where does your government representatives get their right or authority to impose taxes on private property? They surely couldn't be delegated this authority by you and they weren't vested with authorization or the right by virtue of birth.
This should show your mind's eye the picture that you cannot confer, delegate, or vest a right individually or collectively, to any other human that you do not first possess. You simply don't have the authority. Now apply these private property principles to land, guns or any other things which are the subject of the ownership of man which is the definition you will find in a legal dictionary. Property is defined as "any thing which is subject to the ownership of man." Land is a thing, and a gun is a thing, as well as many other things which can all be defined as property. It has already been established that no one can rightfully take from you your life, liberty, or property without due process of law. No one else individually possesses such authority. Thus, no group comprised of individuals each without the right and authority to take or deprive another of private property or the right of self-defense in protection of private property, can obtain collectively a right or authority to do that which no individual has. Simply put, anyone who is your representative can exercise a right or authority that cannot be delegated by you.
Thus far, I hope that three of the topics have been tied together sufficiently to demonstrate their relationships. Now, the last topic to discuss is power. Certainly, most would agree that no one has the right or authority to take the life, liberty, or private property of anyone else, at least without due process of law. We understand that when a robber uses a gun to holdup someone, he has no inherent or delegated right to the property he steals, and no one else can authorize the robber to steal. Clearly the robber, is without the right and authority individually, and cannot be considered as a representative of anyone else. But, we see the clear exercise of power. The use of force to do that which cannot be done by right, unauthorized and unrepresentative. People, using force, having a gun, have the power to shoot me dead, the question is, do they have the right or authority to do it? If they do, from where did they derive the right or authority. Maybe they were special when they were little and it was a gift from a rich uncle. Many people might suppose that to be the case. Most people would think it criminal.
As applied to government, we find that the representative system of American government, is without authority to impose taxes on private property, thus having no right to do such an act, but are in fact imposing taxation, by exercise of power, either coercively using courts or at gunpoint.
So, in conclusion, I say to all those who will understand, the anti-gun people cannot individually take your guns except through the use of power absent authority, they don't have that right. They also cannot confer or delegate to any of their pretended representatives rights and authorities they themselves do not have, thus, their representatives cannot take your guns based upon conferred rights and authority. They are relegated to the use of power absent authority to take your guns or your lands or anything else associated with private property interests. Most thinking people are readily able to identify just what kind of people attempt to take the life, liberty, or private property from another without authority, they call them criminals.
Hope someone gets something out of this.
It is easy to be confused today...
I have made some simple observations lately and I think I have
it somewhat figured out as to why so many people are what I would consider,
confused. Confused about most facets of the very lives they are plodding
headlong through, seemingly oblivious to history, facts, truth and reality.
I had better first lay a foundation for my observations and beliefs on
this subject, less I be accused of not following my own guidelines.
I am going to make one big presumption at this point, that is, that anyone who is reading this dribble, has gained whatever reading abilities they have by way of learning to read, write, and understand the English language, at some time in their lives, and probably from teachers of the English language. I will also presume that along with the reading and writing skills and abilities learned under some formal type of English education class, that the teacher probably stressed the "understanding" part of the learning concepts and that the same teacher(s) directed the young pupils to make use of dictionaries for purposes of gaining that "understanding". As a part of learning to write the English language, I remember spending hours without end it seemed, learning to properly spell the words I would be writing and being tested upon.
Along with the proper spelling of words, I was eventually taught about abbreviating certain words in the English language. As I remember it, each and every English word for which there was a proper abbreviation, there were specific rules in which to follow in the act of doing the abbreviating. Seems to me that every word that was a proper noun, like "Illinois" was abbreviated according to the fixed, unaltering rules of the English language. As I was taught, "Illinois" would properly be abbreviated "Ill.". That is, capital letter "I" followed by double "l's" and ending with a period. That was the hard fast rule as established for how long I don't know in the English language but it was the rules for abbreviating our words.
Abbreviations always began with capitalized letters followed by small case letters and ended in a period. Am I repeating myself? I see that I am repeating myself, in hopes of making a point here. Now, here is where I believe that I have observed a great deal of confusion. It confuses, or maybe more properly, perplexes me. I have observed many people using what they believe are proper abbreviations, as using the example above, "Illinois" becomes "IL". Hmmm! Two capitalized letters, no small case letters and no period ending the so-called abbreviation. Makes me wonder what formal schooling they had, what kind of a teacher would deviate from the discipline of the English language concerning proper abbreviations. Or, is there something I am missing, am I the only one that is confused?
Well, the confusion I observe extends further to even more words used in the English language, extending to the understanding of those words, which I could see being easily resolved if a dictionary of the English language was consulted. For example, I received information from a friend regarding the U.S. Postal Service (this is not the same as the Post Office Department). The article my friend sent was excerpted from a newspaper article states that, "The U.S. Postal Service is claiming that lost revenue due to the proliferation of email is costing nearly $230,000,000 in revenue per year."
Interesting, when I was young, my dad gave me the entrance fees to take my cousin and myself to the movies. I had that Federal Reserve Note in my hand, then I put it in my pocket, I am almost sure of that. On the way to the movie theater, which was about 1/4 mile of city sidewalks (my cousin lived in the city), I somehow "lost" that physical thing that I was sure I put in my pocket. You see, by simply consulting a simple dictionary of the language that most of us claim we use because that is what we were taught, we would have knowledge that in order to "lose" any thing, we first must have it. I have a problem imagining "losing" anything that I do not have. Do you understand what I am getting at here. Because if it were to the contrary, everyone could be "losing" things, many things that they do not have possession of or even intent to have possession of. This can be confusing can't it?
Under the latter condition I could actually claim that I have lost one million of something this year. Actually, I am kind of liking this whole new concept. I think that I may even be losing several millions, no, billions this year. Wow, that does sound impressive no matter how incorrect it is. Problem is, I am too much of a realist for my own good I guess. I already feel badly about making any such type of claim to losing things, any thing, that I really don't have. I felt badly about the loss of that theater entrance fee when I was young. It was hard to come by then.
As you should be able to see, the U.S. Postal Service (a private business, but keep it a secret, will you?) cannot be losing something it does not have in its possession. The claimed 230 millions cannot, of course, be lost, they never had those 230 millions. Which now brings me to another point which I hope that the reader will find just as interesting as I do. Namely, if one carefully, I mean thoughtfully, examines what the officials for the U.S. Postal Service are relating in the article, if one looks beneath the gloss at the core of the statements, something will emerge as maybe a revelation, that is, the U.S. Postal Service "is" really a business. Like all businesses its interests are that of the health of the corporation which can only be viewed through its books and records. The corporate business is "healthy" when the bottom line is in the black, and the corporation is "sick" if the bottom line is in the red. Corporations are like that you know, after all they are not flesh-and-blood they are artificial entities. People are not "entities" or even "individuals". People are "people". Novel concept eh?
Anyway, if you think about differences in artificial entities say for example the corporate entity U.S. Postal Service and another type of artificial entity commonly known as government, it becomes even more clear that what people seem to enjoy misidentifying as government is in reality only another business corporation, and not really government at all.
To substantiate this, one should to examine the foundation of the Post Office Department of the United States of America (not the U.S. Postal Service). History kind of shows why in the first place the Post Office Department was created as a department within the government.
The people, of that day, needed some type of a general "service" to carry out the commerce of communicating with each other at distances that were either uncomfortable or impractical for them to do individually on a daily or weekly basis. Those people could certainly have written a letter and hand delivered it to the party that they intended to read it of course, but that would have negated the need for the letter in the first place wouldn't it?
Now look at the U.S. Postal Service recent statement again and think about it for a bit. If our present day needs for a specific service are such that we use a "service provider" other than the U.S. Postal Service for that service (U.S.P.O. doesn't provide that service) why is it that the U.S. Postal 'Service' believes in any manner whatsoever that it should be entitled to receive payments for services that it does not provide. Wow! I think this may be another novel idea. I feel in coming on now. If I can just convince millions of other people in America that my little business should derive some small payment from each of them annually for the services that I do not render to them, then I will begin my plans today for an extended European jaunt. My only problem would be if everyone saw through the veil of my scheme and I never received anything from them for the services I didn't provide. Idea....
I can now claim that I am "losing" many millions and make a demand that all those corporate entities that are actually providing those services, actually should be giving me something for my "losses". Yeah, this is really getting good now. Boy, I wish I had learned all this high finance when I was younger...
Oh, Oh, I feel it coming on again, yup, sure nuf, reality just hit me. The whole scheme that I just laid out is as crooked as the day is long. The reality of it is, if any business entity, such as the U.S. Postal Service, is not utilized in providing a specific service to the people in America, it must be that it ought just accept that fact. It has no entitlement to impose a financial burden on any other business entity or the users of the services of business entities simply because it claims to be "losing" 230 millions.
Nothing, should be more obvious than this fact, if any corporate entity, (quasi-governmental, U.S.P.S.) is not providing a service that is otherwise provided by another sector of the corporate world of artificial entities, then it should just count itself lucky that it still does have some services to offer that are utilized, and tally its end of year accounts accordingly.
The U.S. Postal Service has NO "inherent right" to "live" granted to it at its birth. It also has no inherent right to receive anything for services it does not provide. Just extrapolate this thing out. Although this will not happen, imagine everyone in the world at all times using email and Federal Express for all their purposes that they now use the U.S.P.S. for. Would the U.S.P.S. then make the claim that it has "lost" hundreds and millions of bezillions for the services it no longer provides and is somehow entitled to be compensated. Or, what about just a little plain sense approach. If you or I cannot provide a service that we once provided to one of our customers, then we must either close up shop or find services that we can offer to others if we want to stay in business.
If nothing else I hope that the above helps clear some of the confusion about the character of the U.S. Postal Service, that being that it sounds (through corporate officials) like a corporation, it whining about business costs and profits and losses are like a corporation, and its operations and the quality of hired personnel and benefits and etc., etc. are like unto a corporation. Well you know what they say, if it walks like a duck, and it....... The U.S.P.S. is no more a department of government than KY FR CH is. Confused? That is how I think I will begin my use of two letter abbreviations. (Hint, Kentucky Fried chicken)
At the risk of getting ill, if I get the opportunity in the near future I may offer some additional observations on the often quoted "Our Government" and "Our Constitution" and "Our Representatives" and "Our" this and "Our" that. I get so sick of hearing people suggest that everyone call "Our Congressmen" to tell the bastards to quit being criminals and doing what criminals do best. Of course they don't word it like that, they are more politically correct and astute than I am. I think that they actually believe that these *#$!@# can actually repent and go and sin no more. Yeah, Right, when pigs fly! God, I get so sick of hearing from people like that. They have even asked me to beg these S.O.B. criminals to stop this or do that, or vote in this manner or that way on this subject. Talk about deluded! Whew!
Well, I will probably wear out my welcome with this one, probably will put most readers to sleep simply because it deals with subjects that they fell asleep on in English classes years ago and a galaxy far away. After all, what does the English language have to do with anything relevant to the Great Patriotic Cause? Maybe nothing. But I suspect that those who don't get it, will never get it.... Now isn't that confusing?
A commentary by Richie Cameron,for PBN
I have been reading and hearing all this hullabaloo about the confederate
flag flying, all of it thus far from people who have stated (I paraphrase)
"It (the flag) is a SYMBOL of slavery"...
My take on these all-knowing people about the confederate flag being a
symbol is absolutely true as it pertains to all flags being symbols, just as
a rosary or cross or millions of other things can and are used as symbols...
What drives me to distraction though, is simply that these same people, 140
years post civil war era, seem to have absolute knowledge of what that
symbol (flag) actually represents, just as if they were there when that
symbol was devised by the people 140+ years ago...
Our contemporary all-knowing symbol identification folks cannot have the
knowledge of what was in the minds of the men and women who devised that
specific symbol, without doing some actual research, which of course we know
they will never do, as it might bend what they want to believe and espouse
to any and everyone...
For example, anyone could open some historical book, or for that matter,
even a Black's Law Dictionary if you have one handy...Look up the term
"confederate states" in your Black's and read just how many states were "The
Confederate States"...There were only 11...Now, find yourself a picture of
the "stars and bars" that everyone absolutely knows is "the symbol" of
slavery...Count the number of Stars in the stars and bars...
There are 13 stars, not 11 stars...So at least we should be able to reason
out that the Stars did not represent the 11 Confederate states...which seems
to be a simple fact that the "Symbol Sleuths" have overlooked...
Some additional research would reveal that the symbol originates out of
biblical antiquity, not slavery...
The 13 stars, represen