0 votes

What Does 'Sovereignty of the Individual' Mean, Exactly?

Oh sure, its good to be aware of how we got to be in this mess and who are all those deviants of sovereignty who work cunningly with endless cash at their disposal to ensure their monopolies. Many Daily Paul posters have educated each other on these things. All very well.

I found a quote that I feel may be a good segue into the discussion of 'Sovereignty'.

I believe whoever wrote these words did some serious thinking about what 'freedom of the Individual' really means intrinsically, and is at the crux of where we are now at in our struggle here in United States of America and the world at large.

Quote:

"As no single individual man has any natural authority to command another man to service, it is not reasonably possible for such men to imbue any government they create with authority the men don't individually naturally possess.

As no individual man has any authority to command another to pay taxes, it is not possible for any government such men create to properly be imbued by them with the authority to tax!

Taxation and freedom cannot exist in the same society - where taxation is used to fund government a police state is immediately in operation!! A government of a free people cannot be given the authority to decide how much money it needs nor to decide where such money shall come from.

Freedom means each individual man and woman is individually free. Freedom is individual, freedom is NOT a group event!! "

Well people, could this be our new LITMUS test?

Keep in mind what Einstein says,

"Employing the same failed means to solve the same problem and expecting a different outcome - is the very definition of STUPIDITY!!"

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Disappearing posts...

Interesting how posts can just "disappear" in this forum...

bigmikedude's picture

I deleted my post rp1

I was a little rough on it and really shouldn't have been. Sorry. I was in a pretty bad mood at the time, just disgusted with the direction of this country.

Sometimes when you look around at everything that is happening, you occasionally feel as if there is no hope for liberty, no matter what you do.

Deleted

Deleted posts lose all the post commenting on that post as well.

Eric Hoffer

That's OK

As I'm sure you know: The truth is the truth regardless of whether it is hopeless. If there is any chance at all for Liberty, it can only be through a single-minded dedication to what is right and true, not to what is "pragmatic". Pragmatism is why we have sunk so low, it just means one concession after another until all liberty is gone.

And the Truth is: all of this starts in Natural Law and the Sovereignty of the Individual.

I kinda figured you must be since it wasn't

like you say those things normally. However, you do have a right to your opinion. Thanks, bigmikedude for your introspection!

check out jan helfeld

this guy is one of the best interviewers I've seen, politicians have a hard time using their doublespeak with his simple and direct questioning
http://www.youtube.com/user/janhelfeld

Words from the first guy to use the term, Josiah Warren.

"The forming of societies or any other artificial combinations IS the first, greatest, and most fatal mistake ever committed by legislators and by reformers. That all these combinations require the surrender of the natural SOVEREIGNTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL over her or his person, time, property and responsibilities, to the government of the combination. That this tends to prostrate the individual-To reduce him to a mere piece of a machine ; involving others in responsibility for his acts, and being involved in responsibilities for the acts and sentiments of his associates ; he lives & acts, without proper control over his own affairs, without certainty as to the results of his actions, and almost without brains that he dares to use on his own account; and consequently never realizes the great objects for which society is professedly formed." - Josiah Warren, Manifesto, 1841 http://raforum.info/spip.php?article169

"Society must be so converted as to preserve the SOVEREIGNTY OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL inviolate. That it must avoid all combinations and connections of persons and interests, and all other arrangements which will not leave every individual at all times at liberty to dispose of his or her person, and time, and property in any manner in which his or her feelings or judgment may dictate, WITHOUT INVOLVING THE PERSONS OR INTERESTS OF OTHERS." - Josiah Warren, Practical Details, 1852

Warren was an American, of course.

-------
The Fed is not a private bank. PRIVATIZE THE FED!!!
"The Federal Reserve Banks should simply be regarded as governmental agencies." -Murray Rothbard
"I now call the Federal Reserve the fourth branch of government." -Ron Paul

Nice quote

!

Non-aggression axiom

The non-aggression axiom states:

"No one has the right to initiate (or threaten) force or fraud against another person or their property."

15 min. podcast with Lew Rockwell and Walter Block on the Non-aggression axiom

A few citations

The law states that 1) it is the individual who is sovereign, 2) by their own decree, 3) they have the absolute right and power to self-govern, 4) for a body politic to act contrary is an unlawful violation of the sovereigns’ rights and powers.

The individual, and not the state, is the source and basis of our social compact and that sovereignty now resides and has always resided in the individual. Colorado Anti-Discrimination Comm'n v. Case, 151 Colo. 235, 380 P.2d 34 (1962).

"The very meaning of 'sovereignty' is that the decree of the sovereign makes law." American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047.

By "sovereignty in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern. The word which by itself comes nearest to being the definition of "sovereignty" is will or volition as applied to political affairs.” City of Bisbee v. Cochise County, 52 Ariz. 1, 78 P.2d 982, 986.

To presume that a sovereign forever waives the right to exercise one of its powers unless it expressly reserves the right to exercise that power in a commercial agreement turns the concept of sovereignty on its head. MERRION ET AL., DBA MERRION & BAYLESS, ET AL. v. JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE ET AL. 1982.SCT.394 , 455 U.S. 130, 102 S. Ct. 894, 71 L. Ed. 2d 21, 50 U.S.L.W. 4169 pp. 144-148. < can you believe this? It helps prove everything you do with the STATE/COUNTY/CITY or Federal Government is as being in “Commerce”. Get out of that contract.

“… if the doctrine of stare decisis has any meaning at all, it requires that people in their everyday affairs be able to rely on our decisions and not be needlessly penalized for such reliance…” (-U.S. Supreme Court); United States v. Mason, 412 U.S. 399, 400 (1973)

“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” - Miller v. U.S.,

...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves [CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL (1793) pp471-472.]

The very meaning of 'sovereignty' is that the decree of the sovereign makes law. [American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed. 826, 19 Ann.Cas.

The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. [Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89 IOC Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7]

A consequence of this prerogative is the legal ubiquity of the king. His majesty in the eye of the law is always present in all his courts, though he cannot personally distribute justice. (Fortesc.c.8, 2Inst.186) His judges are the mirror by which the king's image is reflected. 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 270, Chapter 7, Section 379.

More discussion on sovereignty here:
http://tinyurl.com/ab359e

Humm

FREEDOM

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win!"
GANDHI

"The belief is worthless if the fear of social and physical punishment overrides the belief."

Perfect Liberty

Chances of individual sovereignty are very much gone with the 16th amendment.

Individual sovereignty is perfect liberty.

If we want it, here is what it takes to get it back.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/chodorov/chodorov12.html

They're not Gone....

Only hidden from your grasp, why? your'e STILL believing in the deception. Your believing in REFORM of the slavery system. Your STILL believing in piece of paper supposedly grants us rights. Written by men whom were knighted by the King ( whose first oath was to the King ) slave owners and members of secret societies. The system was designed with the illusion of reform, alas.. it's only an illusion...but, with a purpose. That purpose is a renewable cycle that keeps them in power. A constant flow of indoctrinated reformers, who know somethings wrong, and they're very thoughts are to saving and repairing the only thing they have ever known the... system.. they have been indoctrinated to think that the system can be molded and reformed to fit their needs. This is the very thing that keeps it alive and constant. The Illuminati built it with the knowledge that in this way we would enslave ourselves to them. It worked out quite nicely. Think outside the box, would you turn over everything you have and your future to a handful of men? This is the very nature of government. These ppl have figured out how to make us slaves by using this process and what's worse is they have figured out how to make us ENSLAVE OURSELVES thru the vote. There is only one way to free ourselves and this is it. You must de-program the masses by reporting to everyone who will listen to this fact. Teach them against reform. Teach them how they enslave us IS THRU THE VOTE. To say these illuminati are brilliant is an understatement.

That's all true of course

Who are you quoting there? He is quite obviously correct. The extent of our brainwashing is revealed by many of the comments here.

Sovereignty is Personal Liberty..

It is a gift of HaShem..

HaShem prescribed a Libertarian System of Government and Israel rejected it. As have all the Children of Abraham..

http://www.aish.com/literacy/jewishhistory/crash_course_in_j...

The essence of maximum liberty is maximum control of events and the fruits of labor at the level of the individual. Self-government forms the basic unit and standard for all government.

This principle needs ultimately to guide every social interaction and choice. The notion of "duty" , whether social, familial or political that serves no purpose, protects no liberty, is always subject to well-reasoned and perpetual self-interest of the individual.

We must always stand against the evils of control over mind, body and property.

Lifnim me-shurat ha-din ... the Spirit beyond the letter of the law.

The highest calling...

Liberty,

2 Rules to Mastery...
1) Begin 2) Continue..

"HaShem" is NOT the God of Israel's name or of the Bible

the name of God is JEHOVAH.
"HaShem" is the name of a clan (family) of Muhamad, called the Hashemites. They still rule today and their flag flies over many kingdoms of the middle eastern countries. From this clan the Mahdi shall come. We who know, know who or what this man is and what he will do. He is not God or the Messiah.
Israeli Jews would NEVER say that GOD's name is "HaShem". it is YHWH or YHVH, pronounced, JEHOVAH. (not Yahweh, Yahoo, or any other of the pagan or German language mistakes)

go start your one world religion somewhere else please. for that is what you people who say that God's name is"Hashem" are trying to accomplish. for to name "Hashem" as the name of God of the Jews is to try to bring Judaism and Islam together. which is a lie. Allah or Hashem is not JEHOVAH,and never will be.

2Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

You are correct!

Few know the distinction between Hashem and Jehovah. Thanks for clarifying and not allowing that falsehood to go unchecked.

Now back to the issue.

Individual sovereignty is reflected in the Declaration of Independence as the self-evident principle, namely that all men are created equal.

As equals none has authority over another except as God gives authority, such as parents ove children.

When a group of individuals form a union as our founding fathers did in 1776 and tried to perfect in 1779 ("in order to form a more perfect union"),
they agree to extend to those they elect the authority they have as individuals for the purpose of protecting the individuals that make up the union from invasion and harm.

In doing so, they do not give up their own authority, they only vest it in others who will make it their duty to perform the necessary work to protect and preserve the property, person and freedom of the individuals who elected them so the individuals can go about their business of life: making a living and using their liberty to pursue that which leads to true happiness.

The retention of individual sovereignty is seen in the right of citizens to make citizen's arrests, and to use their 2nd amendment right to defend themselves against abusive or corrupt government agents or citizens who do not respect their rights or property.

Freedom is the ability to do what you want to do.
Liberty is the ability to do what you ought to do.
"Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." 2 Corinthians 3:17

Stupid Argument...

If God has a Name he is not God because God is UnNameable.

Naming is the beginning of all things and since the real god has no beginning he has no name.

But, honestly.... Do some research before you express an opionion.

You are absolutely Wrong both of you.. HaShem is in the BIBLE...

Leviticus 24:11...

Read your bible in the original language...Hebrew..

All the Names of God..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism

Stupid is as Stupid says!

What's wrong with you? Haven't you any sense at all? Do you even bother to read? Don't go talking about the Bible when you are so ignorant of it!

Hey, everybody, look at what this insolent, Bad_Hair_Conspiracy missed.
Leviticus 24:11 says, "And the Israelitish woman's son blasphemed the name of the LORD, and cursed."
(The Hebrew word for "name" is "shem".)

Prior to this event, the following conversation took place between Moses and God:
Exodus 3:13-15 "And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? {14} And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. {15} And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations."

Also, look at something God told Moses later:
Exodus 6:3 "And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them."

And then there's:
Isaiah 42:8 "I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images."

And:
Jeremiah 16:21 "Therefore, behold, I will this once cause them to know, I will cause them to know mine hand and my might; and they shall know that my name is The LORD."

And:
Exodus 34:14 "For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:"

As long as there is evil in this world there will be people trying to deny the obvious fact that there is a God and they will try to pollute His name.

Jeremiah 34:16 "But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom he had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids."

Notice polluting God's name has to do with bringing people into subjection to other people, ie. Slavery. God is definitely for freedom. It is a gift from Him. Those who deny Him are destined for slavery. How much do you pay to the IRS, how many of their forms do you fill out, hmmmmm?

Maybe Bad_Hair_Conspiracy has "bad hair" because what's under it is bad! Apparently, he has conspired with devils; hence, "Bad_Hair_Conspiracy.

"Honestly... Do some research before you express an opinion."

Freedom is the ability to do what you want to do.
Liberty is the ability to do what you ought to do.
"Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." 2 Corinthians 3:17

I don't think it has to do with taxes necessarily

We, as sovereign people, agreed through our Constitution to pay taxes as determined by Congress, as long as they were direct and apportioned by state population (not the system we now have). We also gave the Federal Government the priviledge of collected indirect unapportioned taxes, as well as tariffs. People, and states, agreed to be part of a union for the common good - but those common grounds went away long ago.

"The reason why men enter into society, is the preservation of their property; and the end why they choose and authorize a legislative, is, that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the members of the society; to limit the power, and moderate the dominion of every part and member of the society; for since it can never be supposed to be the will of the society, that the legislative should have a power to destroy that which every one designs to secure, by entering into society, and for which the people submitted themselves to legislators of their own making; whenever the legislators endeavour to take away, and to destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrry power, they put themselve into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence."

-John Locke (Gave us the philosophical basis for Thomas Paine and the American Enlightenment - carried through to the Declaration of Independence)

I look at it as individual sovereignty is property (which I think can be considered thought, speech, religion, happiness, etc...). Unless, you choose not to live in a society, in which case you do not have to yield to anyone your property. However, a citizen of the USA has agreed to be part of a society and each of the several states a union.

www.libertyrestorationproject.org
"We are the inheritors of the American Enlightenment, which tells us that Individual Liberty always trumps collectivism in all forms."

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain

Income taxation was created during WWI, 1917, and cunningly

sold to the people as a 'temporary measure' to cover the costs of the War 'efforts'.

It is self evident that the white house 'puppet' and their master, The Fed, never intended this to be 'temporary' at all, it was a way of inflating debt, and legally, through Congress, holding the people and their progeny in perpetuity, in bondage, as the collateral. The beneficiaries of this debt were the private shareholders of the FED.

Just like they did with the Fed, the banksters got THE INCOME TAX ACT passed through Congress along with its exchequer, THE IRS. They amended the Constitution through Article XVI (16):

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, WITHOUT apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Thus overriding the sovereign powers of the several States who never got to 'ratify' such a charter.

Authority was 'vested' in the head honcho of the IRS of discretionary orders to 'sue' for its monies', or blunt USE OF FORCE if it deems necessary.

Just clarifying your statement, Mohusk.

Tax under sovereignty

is no tax at all. It is indeed the free market. Pay for what you can afford. By whatever means you pay, you are responsible for own, but do not expect others to pay for you. Tax is an abused word. A tax is a payment OFFERED, not one required. If you receive service for the payment, then you recieve that service. Do not force it on others. If you recieve no service, and pay no tax, expect no one to offer to pay for that service for you. Sovereignty is responsibility for the self. It is introverted, and private. It is inviolable, it is respectable. Sovereignty exists only when individuals both recognize and act upon their own inalienable rights. Defend your own, expect no other in assistance. Were we that, we would not need to fear for ourselves. We fear for ourselves only because we know we are not fully prepared. The conundrum, however is simple to solve. We must excercise our LIBERTY, and not cowtow to licensure. Know what you can do, and do it. Fear is truly for the weak. Our Founders made the federal government weak for just that porpose. An Army of one, that's you, a sovereign national. We are not free treats on a tray for the sampling of our government.

Assert Your Authority

Assert Your Authority

False

Defend your own, expect no other in assistance. Were we that, we would not need to fear for ourselves. We fear for ourselves only because we know we are not fully prepared.

And again, the society disintegrates into gang warfare. Those of productive ability will always become the targets of those hapless mediocrities who feel they are "owed" something. They, like the mastadon hunters before them, gang up to take down that which is of value.

I'll quote another poster here from memory, "It's hard to get accumulation of capital started when every time you acquire something of value you are beaten and killed for it."

How do you expect productive endeavors to begin when everyone is focusing solely on not being shot or on building a hugely defensible position? You really consider this a happy environment?

Eric Hoffer

Get out of the stone ages...

Providing for yourself first is no primitive task, it is however the basis of a modern society. You seem to confuse anarchy with bedlam and this is where your line of reasoning breaks down. Sovereignty is both respecting others rights and defending your own as you need. You seem to error on the side of too much government, believing that it is more government that created this fine nation. Most men and women left unplundered as Jon Pilger describes in"The Alpha Strategy" will live quiet, solid and responsible lives. Those who would wish to steal from them would think twice if it was well known that defending yourself was supported in this society. That my friend is not "gang warfare". You cannot fully rule out the criminal element in any society, but by restricting government interaction into daily life the very kind of gray and black markets that supply criminal elements of society are choked off. Yes, government meddling creates the black markets and the impetus and appetizing appeal of criminality. Remove the walls and the criminals have no where to hide. Make it more profitable to be a productive member of society, and criminals will seek a new career. Bye-bye gangs...

Assert Your Authority

Assert Your Authority

Utopia

Is not where we live, nor will it be the name of anywhere except the country of dreams.

You seem to confuse anarchy with bedlam and this is where your line of reasoning breaks down.

If it seems this way, it's due to a misconstruction on the part of the reader. I'll make it more clear to avoid confusion. In the society proposed, what stops the marauding mediocrities from envying those who produce? Many times, it is more profitable in terms of material goods to band together to steal from your neighbors. Without the absolute authority of a gun on the side of the victim, there is nothing to preserve the individual rights we value so highly.

Please, show me where my line of reasoning breaks down? Where I was trained, in order to say someone's "line of reasoning broke down" you have to show the logistical inaccuracies of the person's argument. I have, as of yet, been shown none.

Sovereignty is both respecting others rights and defending your own as you need. You seem to error on the side of too much government, believing that it is more government that created this fine nation.

And what of those who don't respect your rights? What stops me from shooting you from the dark of night and moving in on your belongings? Whom do you accuse me to of theft or extortion?

I'm a minarchist, and yet you suppose I side on the idea that "more government" is what makes our nation great? How wonderfully presumptuous of you. Maybe you should rethink how I "seem" and perhaps take a step towards actually looking at the issues raised, as opposed to the arguing against archetypes of thought which aren't at all present here.

There is no property without the force. Property is that which we can defend and say, "This is mine." Without an absolute objective force defending that property, it is not yours in anything other than name, as it can be taken from you by the man next door who has more guns than you. You are completely and totally at the whim of your neighbors' morality. It becomes, not a contest of who can produce the most, but who can kill the most efficiently. There is no place for petty thieves in a world where society takes no recourse on murderers.

Most men and women left unplundered as Jon Pilger describes in"The Alpha Strategy" will live quiet, solid and responsible lives.

I haven't read The Alpha Strategy, but I assume you haven't read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand, so I'll take us as even on that score. It is not the "most" that is the problem. MOST people just want to be left alone. However, a percentage of people are sociopaths, a percentage of people are religious fanatics, a percentage of people think it's just "not fair!"

All of these are elements of violence, and will gladly risk life and limb to achieve their goals. Especially when there is little to no threat of retaliation from all of society.

Those who would wish to steal from them would think twice if it was well known that defending yourself was supported in this society.

Yes, they would think twice. They would decide their original plan insupportable, and would then shoot you in the back in the dark of night.

That my friend is not "gang warfare". You cannot fully rule out the criminal element in any society, but by restricting government interaction into daily life the very kind of gray and black markets that supply criminal elements of society are choked off.

Your idea is to remove government interaction from the marketplace, essentially making all things legal. What will enforce a contract between two groups? The idea that after they break their word, no one will ever enter contract with them again? Garbage, and history proves it out that people will always deal with known liars and cheats if they think they can gain an advantage. I'll cite examples if you like.

Your definition of criminal is, "That which is illegal." While mine is, "That which uses force to coerce others." You may think that by this argument, government is immoral and should be done away with. Government should not act as a first mover, but as a retaliatory force, as in the Just War principle.

In the land you belong to, what stops a rival company from taking my material means by force? Of creating a protection racket?

Yes, government meddling creates the black markets and the impetus and appetizing appeal of criminality. Remove the walls and the criminals have no where to hide. Make it more profitable to be a productive member of society, and criminals will seek a new career. Bye-bye gangs...

Naively inaccurate. Sure, government can turn men with no other way to survive morally to an immoral life, but envy and greed are much more common causes. The reason we began as a Republic is because Democracy has no respect for individual life. How do you expect to survive the masses of mediocrity in society?

Stock up on as many guns as you like Mr. Frankenstein, but there are more villagers than there are bullets, and they're got torches.

In your society, criminals don't have to hide, they merely have to have the most guns and the best organization. They can live as free members of society, with no worries except who to pillage next.

Eric Hoffer

Not wholly opposed

But how do you propose funding government?

"As no single individual man has any natural authority to command another man to service, it is not reasonably possible for such men to imbue any government they create with authority the men don't individually naturally possess.

This results in anarchy. Somewhere must rest the barrel of the gun. It either rests in the hands of government aimed (hopefully) by the ideals of justice and objective law, or it rests in the hands of mob rule by numbers.

Eric Hoffer

'Free, sovereign' people, should never be 'forced' to fund

any government.

If people are 'truly sovereign', then they most definitely have the 'natural' right of 'self defense' to bear arms, the 'natural' right to own the fruits of their labors, the natural right to personal privacy!

Money or whatever it is that people agree to use as money is a representation of 'human energy'. Is it not? Therefore the value may be attached to the 'labors' of those through the payment of interest on loans that a citizen may borrow, if they are good for it, from the open ended monetary system based on lending money ONLY to its citizens and businesses, whereby the interest paid is re-cycled back into the coffers of each Sovereign State where the ACCOUNTING of its revenues and disbursements are made public quarterly, online.

Rights are self evident and are naturally endowed from Nature or God, not any 'fictitious' government made up of other humans.

This takes away the declaration of war from Congress (each state must make that decision itself through its local people, and if there is a 2/3 majority of States in agreement, only then there would be war. This makes it much more difficult to 'sacrifice' human life

This also abolishes the Police State. No more 'forced' funds from its citizens.

We'll argue

We'll argue this till the ends of the Earth-

Rights are self evident and are naturally endowed from Nature or God, not any 'fictitious' government made up of other humans.

False. Property "rights" are granted by individuals respecting what you can enforce as your "property."

"Rights" are solely those things which we all recognize as being conducive to a moral society. Your "right" to life will not stop an armed assailant. Your gun will. Your gun however, will not stop him and 50 of his murderous buddies. There must be laws in place to protect the rights of man, with an incontestable amount of force placed on the opposing side.

Your right to life will not stop an armed assailant, your right to liberty will not stop him from hogtying you, and your right to the pursuit of happiness won't stop him from throwing you down in the dungeon at the point of a gun.

Eric Hoffer