Founding Principle of the United States of America: Individual Rights

Back

Charlotte Cushman

Our country was the first and only country in history that was founded on a brand new idea, the idea that people have rights. These rights are:

• the right to one's own life (which includes that which one has worked for)

• the right to one's own liberty (freedom to live the way you want provided you don't hurt anyone else)

• the right to pursue one's own happiness (not everyone else's-yours)

When America was created, there was another new idea -- the idea that the only legitimate purpose of government was to protect these rights, to make sure no person violated the rights of another. Government was not there to tell men what to do, or how to live their lives, or to take by force what each man has earned by his own efforts to give to another. Initiation of force was banned from human relationships. The only proper use of force was in retaliation against those who had initiated force or fraud against another. Force was only used as a means of defending rights through three branches of government: the police, the military and the courts. And that's it. The purpose of government was to only do that one thing and nothing else. It was to protect individual rights.

The implementation of these two ideas created something unseen before on the face of the earth. For the first time men were free from other men. They were no longer subservient to a lord, master or king. They could live their lives and pursue their goals independently yet associate with each other voluntarily instead of by force. With individual rights as a guiding principle, all other freedoms fell into place: economic freedom, religious freedom, social freedom, freedom of association, contractual freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to bear arms and so on. And look what happened. The United States of America became the happiest, wealthiest, most prosperous, most advanced nation on earth. It was also the most moral country because it recognized individual rights.

But the concept of rights has been corrupted over time. Now people claim they have a "right" or are entitled to things like an education, medical care, food, housing and so on. But if people have a "right" to something, it means that somebody has to provide it. And when someone has to provide something against his will for someone else, there is only one word to describe it-slavery. Yet if man's survival is the objective, freedom is imperative. Since man does not automatically know how to survive, he has to use his mind in order to figure out how to live. He requires freedom so that he can think and act in accordance with the conclusions of his mind. Therefore, a moral country provides the conditions necessary for this to happen and there is only one political system that does this--Capitalism.

Capitalism is a social system based on the concept of property rights. Without property rights, you have no right to your own life. If you can't keep what you have worked for in order to support and enjoy your life, if you have no say in what happens to your property, you have no power over your decisions and actions, which means your rights to your life, your liberty and the pursuit of your happiness have been taken away. Is this happening here in the United States? Yes, it is. Can it be saved? Only if Americans discover our founding principle of individual rights and eliminate the government programs and laws that don't protect them. Here are just a few examples:

Re-distribution of wealth doesn't protect rights. The man who earns an honest living has his money taken against his will (theft) to be given to someone else. His right to what he has worked for, that which supports his life, has been violated. Socialized medicine doesn't protect rights or life. The doctors become slaves of the state that regulates how they should practice medicine and the patients no longer can choose the best treatments for the best prices. Their right to use their own minds to decide what to do and to form contractual agreements with each other has been violated. Social Security doesn't protect rights. The man who wants to invest for his future the way he chooses can't, because his money is taken away from him to give to someone else. His right to his property, to what he has earned, has been violated. Regulations on businesses don't protect rights. The businessman can't hire or fire someone without going through a "process" dictated by the government. His right to use his mind to make decisions regarding voluntary associations has been violated. When oil companies aren't allowed to drill for oil, their property rights are violated. Companies that have to follow government mandates lose the freedom to be innovative. The right to think, form conclusions and take action with property has been violated. Anti-trust laws don't protect rights. The businessman is treated as a criminal no matter what he does. If his prices are too high, too low or the same as his competitors, he can be prosecuted at the whim of some bureaucrat. His right to his property (to charge the price he wants in order to sell it) has been violated. Bail-outs and subsidies don't protect rights. The government decides who succeeds and who fails instead of citizens who trade with each other. Taxpayers pay to support businesses by force through their tax dollars and become poorer because of it. The right to freedom of association and property has been violated. Welfare programs don't protect rights. The person who wants to give money to a charity of his choice has his money confiscated for government programs that he may or may not support. His right to use his property (his money) the way he wants has been violated. Bans on consumption of certain foods don't protect rights. The right to one's own body is a property right and this is violated. Taxation without representation doesn't protect rights. Money is stolen from one group of men to give to another. Re-distribution of other people's money is a direct violation of their property rights.

Any violation of our rights completely contradicts the ideas of our Founding Fathers who were very serious about individual freedom. On February 25, 2011 Yaron Brook gave a rousing speech at the Tea Party Patriots Summit in Arizona where he pointed this out about the Founding Fathers: "They didn't say, 'We just want a little bit less taxes, please, King George.' They didn't say, 'Give us some liberty, please, King George.' They changed the world because they asked a fundamental question. And the question they asked is, 'Who does your life – does my life – belong to?' That's a question that people had never asked, because it was always obvious: your life belongs to the state, to the king, to some emperor, to somebody else – and it's your job to do his bidding. The Founders of this country said 'No: sovereignty belongs with the individual. My life is mine. Your life is yours. And nobody can take that away – not a king; but not even a majority!"

If we want to restore freedom to our country, we must re-discover our roots. Our Founding Fathers were so committed to their revolutionary ideas that they were willing to put their lives on the line for the document that laid the moral foundation for the United States of America-the Declaration of Independence. We need to be willing to do the same. We need to be willing to stand up and say: "My life belongs to me, not to the government, not to the state, not to King George, not to a welfare program, but…to me!" We need to believe in that principle and commit to that principle, the principle of individual rights.

"I want you to look at the birth of a miracle: the United States of America. If it is ever proper for men to kneel, we should kneel when we read the Declaration of Independence. The concept of individual rights is so prodigious a feat of political thinking that few men grasp it fully – and 200 years have not been enough for other countries to understand it." -- Ayn Rand

Charlotte Cushman is a Montessori educator and authored Montessori: Why It Matters for Your Child's Success and Happiness.  She has been involved in the study of Ayn Rand's philosophy since 1970.

© 2011 AmericanThinker

America: A Lifeboat with Limited Capacity

Back

Bob Weir

As another Independence Day is celebrated, I can't help wondering how we arrived at a time in our history when the international beacon of freedom has been relegated to a position of scorn and hatred in many parts of the world.

The Founding Fathers put together an ingenuous system of government designed to guarantee freedom in this new world, an ocean away from the tyranny of a monarchical regime. July 4, 2016 represents 240 years since they took a stand against King George III and fought a bloody war to end the servitude they had been born into. None of us can truly imagine the suffering they endured to carve out a sanctuary for themselves and their families and defend it against the British Empire, the dominant military force of its time. 

For them, it was do or die, inasmuch as such treasonable action was punishable by death. Yet, having experienced the misery of life without freedom, they were willing to make that sacrifice.

With the Virginia House of Burgess undecided on whether to organize for military action against the encroaching British military force, Patrick Henry argued in favor of mobilization and ended his speech with words that have since become immortalized: "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"

Those words have echoed through the canyons of time, reminding generation after generation of the hardships endured to build a new nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all. Nevertheless, it seems that millions of Americans have become filled with the fetid odor of cynicism, cavalierly dismissing the courageous struggle that built the foundation for the prosperity they now take for granted. Academics, schooled in theoretical concepts, engage in self-indulgent debate, seeking to find moral equivalence between past and present.

As a Socratic exercise, it may have merit, but as a blueprint for the preservation of freedom and the destiny of a nation, it has no relevance. This experiment in democracy wasn't charted by perfect people; they were a motley combination of practitioners in many fields of endeavor. But the common thread among them was an indomitable spirit and the passionate thirst for freedom. That thirst, quenched for hundreds of millions during the last couple of centuries, is being challenged in retrospect, by the ungrateful heirs of those patriots. Some burn our flag, the symbol of liberty, while conveniently refusing to acknowledge that the freedom to do so is part of their ancestral heritage.

Others find fault with the former slaveholders among those early founding members, referring to them as a bunch of old, bigoted white men. Such rhetoric is merely a sophomoric attempt to juxtapose the cultural norms of vastly different eras. With food on your table and clothes on your back, it's easy to have an intellectual debate on the methods used to forge a civilization out of a savage wilderness. Thanks to those early crafters of this republic; the many statesmen who followed them; and the millions of decent, hardworking citizens who contributed to the effort, we are still the most coveted piece of real estate on the planet. We don't build walls to keep people in, but if we are to continue enjoying the bountiful lifestyle we've earned, we may be forced to build walls to keep them out.

In pragmatic terms, the United States is a lifeboat with a limited capacity to rescue the multitudes from a raging sea. The more humanity we take on board, the more water will fill our boat, weighing it down precipitously toward an ultimate capsize. We can reach out in heartfelt sympathy to the floundering masses, but at some point, we must recognize that one more passenger may take us all down to a watery grave.

The average person dares not contemplate making a decision of such magnitude. Nevertheless, in the interest of rational thought, someone must!

Few people are old enough to remember the mood of the country during World War 2, but America's sentiments can be readily understood by viewing the movies made during the war against the Axis powers in Europe. Even during the '50s, a decade after the troops were back home, the films continued to portray the greatness of our country and its fight for freedom around the world. It was a time of John Wayne, James Stewart, and Betty Grable – major stars whose patriotism was self-evident in the roles they played and the additional time they spent supporting the troops.

It was a time when families prayed together and proudly displayed flags in front of their homes to show their love of country and their support of the men in uniform. Legendary comedian Bob Hope was entertaining the troops at military bases around the world, accompanied by other major Hollywood celebrities. It was a time in our history when we knew the good guys from the bad guys. It was the time of heroes. However, since the turbulent '60s, with their anti-American rhetoric and their drug-induced revolution against propriety, we have witnessed an erosion of values that has sought to turn religion into a prohibited practice and patriotism into a foolish philosophy engaged in only by fascists.

History proves that the United States of America has always found its heroes in times of need. If past is indeed prologue, it will find its heroes again.

© 2011 AmericanThinker

Independence Day

I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.

You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. -- I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. -- Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even althoWe should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not.

John Adams

Let Us Stand Together To Protect Our Precious Freedom

Let Us Stand Together To Protect Our Precious Freedom

The Stream - Sunday July 3, 2016

by James Robison

The framers of the Constitution knew that the freedom they offered demanded responsible citizens. At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked an important question as he left Independence Hall on the final day of the meeting in Philadelphia. A woman asked Franklin, "Well, doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?" He wisely answered, "A republic, if you can keep it.”

Benjamin Franklin, as well as the other founding fathers of our nation, understood that true liberty requires support from principled statesmen who are actively engaged in the task of governing themselves, encouraging all citizens to hold fast to truths espoused in the Declaration of Independence. If we want to be free, we must learn to govern ourselves. Ill-informed, irresponsible people cannot hold on to freedom's blessings. Living under God's control allows us not only to enjoy the privileges of freedom but also to protect them.

I believe we are on the verge of losing freedom's blessings because we have too few informed and responsible citizens. More than that, the church has not understood the importance of living under the control of God with the powerful Spirit of God providing the strength for us to enjoy and protect our freedom.

Jesus said the gates of hell -- deception, defeat, destruction and debt -- will not prevail against the church standing upon God's revealed truth. (Matthew 16:18) For some time, far too many Christians in America have allowed hell's gates to prevail while they sit in church. Now is the time for us to waken from slumber, to confront the culture and to help restore freedom's blessing! People of faith can and must protect our freedom and inspire strong, stable, effective, limited government.

Jesus commissioned His followers to share the truth that sets people free and keeps them free. As we have seen, He said, "If the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed." (John 8:36) True freedom is living under the control of God, not under the control of any other power or influence.

When we compromise truth, we also compromise freedom and its blessings. Our nation is in the process of doing this, and we are marching toward the death of freedom and the destruction of meaningful national life.

In our nation we are presently following the course of decaying nations that we can observe around the world where intellectual, moral, and economic systems are collapsing. Some of the American leaders in power today are actually suggesting we follow other nations' tragic course.

I will gladly spend the rest of my life inspiring others to action. God is calling us to far more than religious ritual. He is calling us to repentance; to a personal, intimate relationship with Him; and to the restoration of freedom's foundation. God is calling us to a life filled with the power of transforming love and the boldness of New Testament believers to stand against the powers of this present darkness. A dying world is waiting for the release of the river of life that flows freely from the lives of yielded believers.

When God rules in individual lives, sound principles will prevail in our land. Leaders will no longer be chosen because of personality, party affiliation, or skillful communication. They will be chosen because of their commitment to God-given principles necessary for the survival of true freedom.

May we as Christians and lovers of freedom stand together to protect it! We will either witness the glorious future of freedom or the tragedy of its funeral.

 

 

From The Stream: Refreshing Hearts & Minds, Renewing Freedom’s Blessings, Worthy Publishing, 2016

Read More Here

1776 Was Amexit

1776 Was Amexit

The Stream - Sunday July 3, 2016

by Rich Lowry

Two hundred and forty years before Brexit, there was Amexit, also known as the American Revolution.

In terms of historical consequence, the Brexit vote and the American Revolution don’t occupy the same universes, but they are connected by a belief in popular sovereignty and a refusal to be governed by a remote authority with only an attenuated mechanism -- if that -- for representation.

In Brexit, the British people decided that their Parliament should trump the governing machinery of the EU, and in our Revolution we decided that our Colonial assemblies should trump the governing machinery of the British Empire. Both acts exhibited a punctiliousness about government by consent that struck critics as unreasonable and even dangerous.

The Revolution fed off popular passions that shocked and embarrassed some Colonial elites who were more cautious about separating from Britain, in an echo of the elite reaction to Brexit. John Adams pushed back against the “sneers and snubbs” directed at “the multitude, the million, the populace, the vulgar, the mob, the herd and the rabble, as the great always delight to call them.” (I’m in the debt of the magisterial new book Toward Democracy, for this and other quotes.)

If the pro-Brexit forces seem overly touchy about British sovereignty, consider the sensitivity of the architects of the American Revolution. They believed that if government merely has the leeway to rule arbitrarily, it is already tyrannical. It is necessary, Adams warned, to “nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud.”

The Founders sought to protect the bedrock principle that the people, again the words of Adams, are “the Source of all Authority and Original of all Power.” Alexander Hamilton wrote that “the only distinction between slavery and freedom” is whether man is governed either “by the will of another,” or “by the laws to which he has given his consent.”

By this standard, the case against the British Parliament was highly intuitive: Members of Parliament didn’t live in the Colonies, and the colonists didn’t elect them. If the arguments were often complex -- could Parliament impose “external” taxes, but not “internal” ones? -- the crux of the matter wasn’t. Benjamin Franklin wrote as early as 1768 that either “parliament has the right to make all laws for us,” or “it has the power to make no laws for us.”

When it came, the American Revolution was a very British affair. Its supporters cited British writers like John Locke and Algernon Sidney; long-standing liberties under the informal British constitution; and their own rights as Englishmen. “Perhaps there was never a people,” Samuel Adams wrote, “who discovered themselves more strongly attached to their natural and constitutional rights and liberties than the British Colonists on this American Continent.”

History didn’t come full circle, but it did look over its shoulder when a leading advocate of Brexit, the Tory politician Michael Gove, cited the American Revolution as inspiration for Britain’s separation from the EU.

Of course, the circumstances are vastly different. The EU didn’t suspend the British Parliament. It isn’t sending a fearsome fleet across the Channel to crush all resistance and to hunt down Nigel Farage, leader of the U.K. Independence Party, and have him hanged (although some EU officials might harbor this fantasy). Britain obviously didn’t become a newly independent nation upon the passage of Brexit.

But the Brexit vote is a reminder that the threat to self-government never truly abates; it just takes different (and more or less benign or noxious) forms. This is why self-government always needs to be jealously and zealously guarded -- something our forefathers understood and acted upon.

Levi Preston, a captain at the Battle of Concord, explained decades later why he had fought: “What we meant in going for those redcoats was this: We had always governed ourselves, and we always meant to. They didn’t mean we should.” It’s a sentiment as relevant now as it was more than 200 years ago -- and will always remain so as long as men yearn to be free.

 

Rich Lowry can be reached via e-mail: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com.

(C) 2016 by King Features Syndicateanuelanuel Leutzoe

Read More Here

History Is Made! Taxpayers Now Have the Privilege of Paying for Sex Changes

Thursday - June 30, 2016

RUSH:  Well, history is being made as we speak.  The Defense Secretary is lifting the ban on transgenders in the military.  You know why?  So that we, now as taxpayers, will have the privilege of paying for sex change procedures.  Oh, you don't think -- ask Chelsea Manning about that, if you doubt me.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  No, you've got that wrong.  The reason why we can let sexually confused people in the military now, is because we've got ISIS on the run.  Don't you remember what Obama said yesterday and John Kerry said?  They're desperate.  We have them on the run.  They're losing.  So we've got time now to expand the scope of the Department of Defense, which is really shrinking. 

You know, the number of people in the Army, the number of ships in the Navy, I mean, it's -- and what did I just read today?  The Navy's getting rid of the word "man," like you can't say corpsman. The Marines are not -- (interruption) Which is it, the Marines or the Navy doing it?  I thought it was the Marines resisting the change, thought it was the Navy that was making the change.  Well, it's one of the two.  I don't have the story, didn't print it out. 

But I mean the number of ships we have in the Navy is way down.  The number of actual soldiers in the Army is way down.  Whoever the next president is, if we're serious about national defense, has got to build -- (interruption) It's the Marines.  The Marines are eliminating the word "man" in 19 job titles, to make women feel more comfortable.  Yeah, yeah.  Okay, so it's the Marines doing it.  I thought it was the Navy.  Doesn't matter.  It's one or the other.  And now we are opening the armed forces to transgenders because we got ISIS on the run now. 

ISIS is on the run to Orlando.  They're on the run to San Bernardino. They're on the run to Fort Hood, right, they're on the run to Times Square.  Yeah, we got 'em on the run now.  We do. Folks, I'm not kidding.  The Defense Secretary just did a long press conference announcing this historic change, lifting the ban on transgenders in the military.  That's certainly not going to help ISIS recruit anything, is it?  
No.  No way. 

I'm sorry.  You know what?  It's the Marines and the Navy that are both getting rid of it.  It's the Air Force that is keeping "airmen."  The Air Force.  I knew one of the branches was holding on to tradition.  But it's the Marines and the Navy both that are eliminating the word "man," m-a-n, from 19 different job titles.  All of this while supposedly focusing on actual military matters. 

I did tell you long ago that the military is not the place for social experimentation.  But that's what it's become. It's what the left has always wanted it to be.  It's exactly what it is, a social laboratory.  The United States military, something they control, call it a test environment.  Some of these silly social policies they believe.  Social justice and all of that.  

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH:  All right.  So I got some snarky emails for a comment that I made not long ago. About a half hour ago I made mention that we were witnessing history.  The Secretary of Defense announcing the lifting of the ban on transgenders in the US military.  And I said this is all so that we, US taxpayers, will now have the privilege of paying for their sex-change operations, and I got these snarky emails, "That's not what it's about. How dare you!"  Everything you can imagine, words I can't repeat here.  Well, let's go audio sound bite 24.  After the press conference is a Q&A, a reporter and Secretary Carter had this little exchange.

REPORTER:  Someone who is already in the military, if he is -- he or she is deemed medically, uh, if sex change surgery is deemed medically necessary, the military will pay for it?

CARTER:  That's correct.

RUSH:  I rest my case.  You people, don't doubt me here.  I don't care, you leftists, when I nail it you're obviously gonna be offended.  A little lesson for you leftists going forward.  The more offended you are, the more correct I am.  That will be a good rule of thumb for you.  Don't doubt me.  So if I say something here and you're a leftist and you get offended and righteously indignant and outraged, you should now take that to mean I'm right.  Otherwise you wouldn't get so ticked off.  The reason you get ticked off is 'cause I'm right about it. 

This is exactly what this is partially about, paying for sex-change operations.  I don't just pluck these things out of the air.  I remember. I have a great memory, almost as good as Trump's.  And I remember what they did out in San Francisco as part of the city health care plan.  What do you think the addadictomy procedure came from?  The city of San Francisco now pays for sex-change operations for members of the city administration and city employees.  Look at Bradley Manning, who is now Chelsea Manning.  Don't doubt me. 

Why would the question even be asked?  Of all the questions that you could ask, here the Secretary of Defense has just announced lifting the ban on transgender people in the military, and the question that somebody comes up with is, "Well, if somebody who's already in the military, he or she, if a sex change surgery is deemed medically necessary, the military would pay for it?"

"That's correct."  That's one of the first questions the Secretary of Defense was asked.  What do you think this is about?  Creating a new group of warriors?  

Feds ask for 27-month delay in release of Clinton staff emails

By Julian Hattem - 06-30-16 17:31 PM EDT

The Obama administration on Thursday asked a federal court to delay until October 2018 the release of 14,000 pages of emails from aides to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

In a court filing on Wednesday, administration lawyers said the State Department miscalculated the amount of material it would need to process the documents as part of a lawsuit with the conservative organization Citizens United.

As a result, the government asked for a 27-month delay to release the emails, which were originally due out on July 21.

"State deeply regrets these errors, and is working diligently to correct them as quickly as possible," the lawyers said.

Citizens United has sued for emails between a handful of State Department officials and people at the Clinton Foundation and a consulting firm, Teneo Consulting, which has ties to the Clintons.

Among other errors, State officials said than an initial test looking at just 300 emails, which was used to calculate the amount of time necessary to process the emails, neglected to include keyword searches of the messages. Instead, they only searched the "To" and "From" lines of the messages, which failed to catch many emails.

State Department officials also "inadvertently" labeled some email attachments as irrelevant to the open records request, without checking them to make sure.

The department has long had reputation for responding slowly to requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), with delays spanning years.

But the demands have grown dramatically as Clinton has proceeded through the presidential election process, and the department's current estimates can sometimes seem comically long.

In a separate case involving the Republican National Committee, the State Department estimated that it could take at least 75 years to compile emails from a handful of Clinton's aides.

A department spokesman later defended the estimate as "not outlandish."

"There's been dramatic, significant surge in FOIA requests to the State Department in recent years, which we are working very, very hard to clear and to respond to," State Department spokesman John Kirby told reporters on Thursday, while declining to discuss the Citizens United case in particular.

Since 2008, he added, the number of FOIA requests to State has tripled. In fiscal year 2015 alone, the department has received 22,000 separate requests.

"The other thing I'd say is that these requests are also frequently more complex, and increasingly seeking larger volumes of documents requiring more time, more resources, and frankly more interagency coordination," Kirby said.

In the Citizens United case, the department has assigned four new staffers to work on the request part-time. But most of them are also working on several other cases, the Obama administration said in its court filing, and their ability to comb through emails has been slowed by their "relative inexperience."

As the requests under the Freedom of Information Act have shot up, so too have the number lawsuits filed against the department for slow responses.

- Updated at 6:20 p.m.