""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..." - Declaration of Independence
The Bill of Rights is a statement inserted into our laws that defines the Govt's role as the active protector and facilitator of our natural rights.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~
Our rights come from our humanity, not from words governments write on paper.
Government regulation of our free and natural right to communicate over the internet is a bad thing, too bad you can't see that.
Sorry WOZ. I have alot of respect for your visionary insight in technology but you have failed miserably in your interpretation of our Laws. You can have government issue and and take away your rights at their pleasure if that's what you consent to but I however do not consent to this interpretations and flat out reject it as having any validity to our form of law other than the fact that you have the free will to allow your rights to be granted or discharged at the whims of criminally corrupt psychopathic tyrannical barbarians running "government". Thats the great part about freedom if you want to screw yourself then you are free to do that.
For myself, I am too aware to allow such silly and unscrupulous consent to such horrific control by others. Sorry WOZ you failed and you really make me think why CA is so screwed up. Really interesting fun people who want to pioneer technology and science, provide for fair government and support "good causes" all while the laws of nature are completely ignored and the People and State drown under a never ending sea of ignorance of Natural and Common Law roots of which clarity in the logic and reasoning these concepts is what made us a prosperous people.
The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...
to secure our natural rights for us. Woz is NOT saying that govt invented or created natural rights.
secure (v) - To get possession of;To put beyond hazard of losing or of not receiving; to make certain
Once the govt has secured our rights then the govt is in possession of them. Once the govt possesses our rights then it is their job to "grant" them to us -- i.e. to step in as the advocate and protect us against denial of our rights.
Perhaps Woz using the word "grant" is a bit awkward but the essence of what he is saying is correct.
If that's true whats the track record, is government good at securing our rights? Are we as free or more free now than we were 200, 100, 50 or 10 years ago?
If a security service of any kind continuously makes you less safe or free, is it efficient to continue to use it?
that govt hasn't stepped outside the philosophical boundaries of governance laid down by Enlightenment thinkers.
I am discussing natural law and natural 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..."
According to natural law theory, which is the basis of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, the only valid role of government is to actively protect our natural rights.
You desire to advocate for and defend anarchy, which is a completely different topic... :)
Obedience to God is resistance to tyrants.
I've always been a fan of the Woz. Most Mac users seem to just worship that other Steve, but of the two, I always thought that Steve Wozniak was more interesting. I have to say that I am shocked to hear him say that our freedoms come from government. From someone as intelligent as the Woz, that was quite shocking. And as ignorant as that comment was, I still like him better than Steve Jobs.
Larry in North Carolina
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men and women to not support Ron Paul!
Plus Woz is kind of a statist. So he's kind of a hypocrite. He thinks our rights come from congress.....face palm
I posted this months ago, but it's still nice to see. Your right though, our rights don't come from congress, but at least he does think we deserve rights. lol
I sure like the gal doing the interviewing. What a great voice.
is it just ironic or is to be expected that a 3rd degree mason and computer genius is this jaw-droppingly ignorant when questioned about the nature of government?
i smell a rat.
At around the 9:30 mark, he mentions marches and protests are acceptable if they are approved by the authorities. I guess that fits within his world view considering that he said all rights come from government rather than our creator.
I wonder if the british government approved the tea protest at Boston harbor?
No Creater = No God-given rights = PTB give rights
I wonder if that equation has been used by the ptb?
They actively teach Secular Humanism.
According to the District Court ruling in the 1960s that invented the term "separation of Church and State", that same court ruled that Secular Humanism was formally recognized by the US Government as a religion.
The bad guys know very well that moving people away from a religions that recognize a non-secular (or divine) creator moves them off of their intransigence regarding assertions of their "God-given" rights.
Libertarians fail on the "natural rights" arguments, as the definition of "natural rights" shifts over time based on consenses of what "natural rights" entail. Whereas, "God-given rights" are generally recognized and were elaborated first in texts 2000 years old (or older) and BUILT OUT, i.e. expanded, over time.
So, it serves the state to educate youngsters on Secular Humanism. It's why Communist China does it. It's why the Soviet Union did it. It's why East Germany did it.
"They actively teach Secular Humanism."
funny, i literally never heard the term in ANY of my schools. in fact, every single teacher in high school did everything they could to avoid discussing religion, ethics or philosophy because the kids were absolutely incapable of having a civil discussion. even in college, couldn't handle it. far too immature. embarrassingly so.
"According to the District Court ruling in the 1960s that invented the term "separation of Church and State", that same court ruled that Secular Humanism was formally recognized by the US Government as a religion."
so what did they mean by, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." help me out here. no clue what you're talking about.
"The bad guys know very well that moving people away from a religions that recognize a non-secular (or divine) creator moves them off of their intransigence regarding assertions of their "God-given" rights."
first, WHO are the bad guys? people that don't happen to fall under the same opinion as yourself? probably. the belief that human beings are capable of morality without religion is not antithetical to natural rights.
"So, it serves the state to educate youngsters on Secular Humanism. It's why Communist China does it. It's why the Soviet Union did it. It's why East Germany did it."
trying to make responsible atheism, agnosticism or secular humanism for the crimes of dictators is inane. i think you're using it as a tool to demonize those with different opinions. it's unnecessary.
He states some good things, but his understanding of the bill or rights is deeply flawed.
WRONG on where our freedoms come from, period!
Although Mr. Wozniak may be a brilliant computer engineer, he would receive an F- in a test of his understanding of our Constitution. He comments at around the 8:30 mark of the interview that "every freedom we have in the United States, every one of them, was given to us by Congressional regulation: it is called the Bill of Rights."
It is truly pathetic that a wealthy, well-known public figure such as Mr. Wozniak feels compelled to speak out on "freedom," yet has a pathetic lack of understanding about the subject.
Mr. Wozniak, please spend a few minutes and READ our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Please take note that they were not "given to us by Congress."
He claims that MY rights come from "government regulation" and that the bill of rights are "government regulation".
First off, the following from the Declaration of Independence speaks for itself:
"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."
Secondly, the Bill of Rights are NOT government regulations but are "Statements of Fact"!
Here's the preamble to the Bill of Rights: (Yes, the Bill of Rights ALSO have a preamble)
"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."
Notice that the Preamble to the Bill of Rights states that the bill of rights are nothing more than declaratory and restrictive clauses... Meaning that the bill of rights are stating issues of FACT!!!
This would be the equivalent of a geology book stating that the earth is round. Just because a geology book makes note that the earth is round doesn't mean the earth is round because of the statement of the geology book.
Same thing with the bill of rights. Its nothing more than a very short listing of some of the most basic of OUR rights. These are statements of FACT not authorizations of rights by the government.
That statement by Mr. Wozinak really is disturbing to think that government is the provider of our rights. The government in my opinion has become the biggest abuser of OUR rights...
I came across a document about 6 years ago which was a Washington State Initiative. This document SPELLS out the ORIGINAL Intent of Our rights of life, liberty and property. And it was attempted to be recognized by the Washington State Legislature. But did NOT get passed unfortunately. I did a lot of research into this document and it's chock full of truth and facts about OUR original intent of our rights and property.
Here's a link to it....
Love Liberty, be Vigilant
"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Corinthians 3:17)
Faith in God will prevail all things!
I have to respectfully disagree with Mr. Wozniack on a point he makes around 08:30 in the video. He seems confused on what is a right and what is a privilege.
Rights, when talking about the Constitution specifically, are unalienable, meaning incapable of being surrendered, alienated, or transferred. They are derived from natural law and are inherent in ones' self, and incident upon others.
Mr. Wozniak claims that the government granted us our "rights" through legislation, but what he is incorrectly deeming "rights", are actually privileges. A privilege being a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor.
What he fails to realize is that any authority which can grant a privilege, always reserves the right to rescind the same privilege. Meaning that he believes that we have a Bill of Privileges, which I disagree with.
Other than that, it was a good interview. Much respect for Mr. Wozniak.
Natural rights are those freedoms and protections we SHOULD have before God/nature/the universe. Natural rights do not self-enshrine themselves into constitutions or legal codes.
If you are deprived of a right, for example the freedom of speech, you still have the natural right to free speech, although you have been rendered incapable of exercising free speech.
Legal rights/privileges are VERY important. The Bill of Rights is an attempt to enshrine Lockean natural rights into legal code as legal rights/privileges. The govt can take them away at any time the people allow them to be taken away. Yet, after they are taken away they are still natural rights.
I have to respectfully disagree with him on the point about government granting us "rights". I figure he isn't informed as much as we have educated ourselves on the issue - he even almost puts libertarians and conservatives in the same category - in his mind conservatives are neo-conservatives and libertarians tag along I guess. Libertarians are not neo-conservatives.
This isn't the case. If Steve Woz was informed he would find out that he and Steve Jobs were Libertarians all along and probably didn't realise it. Sure they weren't perfect libertarians but unless you're informed how else do you know better?
I hope we reach out to him so he quickly reconsiders his view by basically becoming informed - otherwise I with everything else I completely agree with him. He has been for a long time in favour of freedom and that, among many things, I thank him for.
say that freedom came from government? Liked everything about the video until then. lol.
If my need to be RIGHT is greater than my desire for TRUTH, then I will not recognize it when it arrives ~ Libertybelle
Yea, he said that the bill of rights came from congressional regulation. Now we know why Jobs ran Apple.
Poor Steve, never has learned that once you let government into your bed there's nothing you can do to stop it from molesting you.
Never trouble trouble til trouble troubles you. Fortune Cookie
... where government regulation has protected internet freedom Mr Wozniak (or anyone else for that matter).
Good video...gotta protect internet at all costs.
internet of some sort... this shit of them controlling the net isn't going to fly.
I'll fucking shut down my computers before that shit happens.
Edit: Something just like this....
This is their site.
Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.