The truth about
freedom is this
There is but one freedom under government rule enjoyed by citizens (subjects): freedom is the revokable political positive right (privilege) to be
free to act as you will
as long as you obey the laws of government. This is not the state of actually being free in an unrestricted way to do what you please while being responsible for your actions, but rather a literal legal enslavement to government law to act under government rule. It is a truism to state that free men must have responsibility for their own actions, lest government become the master and punisher of those who are its servants (subjects). United States citizens are not free men, but instead they live within invisible legal chains called freedom.
The right to bear arms as a natural/negative right must go unchallenged by government by its very nature of being a negative right the natural right of non-interference. But the positive governmental rights which are assigned to citizens to carry
legal
fire-arms is certainly being challenged in government right now as we speak. The trick with government you see, in order for its tyranny to prevail, is to make all its
equal people as
citizens accept positive rights by government so that the people turn their backs on their natural, God-given, negative,
unalienable rights -
the rights of men against government intrusion into those rights. Indeed, government actually
requires a lien on all peoples natural/negative rights for them to enjoy citizenship within the United States under governments strictly positive law, for we must remember that negative rights cancel out positive rights. So government must find legal ways to circumvent the peoples liberties (negative rights) and assign restrict-able political (positive) rights. Government does this via the contractual relationship offered to the people called citizenship, which carries with it the contractual benefit of positive rights, often called civil rights and/or constitutional rights. While it calls these liberties, they are far from it
=
The Laws Of Attraction
=
So that we do not get confused here, lets see just how one form of right is cancelled out by the other form. The job of an attorney as an officer of the court is to keep you within the legal language, so that the court never has to talk in plain English. The legal language of the law society within government is meant to keep you always in the artificial person-hood of your citizenship never speaking the language of mankind. The following list shows the difference between the laws of man (natural) and the laws of government (legal):
Negative
Positive
Man
.. Person
Free
. Freedom
Free Man
. Citizen
Natural
. Political
Liberty
.. Entitlement
God-given
Man-made (government granted)
Right (natural)
Privilege (revokable)
Right (natural)
.. Duty (moral obligation)
Duty (responsibility, trust)
. Contractual obligation
Responsibility
Limited liability (incorporated)
Unalienable (inherent)
Alienable (not permanent)
De Jure
De Facto
Lawful
Color of law
The words
unalienable and
inherent can be defined as
essential and
intrinsic . These words apply to ideals rather than to actual living beings. While life itself is not unalienable in any way (as is apparent throughout all of nature and its food-chain) the
idea that life is an
unalienable right is a negative concept in that it refers to the negative right of men to
not be subject to the will of other men. This is the moral obligation of honor and
duty that men should not kill other men
or as it is more commonly known:
Thou Shall Not Kill.
On the contrary, cows, pigs, and chickens live under the positive rights granted by ranchers and farmers, in that they are
subjects of that farm and its positive laws. These animals natural rights are only valid in as much as the farmer or rancher grants the same positive right to mirror their natural/negative rights. But when slaughter-season comes around and the market-price for bacon goes up, the cows, pigs, and chickens learn real quick that any rights they may perceive as livestock (citizens) of that farm are certainly
alienable and in no way inherent or permanent. The cows only eat because the government (farmer) feeds them hey thus the cows believe it is their natural right to have food brought to them every day by the farmer. But the farmer is only acting under his own positive law, and in reality the cows have no natural rights. But they still believe
The chickens may only have children (chicks) if the government (farmer) allows the hens to keep their eggs and hatch them. Parenthood is a legal term under contract with the state (farm). But the farmer, under the positive law of his farm (his rules), overpowers the natural rights of the chickens and allows those unborn children of the chickens to be collected for sale to others.
The only difference between the cows, pigs, and chickens and that of the humans within the United States farm is that the humans contractually volunteer and agree to be livestock under positive rights and laws, whereas these animals never had a choice.
And people think animals are dumb?
