Tuesday, April 11, 2006

Absolutism 301; Felons, (expounded)

David, on this post at War on Guns has brought up a topic, I've been seeking an opportunity to expound upon. And now is as good a time as any. For this subject is specifically how David and I crossed paths to begin with. And our meeting over at TriggerFinger caused me to go on the search about the, (eh, cough), supposed power of the gov. to exercise prior restraint). For I had previously honestly felt the government did have the authority. Else, why would they be allowed to exercise it?

And since that time. I've done quite a bit of research on the overall effect of government intrusion(s). Especially into areas where it specifically has no delegated authority. Now, before I go any further, I'll concede that there are many who won't agree with this. But, I'm not writing to win a popularity contest. Merely sharing what I've discovered to be the truth of the matter.

Our laws, originally, were intended to comply 'as far as possible with the laws of Nature and Reason' as defined in The Rights of The Colonists by Samuel Adams. And, that they should recognize that the Freedom and Liberties of man were the gift of God. Or, if you will, our Creator. And, that the whole purpose of the forming of our government was to secure protection of those Freedoms and Liberties. And this, not only for ourselves but our posterity. This theme is woven throughout the Founding documents of our Freedom.

Now, since Samuel Adams was also known as 'The Father of the American Revolution'. It would naturally reason to follow that his word would have depth and weight. As well as being far closer to the Original Intent of the Framers of our Constitution. Versus what we see in the present day. Which is far off course from the path laid out by the Founders. So much so. That our country is now much closer in appearance to the one from which the Founders rebelled against originally. Mr. Adams outlines, in the aforementioned Rights of the Colonists, that man has certain Natural Rights:

I. Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men.
"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.
"All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please; and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another.
"When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions and previous limitations as form an equitable original compact.
"Every natural right not expressly given up, or, from the nature of a social compact, necessarily ceded, remains.
"All positive and civil laws should conform, as far as possible, to the law of natural reason and equity."

Each and every last person that draws breath has made mistakes. Whether it be in thought, word or deed. If the deed done, is in transgression of the True Law of the land. Then that person is guilty of violation of the social compact and is punished accordingly. If that punishment involves their removal from the state of nature and the confinement of said person. Then it naturally would reason to follow that 'the means of preserving those rights' is necessarily ceded while in confinement. The transgressor is then left under the protection of the authority designated for such purposes. Until such point and time as they have paid their debt to society and are released from confines.

The release from confinement, means they are at liberty. The former transgressor is now back in the state of nature. Or, in other words - the jungle. And are no longer under the direct protection of the government authority. So the means of 'preserving those rights', which are after all God-given, would naturally follow with them. To not allow a person whom is at liberty to be enabled to defend themselves in 'the jungle' would be cruel and unusual. For they would be left to the mercy of beasts of prey which are so prevalent in the natural state.

The use of prior restraint by government, is clearly repugnant to the Principles found in our Constitution. If a person, whom formerly transgressed the law, has paid their debt to society. And, is released from their confinement back into the state of nature. It is that person's natural right to be able to defend themselves. It is not within the realm of delegated authority for government to restrict the exercise of the means of defense. Especially, when one considers that the whole purpose of formation of the government was to secure that right. The right, which is so clearly defined, that government shall not infringe upon.

If recidivism back into crime is the worry or problem faced by the government. Then alteration of the applicable law(s) would seem necessary of equitable revision. The solution to such problems cannot be answered by infringement upon a right, from which government is so clearly restricted. Government is not allowed to play God. As there is bad enough problem of that already, of mankind playing God, found in religion(s). It is precisely forbidden, for government to add its weight to the already grievous to be borne burden.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home