As good as I’ve ever seen. I would have liked to see him go one step further and mention sovereignty. And use freedom instead of liberty.
2 Likes
you get hung up on one definition of “liberty”. Liberty as used by the founders is synonymous with freedom as far as government is concerned. The government has no power or authority to take our liberty as it is the result of inalienable rights granted by god. Freedom in this context is indeed liberty, but it is not liberty granted by or authorized by government or charter, but by god. God can take it back.
1 Like
I get “hung up” on the definitions because they are two different words with two different meanings.
Liberty is a permission, usually from government. Always from a higher authority. The permission given can always be taken away.
Freedom can only exist in the absence of government in the context.
We are at the point where if central government doesn’t exist in the particular context, it’s because central government has not chosen to intrude. Yet. Not because we have kept it out.
4 Likes
I don’t disagree, I just think that your insistence on the definition of liberty in context to government granted liberty sometimes detracts from your argument for freedom. Liberty in the context of the US constitution and as it relates to the government’s ability to infringe upon it is freedom; that, of course, does not stop the government from trying to infringe and succeeding. Only through constant vigilance and the occasional infusion of the blood patriots and tyrants is the tree of liberty sustained. The founders recognized it as liberty, but the authority that granted the liberty is above the government and the government is powerless to rescind it (so long as we are determined to keep it.)
Further, while you OP video is apt, its incomplete. Democracy, per se, does not require representation. The fact is the closer government gets to “democracy” the more socialist it becomes. Pure democracy (direct democracy) will always (d)evolve into socialism. The founder’s views on ownership, I believe, is what gave us a republic. We not only own our property, but we also own our rights. Because we own them, we have liberty (granted by god) to use them, which the government is powerless to curtail since it does not own them, and never did.
2 Likes
No, it isn’t. Because of this:
Government does not willingly give up power. Central government never does.
Some of the founders understood this, hence the concept of “delegated authority.”
Delegated from whom?
2 Likes
Is it?
Liberty-permission to
Freedom-freedom from
1 Like
I understand the realities of power. It is up to us to defend our liberty. People mistakenly believe it’s the governments job, but government cannot be trusted in this. In the context of government, I do agree with you 100%, freedom not liberty. In the context of our constitution, it is liberty granted by god and therefor equates to freedom from government. Perhaps we would have been better served if they all were athiests.
The idea is that god granted the liberty to and that gives us freedom from. Its up to us to keep it.
the federal governments powers of course were delegated to it by the states and the people. and none other! another of those things that must be protected. Unfortunately, we have cut the states out of the compact and the people don’t seem interested.
Liberty of speech or freedom of speech?
Liberty of the press or freedom of the press?
What does it say.
Using the word “liberty” is how you get permit requirements.
1 Like
State power is delegated from whom?
That I agree with.
see, this is where you get hung up.
we have freedom of speech from the government because god granted us that liberty. God can take it back without our input. The government cannot, unless we let them.
1 Like
By demanding we be given permits?
I am not hung up. What does it say?
did you see anything about permits? you’re all hung up again. The government didn’t grant me any liberty, I don’t need their permission to use it.
1 Like
Yet…
if we let them
Hence: A republic, if you can keep it.
1 Like
More on the subject of the OP, and because I don’t want to go further down the rabbit hole…
ownership is anathema to socialism, and by extension its progenitor, democracy.
Not with a ten-foot pole, neh critprogs?
