View original post 634 more words
During the Third Reich, the National Socialists viewed the body of an individual as the property of the state. Anyone who harmed their own body was not only costing the state money through healthcare and loss of productivity, but they were weakening the state as a whole. there was little or no thought given to the merits of banning free choice or punishing those who did not follow closely enough government instructions.
Nearly eighty years later, how do we compare to this? We are forced to wear seatbelts because if we don’t the resulting injuries might have to be paid for by others. Guns are targeted because, ostensibly, someone might get hurt, although there is much more to this subject. Large soft drinks and high calorie foods are vilified because heart disease and obesity might have to be paid for out of tax revenues, which takes money out of the government coffers. Are these and a host of other activities which are either threat of being banned or are now banned a sign that the government really cares for us, or are they a sign that the government does not wish to part with its precious tax revenue to help us more than minimally necessary? Is the end result a government, which like the Nazis, will declare us state property, necessary to the functioning of the state, and therefore subject to all sorts of state edicts about how to act, how to eat, how to exercise?
Look at the trends within Germany between 1920 and 1940 and compare them to what has been happening in this country over the last several years, and draw your own conclusions.
“All men are created equal” is a phrase with which we are all familiar, but what does it really mean?
That question must be answered if we are to accept this statement as true and accurate.
Let’s first eliminate some of the areas in which we are not equal.
We are obviously not equal in status or position. If we were, there would be no need for this conversation.
We are also not equal in skills or abilities.
What of potential? Perhaps in one sense, but how do we compare two individuals’ potential when their skills or abilities are completely different?
Many think that people are equal in worth, but does that mean that a good person is worth no more than an evil one? Is not the person who seeks to help others while harming no one worth more than the evil one who intentionally harms others, yet helps few or none? Can not a person change their own worth based on the actions they choose to take?
So how are people really created equal? They are equal by virtue of the natural rights which they possess. This simple fact is one of the critical keys to understanding the founding documents which contain the premise that all are created equal. We all have a right to the following: Life, Property, Communicating our opinions, Self-defense, Self-determination, and a few others. We do not have the right to acquire these things from another, as to do so would be to violate their rights and, by so doing, treat them as if they were less than equal to us in terms of being able to enjoy their natural rights.
A good understanding in how we are equal in regard to the possession of natural rights, and nothing else, is crucial to our ability to understand not only what the founding documents mean, but why they were deemed necessary and the context within which they should be interpreted.
One of the biggest fears of the Founders was that one group of people would gain the means to abuse the rest of the population by disregarding their natural rights and taking from the population what was desired by the ruling group. This is the reason that Life, Liberty and Property were held in such a high regard. Consider, if no laws were written which transferred any amount of Life, Liberty or Property from one person to another, most of the laws on the books would not exist. For us all to be equal as stated, the only valid laws are those which reinforce our natural rights, as any law which does otherwise, and is allowed to stand, invalidates the most important premise upon which our very Liberty rests.
“Right of search and seizure regulated. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
It seems some days as if there are as many interpretations of this one sentence as there are people to comment on it, but I believe that most are due to either problems in definition or a callous disregard for the basic premise presented in this Amendment. I will attempt here to address the definition problems.
The first word in question is the word secure. The modern definition most commonly accepted is likely to continue or to remain safe. A different definition, which could also apply…
View original post 998 more words