|
|
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.
Richie Cameron
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?
Richie Cameron
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