Comment: Good, let's stay on point.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: You keep going back to the (see in situ)

Good, let's stay on point.

So, let's drop the whole history thing that you brought into play and strictly examine the present...strictly examine civics...actual factual law.

First we'll discuss your brilliant system, then we will analyze your philosophy about rights-which i agree with philisophically, and lastly I will address your personal attack. Again, take your time and read this carefully, also be sure to respond on point.

Your "brilliant system" is vulnerable to fascists on the right and socialists on the left. two questions...why is it vulnerable? and should we continue to allow ourselves to be vulnerable?

1) Why is it vulnerable?
At the federal level:
-Art 1 section 8 grants the government enormous power while art 1 section 9 and the 10 amendments restrict how it may use that power. Very good, a grant of limited power (albeit enormous power).
--HOWEVER art 4 grants IT the ability to decide any controversy involving itself and another party, giving them the authority to interpret the meaning of the constitution.
---Therefor, all that must be done is for IT to interpret the grants of power broadly or the restrictive clauses narrowly, or both-(as is our current situation.)

The state level:
-There is NO pretense for individual liberty at the state level. All power is granted to the state. Period. with very few "rights" reserved to the individual.
--They can regulate any aspect of your life AND interpret their powers as they see fit (unless a party alleges a federal violation then the federal government has the power of decision. and other endless nuances that all result in either the state government or federal government having the final say)

2)Should we continue to allow ourselves to be vulnerable?
No. We are smarter than that. The ONLY way to secure individual liberty is to constitutionally restrict the power of the law makers...at every level. Stop depending on them to be honorable gentleman with our liberty.
-------------------
About this confusion you wrote:
"Rights are not, as you suggest, created by people"
-Rights created by people are created by people. And rights created by nature must be respected by people for them to be effective.
Observe:
Natural rights are those actions one can engage in without needing the permission of another.
Legal rights are those actions one can engage in because the legislature granted permission.
Contract rights are those actions one can engage in because of an agreement struck.

We are most successful when the legal system recognizes and respects natural rights.
Let's Constitutionally protect natural rights by restricting the power of the legislature. That way their ideology/intentions/benevolence cannot deprive us of our natural rights to be/do/have as we wish without interference so long as we do not initiate non-consensual harm.

"People, or govt have no right to impede them..."
-We absolutely agree philosophically- but they do have the constitutional right to impede them if they get a majority vote in the legislature...and that's THE problem. You don't like it, I don't like it, but its the legal reality of our situation.

"A constitution limits the powers of government..."
-see above for the limits on government power

"and other individuals to impede your natural rights"
-In some respects, but the legislature mostly creates the criminal code.

"What you willing to so lightly give up is a brilliant system...to give power to the individual to protect himself from the state."
-???
--How in the weird world do you think the current system allows for the individuals to protect himself from the state? Go give that try and tell me how it works out for you. The government will happily demonstrate their authority to take from you, regulate you, dictate your behavior to you. If you disobey them, they will put you in a cage and if you resist them, they will put you in the ground. And they are more than happy to do so 24/7.
---I am strongly advocating for the ability of the individual to protect himself from the state. Did you even read the post? Is my writing so bad? How do you get from my wanting: the government to have zero power over our personal affairs, an independent judiciary, and individuals to be armed to defend themselves; that I want the individual not to be able to protect himself from the state?

Respond on point with any refutations. Good luck.