Sunday, December 22, 2013

"inalienable rights"

Most of my adult life has been spent studying the definitions of terms.  It's why I hang out with people on the Internet named Chomsky and Gandhi, and so on.

Well, one of the most peculiar and indefensible things you will ever see is a constitutionalist or statist try to explain how an inalienable right can be taken by a court of man's law from an individual.  The state will codify a few of these inalienable rights and think that because they have some ink on paper that they are now in control of an inalienable right.

An inalienable right is something that is given to the individual by their creator.  By definition, it cannot be alienated from the individual by any means.  It is without repudiation, the inalienable right.

So, when the state says that you lose any of your inalienable rights when you go to prison, for example, they are making an assumption that does not exist.  If I commit a crime, by some human standard, man is not suddenly handed a pair of lock cutters and allowed to remove me from my inalienable links and place me in his prison by real authority.  This is an invention of man.

And this is why only the anarchist is able to tell the truth when government is in question:  Government has no moral authority to exist.

Gene Chapman,
Tolstoyan-Gandhian Libertarian Candidate for Texas Governor
[Endorsed by Dr. Noam Chomsky (Intellectual of the Age) and Dr. Ravindra Kumar (World's Most Prominent Gandhian Intellectual)]