When do Rights become Privileges?

[Colonel Dan]

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” – Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson

When do Rights become Privileges? Answer: When government is allowed to require a license or a permit in order to exercise those rights!

Turning rights into government controlled privileges however is exactly what will happen if Americans are ever required to register their guns and gun owners are licensed as many anti-gunners call for after each highly publicized shooting occurs.

Now either you believe and accept the words in our Declaration of Independence or you reject them. If you accept the words as I do, that our rights are unalienable and endowed by the Creator, then no right can EVER justifiably be licensed, i.e. approved by government, because those rights were endowed by God, not bestowed by government. Conversely, to reject those words, would be to reject the very foundation of America’s freedom, nullify the concept of the word unalienable, and turn our rights into government licensed privileges and in essence, grant government veto power over God.

Any license granted by man can be revoked by man, but a right endowed by God can never be revoked by any man. To do so creates something more characteristic of serfdom than freedom—the “unalienable right” becomes the equivalent of a driver’s license—the analogy used by the left to sell this licensing idea by the way. “If we license cars, why not guns?”

Last time I looked, transportation was not mentioned in the Bill of Rights. The right to keep and bear arms is however and as one of the primary guarantors of our Right to Life and Liberty.

What the statist ultimately wants, and openly advocates, sets government in judgment over God and flies in the face of our constitution. This doesn’t deter avid left-wingers in the least however. They simply ignore it all and press on with their crusade to transform America into a big government Utopia.

The idea of licensing a constitutional right is abhorrent to me just as the idea of “carry permits” has always been—a government issued permit to carry something that is a constitutionally guaranteed, unalienable right?!? Who slipped that “common sense” law by us? Somehow America has seen fit to roll over on that one though and down the slippery slope of freedoms lost we went yet another yard or more.

To illustrate the level of liberal hypocrisy here, ask a left-winger this question…

“If you anti-gunners think it’s OK to require a permit of us before we buy, carry or shoot our gun under the Second, why shouldn’t we require a permit of you before you shoot off your mouth under the First? After all, don’t you agree that the “pen” is mightier than the “sword”? If “the pen is mightier than the sword”, why is it the “sword” has 20,000 laws regulating it and the “pen” doesn’t?”

Big government advocates incrementally set the stage for freedom erosion as they have done throughout history. After all, effective incrementalism is how we arrived at where we are in the year 2003 from where we started out in the year 1776. This incremental weaselism is the reason I refuse to support bargaining with any liberal freedom thief on anything—they’re simply not to be trusted—on anything—ever.

One of their initiatives is for a “common sense” ballistic fingerprinting program—which is nothing more than a backdoor method of instituting a national gun registration program because in reality, consistently reliable ballistic fingerprinting is nothing but a pipe dream—a snake oil sales pitch.

The doubtful success of ballistic fingerprinting aside, why else would government want the ability to trace a particular bullet to a particular gun if they don’t ultimately require every gun to be registered and therefore linked to every gun owner? It would do them absolutely no good merely to know what gun a bullet came from if they didn’t have a method of then knowing who owned the gun that fired the bullet. How stupid do the advocates of this idiocy think gun owners are? It’s simply and clearly a government registration program—period.

The ONLY thing such licensing or registration will ever accomplish, and which it’s actually designed to do, is provide government with a database of every gun owner in the country so it will be that much easier for them to find you when the “common sense” gun confiscation program is enacted.

If there was ever any cause worthy enough to prompt pro-constitutionalists into action, this is it. If there was ever any more revealing behavior on the part of the anti-gunners regarding their true intentions and where this ultimately leads, this is most definitely it. Laws requiring licensing and registration are not just one more yard down that slippery slope of eroded freedom—it’s more like a mile.

If we truly believe that mankind is endowed with unalienable rights granted by our Creator and articulated by our founders, then any attempt on the part of government to deny or control those rights must be recognized as counter to God and His sacred will for man’s freedom.

It simply comes down to what Americans will demand or are willing to accept. It’s up to each of us to decide if we will reaffirm our claim to God given rights or passively accept government issued privileges.

If the choice is for privileges, then all we need do is nothing and the government will incrementally take control as a matter of course.

If the choice is for rights however, then we must stand strongly united and constantly send government the unmistakably clear message of our founders—DONT TREAD ON ME. No registration, No license…not now, not ever!

Just the view from my saddle…

 

[BarbC]

So therefore, contrary to assertions otherwise, requiring a marriage license makes marriage a privilege, and not a "right".

But I digress.

 

[Colonel Dan]

Barb, That was quick!

The ultimate act of marriage is a solemn covenant between two people in the sight of their God according to most religions. It was the government that eventually interposed themselves and established the requirement of a license--the Creator never required such...just that solemn commitment.

But as you say, I digress....

 

[The Rabbi]

So therefore, contrary to assertions otherwise, requiring a marriage license makes marriage a privilege, and not a "right".

But I digress.

Thats true but I don't know anyplace that actually requires a marriage license. I think simply living together and declaring yourself married is enough in most places.

 

[5Wire]

Thats true but I don't know anyplace that actually requires a marriage license. I think simply living together and declaring yourself married is enough in most places.

You are misinformed, Rabbi:

GETTING MARRIED? Every state requires a license to legalize a marriage. Obtaining a marriage license is the responsibility of the bride and groom. Click Here to get your marriage license requirements.

Licensing is a way to make money for the state. "Common Law" marriages have different requirements in different states.

I'm pretty much with Colonel Dan, you have to protect your inalienable rights.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, 5wire I am not misinformed at all. I am afraid you are.

Common-law marriage can still be contracted in 11 states and the District of Columbia, can no longer be contracted in 26 states, and was never permitted in 13 states. The requirements for a common-law marriage to be validly contracted differ from state to state. Nevertheless, all states — including those that have abolished the contract of common-law marriage within their boundaries — recognize common-law marriages lawfully contracted in those jurisdictions that still permit it. The Navajo Nation allows common law marriage and allows its members to marry using tribal ceremonial processes as well as traditional processes.[8] Some U.S. states, however, such as Colorado, more rigorously enforce public policy exceptions to their general duty to recognize foreign state or foreign country marriages valid where entered into in the case of common law marriages.

So every state recognizes a common law marriage as valid, provided it was valid in the state where contracted.
So now you can post cute little .gifs about me.

I don't think one has a right to marriage at all. If anyone thinks he does I'd like to see evidence for it.

 

[shortranger]

Practically speaking, they are the same. A "right" is merely a privilege that you are strong enough to grant to yourself. When someone stronger comes along they may revoke your "right" at will.

It's a 2A thing, as all things ultimately turn out to be.

David

 

[BarbC]

You might find this interesting:

Unalienable Rights vs Inalienable Rights

[SIZE=+2]UNALIENABLE.[/SIZE]
The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.​

Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty areUNALIENABLE. Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition

"Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:
You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

 

[The Rabbi]

Practically speaking, they are the same. A "right" is merely a privilege that you are strong enough to grant to yourself. When someone stronger comes along they may revoke your "right" at will.

It's a 2A thing, as all things ultimately turn out to be.

David

There's a big distinction. A right is something that the gov't must demonstrate a compelling reason to deny or limit. OJ Simpson currently does not enjoy the right of liberty because the state demonstrated a compelling reason to deny him (he's a criminal). A permit is something the state can give or deny without demonstrating a reason. IN NYC they have too many cab drivers so they deny anyone a permit to operate a cab.
What constitutes a compelling reason? It will vary by time and place.

 

[44forever]

Broken Analogy

Marriage requires at least one other person to agree (STRONGLT AGREE, in fact). In some societies, whole families or clans must agree. A right is more along the lines of something you can do without asking permission.

 

[BarbC]

If I have a right to breathe clean air, does that negate your right to smoke?

 

[shortranger]

There's a big distinction. A right is something that the gov't must demonstrate a compelling reason to deny or limit. ... What constitutes a compelling reason? It will vary by time and place.

Which is just another way of saying that when the government is stronger than you are it will decide what rights you have. As it is doing now, and as governments have always done. Makes no difference whether it is a government "by the people," by the King, or by the thug(s) next door. In our particular case, so long as the majority of people agree that what we think of as rights are indeed rights, then we are safe. When the majority opinion changes (as it is now doing), so do our "rights."

Reality always trumps theory.

David

 

[Spotteddog]

A true pleasure to be reading my friend once again!

 

[The Rabbi]

Which is just another way of saying that when the government is stronger than you are it will decide what rights you have. As it is doing now, and as governments have always done. Makes no difference whether it is a government "by the people," by the King, or by the thug(s) next door. In our particular case, so long as the majority of people agree that what we think of as rights are indeed rights, then we are safe. When the majority opinion changes (as it is now doing), so do our "rights."

Reality always trumps theory.

David

You're making a distinction between government and the citizens that isn't necessarily valid.
But other than that I agree with you. And have been castigated elsewhere for holding that view.

 

[5Wire]

No, 5wire I am not misinformed at all. I am afraid you are.

So every state recognizes a common law marriage as valid, provided it was valid in the state where contracted...

You are truly amazing, Rabbi. You asserted, "Thats true but I don't know anyplace that actually requires a marriage license," when, in fact, all states require them. That's simple enough.

Common Law marriages certainly have legal standing after certain conditions are met. These conditions, as I said, vary from state to state.

 

[shortranger]

You're making a distinction between government and the citizens that isn't necessarily valid.
But other than that I agree with you. And have been castigated elsewhere for holding that view.

That was not my intent, either in the specific as it applies to us or in the general as it applies to all societies ultimately allowing baser motives to prevail. People choose their own tyrants.

I shouldn't worry about being castigated, were I you. Holding a tragic view of humanity doesn't mean that you have abandoned principle.

David

 

[The Rabbi]

Nothing tragic about it. That is political reality. When people stop believing something it ceases to have authority. When people start believing they are safer because gov't controls who may and may not carry then the "right to carry" becomes a privilege. And when people start believing they are safer or creating a better society by criminalizing certain kinds of speech, then the area under free speech is narrowed. And when searches become broader and broader under the cover of "making the job of police officers easier" then we give up 4th Amendment rights.
This tension gets played out over and over. This is why it is important for us to exercise our rights zealously because it is the natural tendency of government to take more and more power.

 

[shortranger]

The tragic view of humanity is that natural human inclinations result in unhappy circumstances, regardless of history or good intentions.

We are where we are because that is where we were determined to go. We've done it before, and will do it again, ad nauseum. The tragedy lies in man's reach always exceeding his grasp no matter what he thinks he has learned.

David

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

I read a new story some years ago in which the Supreme Court of Illinois rejected the petition of a woman seeking "palimony" ala Lee Marvin and Michelle Triola. The Court stated that the Legislature of Illinois had abolished common law marriage in 1905 and they saw no reason to reinstate it.
Regarding marriage licenses, there are many restrictions on marriage long before the current
to do over same sex unions. Prohibited degrees of consanguinity, incest, under duress, underage and especially under the age of consent-polygamy and polyandry are also forbidden. In many states a couple who apply for a marriage license have to wait for a prescribed period before
going through the legal ceremony. I read a story by Linda Lee, widow of Bruce Lee. She noted both of their families were opposed to their union, they decided to quietly apply for a
marriage license and then present their families with a fait accompli. She said they didn't know that in that state the government body issuing a marriage license published a Notice of Intent to Marry so that anyone objecting could so state. Their families did find out about it.
Rights are not absolute, there are restrictions on them-minors, unsound mind, duress, etc.
In the case of the RKBA we must ask why is it that governments always seek to restrict it
rather than defend it?

 

[7.62foryou]

The ultimate act of marriage is a solemn covenant between two people in the sight of their God according to most religions.

Why does one have to get a license from the government to perform a religous sacrment?
This being true, what happened to separation of church and state? No profit in it in this situation huh?