Question about Me Buring a Flag in NYC next week 1001

True though the word is almost always conditioned by the term "civil" as in "civil liberties" which refers to liberties bestowed by civil law. Government has attempted to duplicate the "inherent rights" of Americans with "civil rights" or liberties. These can be taken away at the whim of a civil court. This has had a psychological effect on Americans many of whom believe that all rights or liberties are granted by government.

That should be, "Government must protect."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are insbreastuted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to insbreastute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to...."

I'll bet you know what that's from.

Definition of a Right

Just what is a right? In order to exercise a Right, you must know what a Right is.

These days most anything is claimed to be a 'right' and then the courts are used to tell us what is and what isn't. The problem is that legal opinions obscure the meaning and purpose of inherent rights. Here's the conditions that determine a real right.

1. Rights are held only by individuals, not groups of people, animals or things.

2. A Right will not conflict with those of another individual.

3. A Right obligates no other individual.

Meet those conditions and you have an inherent right that should be off limits to government control.

For example, an individual has no "right to work" because this condition would require or obligate some employer (another individual) to hire him. It would remove freedom from the employer (another individual).

Similarly, a "right to health care" obligates others to provide such resources.

An individual has no "right to security" because this condition would also require or obligate someone else to provide the necessary measure of security.

However, the individual does have the Right of speech for this neither obligates nor infringes on the rights of others.

And the individual has the Right of self-defense also because this neither obligates nor infringes on the rights of others.

The Principle of Rights is the exercise of choice while mindful of the Rights of others.

This is demostrated by the Rule of Rights, "A Right is an action or actions by one individual which do NOT infringe on another's Rights NOR place an obligation on that individual."

The test is met with two simple conditions. Once met, no damage occurs. Thus, Rights are absolute.

The exercise of the Principle of Rights is the way to maximize liberty for all while minimizing conflict.

As for governments and courts, there is no compelling interest in restricting Rights, there is only the political gamesmanship to repress individual freedom for personal gain.

In criminal matters in American law there is never a question of compelling interest. The individual's rights should always prevail.