MamaLiberty gets the day...

...with a beautifully reasoned little treatise she left in comments here.

Rights: Life, liberty, property - these are the ONLY "rights" and
belong to all human beings.

The "rights" being discussed, such as concealed carry, are state granted PRIVILEGES, not rights - whether or not they should be. Vermont, Alaska and Arizona could easily decide to withdraw their present carry laws. Just because the legislature voted one way at some point doesn't change the fact that they consider this sort of thing to be within their authority to decide for everyone in that state. The feds will do their best to impose whatever it is THEY decide.

"Citizenship" is also a privilege dispensed by the state. A "citizen" is required to give allegiance and tribute to the state to which he belongs. The citizen is the property of the state to which he pledges allegiance. Remember: ownership equals control. We are owned by others to the extent that they control us.

It makes perfect sense for the state not to extend privileges to non citizens. What doesn't make any sense to me is the idea of being owned by the state in the first place.

Don't confuse rights with privileges granted by the state.

Groups do not have "rights," only the individuals do. And the ACLU has never been interested in anything but manipulating groups for their own purposes.

I've been very disappointed in GOA for a long time.

While I don't make it a practice to join the Amen Chorus on my own damned blog, I'll cheerfully stand aside when somebody else says or does something better than I can.

Though on different occasions I've tried to say similar things (here and here, for example) I've never said it as succinctly as that. You either believe in freedom for everybody, or you don't believe in freedom.

Somebody said "life, liberty and property" is a redundant list, because there is no difference between life and property. Life is property. That's probably getting a bit semantic, but I think the writer was making a point about self-defense and so it fits with the original topic. To claim to believe so strongly in the natural right of self-defense that you'll dedicate your life to its furtherance, but then to argue that the "right" only exists for "citizens," is to so miss a vital point as to be in a state of contradiction.

MamaLiberty makes two points that can't be too strongly stressed: First: Life, liberty and property are either natural rights or they're not - pick a position and be prepared to die on it. If they are, then they are rights for everybody - including "illegal aliens," and no matter how you otherwise feel about somebody else's legal status. Would you walk up to an "illegal alien" and stick a knife in his ribs for fun? If not, then you must believe on some level that that person has natural rights. Why are you trying to disarm that person? I'm talking to you, Larry Pratt.

If on the other hand you believe those things aren't natural rights, then you're saying they aren't rights for anybody but only privileges for a few - no doubt preferably including yourself. And to hell with you. I said something on that topic (hey! I'm getting to be quite the philosopher!) here.

The second point MamaLiberty made, I'll just point out because she said it beautifully and I've barely touched on it at all, and that's the topic of "citizenship." It's been a long time since I accepted the label "citizen," and this is why:

"Citizenship" is also a privilege dispensed by the state. A "citizen" is required to give allegiance and tribute to the state to which he belongs. The citizen is the property of the state to which he pledges allegiance. Remember: ownership equals control. We are owned by others to the extent that they control us.

It makes perfect sense for the state not to extend privileges to non citizens. What doesn't make any sense to me is the idea of being owned by the state in the first place.

And I can't add a single wordy sentence on that topic.

Thanks, ML.