Comment: I don't see how you can separate the existence of rights from

(See in situ)

I don't see how you can separate the existence of rights from

the issue of the existence of God. The Founders considered it 'self-evident' that rights came from the Creator. Humans have rights because they were created with a moral sense, in the image of God. They have rights, and the responsibilities which go with them. Surely Dr. Paul takes the Founder's view of rights as a result of Man being created in God's image, with a moral sense. For this reason, we do not hold animals accountable when they trample on one another.

If there is no God, no absolute moral order to the universe, then there are no "rights" either because "right" and "wrong" are all relative. That was sort of what the one article you referenced was hinting at.

The second article I think failed to distinguish between RECOGNIZED rights and true rights. The list of "rights" recognized by a society will be either more or less like the actual list "written" into the moral order of the universe (again, assuming the existence of a Creator who can serve as a reference point for a moral order).

To the extent that the list of the government on earth agrees with "heaven's list" of rights, that government will be just. To the extent that it adds to or takes away from that list, it will be unjust. The consequences for mis-alignment are not negligible. I believe that a nation which gets the list wrong will set in motion counter-forces that will impact that nation in the future. My point is that there is a recognized list of rights and there is nature's true list.

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)