Feb 24th, 2013 - Letter to the President

What is a right?

It is merely the vocalization of an intrinsic part of the whole.

Our factual right to free speech is because we exist with the capacity to communicate.  It itself is self supportive of its own existence, because we can communicate we have the right to do so, and the ability to do so is naturally a right.

Our right to free religion is because we have the capacity to rationalize, to think, to ponder the nature and purpose of life.  It is our given existence of mind that creates our right to self expression and the desire of our dreams and wishes.  I don’t want to get to far off on a tangent here, for I feel that the expression of the whole being is not the place of this particular paper, but it is important to at least recognize the idea that the entity we call “I” is more than the sum of my physical parts.  Call that soul, or spirit, or simply Mind, the physical form is but a piece of the whole.   The body itself is merely property of the whole being, like anything else one can own.

There are many endless rights that stem from the formative ideal called Liberty.  Thomas Jefferson said in a letter to James Madison:

“Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can.”

He was saying that there is but a multitude of intrinsic values that are inherent to the individual and that although in a document of government we can’t possible express the whole list, but we can secure the ones that matter.   Therein lays the key, for they reviewed the whole of mankind and came to the conclusion, that the original 8 amendments to the constitution were the best possible expressions of Liberty they could protect against the government and to protect the others not listed, they included two more amendments to ensure the safety of those not specified.

Now what does the government (and by lateral extension: The Mob) think a Right is?  There are abuses of these indisputable inalienable rights by government and by individuals alone.  These groups, these mobs of people, form and by action say that no right is a great individualism and sometimes these right are not fundamental parts of the whole, but are instead something else.   This side of the argument seems to believe that rights are instead grants of the State.  The worst of this ideal has always been the Supreme Court, for they specifically have zero authority to add language to the Constitution.  They have no legislative ascendancy, but yet their hubris continues to such an extent that they interject their opinions into the language of the Constitution and thus by doing create statutes that stand as law. 

What we are left with is a government that believes not in the Divine or Darwinian jurisdiction of Liberty, that is, granted by the mechanism of our existence, but instead believes that rights are gifts from the State, that can be rescinded and superseded as needed.

This is where the fundamental breakdown begins.  For such a government that does not believe that rights are beyond their authority is effectively saying that individuals - the whole of the person; remember a right is merely an extension of the person’s existence - is relegated to a ward of the State’s opinion.  

To illustrate the absurdity of believing that one part of a being is not greater than the government, one could imagine a government whom believes that rights are not congenital pieces of the whole, proclaiming that people are no longer in need of having two hands.  They could simply say, with verifiable evidence, contestable in court, that individuals no longer need a left hand and effective immediately the government will cut it off at the elbow.  

If a right is in fact innate, native, natural and part of the whole being we call a person, then by acting against nature one is setting the worst kind of arrogance against not only his fellow man, but against nature itself.  One is setting a goal to overcome natural existence, be it from the breath of God or from fifteen billion years of evolution.  The shear audacity of a such people, to set such insolence in the face of such a valued creation of life, is obscene, where it reflects not elevated thinking that could incorporate the whole of all we that are, but an arcane puerile of either disingenuous thought or out and out illiteracy of one’s own existence.

The question then becomes, do we return ourselves and thus all life back to the precious position of individuality and Liberty or do we stay the vaulted course of brash pomposity and begin cutting fingers from those we feel no longer need them?

History will report and more is remembered of good men pursuing noble truths than of obscure tyrants that sank with the anchor of bad though and descended away from enlightenment.