Comments on: Unalienable Rights: Does Government Exist to Protect Rights, or to Grant Them?

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:22:23 +0000

That puts in with the founders…very good company indeed!

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:21:40 +0000

Yes, they would. By then, they may be taxing us just for breathing. Carbon and all. Just make sure you can blog from teh bunker, if that is still legal by then. I do enjoy your blog.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:19:23 +0000

You are correct, Steve, and thanks for the kind words.

The founders warned about these creeping sort of usurpations. Of course, you’d think the kids would know that from school…oh wait! The government runs those too! Any surprise they don’t know that?

By: Don

Don — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:29:59 +0000

Very good post, Matt. I am a firm believer that individual freedoms and private property rights are inseparable.

By: Trestin Meacham

Trestin Meacham — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:05:47 +0000

I think when I get out in two years I’m going to cash in all my bonds buy some supplies and live in a bunker. It just keeps getting worse, and appears that any hope of living in a free society are fading. Even if I did that they would find some way to tax me.

By: steve

steve — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:30:58 +0000

Excellent post!

The United States has been the exception not the rule since our nation was founded on the radical idea that all men are free.

But, leftist (mostly Democrats) have been working tirelessly to erode our freedoms and they do it in a seductive way. They say a person should earn a ‘fair’ wage or a ‘living’ wage. They say everyone should have ‘access’ to health care. They will also use the tyranny of the minority technique with “no one should ever have to suffer (fill in the blank), therefore we need to do somthing.” All these ideas on the surface sound seductive. However, these ideas create more government and less freedom.

Like Ben Franklin said “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.”

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 04:24:12 +0000

You nailed it! I wrote this long essay on the thing, and you sum it up in four sentences.

Thanks for stopping by. I’ll email you about the whole registration thing.

By: cmblake6

cmblake6 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:34:06 +0000

The federal government is for national defense, police, and courts. The Constitution recognizes our rights, it does not grant them. And further, it specifically PROTECTS them from interference with by the government.
That’s WHY it was written in the first place.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:12:01 +0000

Well said Ron, and thank you. I agree in what you said regarding people giving up some rights to achieve power. Either for themselves or a benefactor. That is the issue we face now with income redistribution. Some are conntent with giving up most of their freedoms in exchange for a piece of the wealth of others.

By: Ron Russell

Ron Russell — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:34:41 +0000

Great post Matt. Age old question that will be debated long after you and I are dust. I only know the truth I see and another will see the opposite and we will both claim to be right. I have to come down on the side of natural rights and not man-made rights. You covered all the bases and I can add little to what you said. Every man loves freedom and few would give it up to the state, however some would try to impose their values on others for numerous reasons such as public welfare, public safety and scores of other things and herein lies the danger.