|
Dear Shawn,
Today I read the 1948 Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, by the UN. It’s rather disturbing in my opinion. I think
(but am not sure) that most countries have signed treaties agreeing to
uphold it.
All these observations are my own. None are a repeat of things I have
learned or heard elsewhere. They have originated in my own observation
and thought, in reflection and study of the sources discussed.
Note that the italics are my own, added to make it more clear exactly
what each article encompasses. I think it’s extremely
important to figure out everything that a turn of phrase could possibly
encompass and be very explicit and give examples and use wording such as
“in no case shall any of this be construed to give the federal government
any powers not explicitly, directly and precisely described by this document.
Powers implied by or derived from interpretations thought to come from
this document, in particular, are deemed invalid. The powers not delegated
to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,
are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (Maybe how
the Xth amendment should have been phrased in retrospect?? Even though
the Xth amendment is preceded by the 9th, maybe the 9th should have been
repeated at the beginning of every single Amendment, to be safe) People
look at new laws and think of the general sentiment, or pretty keywords,
or emotion laced, ambiguous terms, and then jump of the cliff into fascism.
You have to look at each law not for what powers it guarantees to the State,
but for which is specifically denies to the State, and which it
specifically, but never inclusively, reserves to individuals.
Jeff’s Observation 1
Any rights and powers granted to any State, corporation, or other
non-individual, will be (100% true so far through historical observation)
stretched to the farthest limitations of interpretation, nearly always
against the rights of the individual and for the expansion of the rights
of the State and for the furtherance of evil in the world. The powers thought
to be granted to the non-individual, having been stretched to the farthest
limits of imaginations, will then go beyond this, changing language as
needed in order to give more and more power to the State.
Discussion of Jeff’s Observation 1
Of course at some point in this shift in power, you have to say that
the society is no longer protected by Constitutional law. People
cannot be ruled by Constitutional law, nor governed by Constitutional
law. It is the Government that is ruled by Constitutional law.
By definition, a Constitution explicates, limits, and restricts the powers
of government. When otherwise interpreted, people are no longer protected
by Constitutional law.
If you look at the arguments of B. Franklin, Th. Jefferson, Voltaire,
etc. you’ll see that they realized my principle, above stated. The Constitution
was specifically and deliberately written to restrict the powers
of the government, considered intrinsically evil and untrustworthy. In
no part does it grant the government sweeping powers, nor any powers beyond
the bare minimum to keep government functioning. But notice how it has
come to give the government such sweeping powers anyway. The well-thought-out
language kept this inevitable result away longer than ever before, however,
enabling the people of the United States to flourish. Government growing
to encompass all and to remove all rights and enslave the people seems
to be an inevitable conclusion of all governments. The savvy Constitutional
author should seek to keep this inevitability away as long as possible.
Did you know that B. Franklin said “Those who trade freedom for safety
deserve neither.” Something to think about nowadays. Governments always
use bread and circuses and other diversions thought nice to acquire power
through distraction. Not all things people would like to have
guaranteed as rights are possible to simultaneously consider as inalienable.
Two plus Two cannot only equal both three and seven. As an example, the
promise of Safety is ridiculous. Any Declaration guaranteeing Safety as
a fundamental human right is pre-empting all the important human rights,
such as to be free, and especially to freedom of speech.
Safety cannot be guaranteed without the absence of Liberty.
An enslaved man sees hate speech as unsafe and threatening, but a free
man sees the opposite: free expression of hate, or any other kind of speech,
is a symbol of freedom, tolerance, and acceptance of the free flow of ideas,
regardless of their unpopular nature, or incomprehensibility. No free state
can claim the legal restriction of speech of any kind. Even if such
speech leads to riots, lynchings, or assassinations. Even if such speech
makes certain groups or individuals uncomfortable or feeling threatened.
In a free state, shouting fire in a crowded theatre is not a crime
unless it results in damage to individuals or property. Riots, lynchings
and assassinations can still be made criminal, but not the speech that generated
it; for an argument can then be easily made to label any unpopular
speech as illegal and threatening, since it can be reasonably argued that
someone was inspired to commit a crime because of hearing any speech.
Incitement to riot is not a crime, but rioting can still be made
a crime.
Jeff’s Observation 2
Any rights declared by any document to belong to all
individuals will come to be interpreted as the only rights which
are permitted to any individuals.
This seems pretty clear to me—I believe it has happened in every case.
Even so, I believe it is important to state these rights in declarations
anyway and to prohibit government from passing any law which restricts
such rights. It’s also important to say that “in no way shall this Declaration
be interpreted to state the only inalienable rights of individuals”,
otherwise the tyranny will already be in place (rather than taking a few
years to wiggle in through wild interpretations, slippery slopes, and linguistic
warfare). However, it can never be the government’s role to protect
or to guarantee rights, for that then gives the government powers
which are contrary and incompatible with freedom of speech, or religion,
etc. Again, this comes back to the fact that a real Constitution only
restricts a government’s powers, it does not grant powers other than those
explicitly and directly stated.
Back to this UN thing—I have left out parts that I didn’t find as worrisome,
or didn’t understand the implications well enough to comment.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
1948, UN
Article 1
All human beings are endowed with reason and conscience and should act
towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. The penalties for those
who choose not to so act are left to the discretion of tribunals within
each State.
Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair, and public hearing
by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of
his obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 12
No one, especially those leaders and officials entrusted with the
public good, shall be subjected to attacks upon his honour and reputation,
regardless of the veracity or intention of such attacks.
Article 14
1. Everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum
from persecution.
2. This right may not be invoked in the case of acts contrary
to the purposes of the United Nations, which are not stated in this
Declaration.
Article 22
Everyone has the right to Social Security and is entitled, through
international co-operation, to the economic, social and cultural
rights indispensible for his dignity and the free development of his
personality.
Article 23
1. Education shall be free. Elementary education by State approved
schools shall be compulsory.
2. Education shall be directed towards the futherance
of the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
Article 27
1. Everyone has the right to share in scientific advancement and its
benefits. Patent, copyright, intellectual ownership, or other laws that
serve to restrict or prevent any State from acquiring technology of any
kind are against the principles of the United Nations and of this Declaration,
except in cases to be determined by the United Nations.
Article 28
Everyone is entitled to an international order in which
the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
This international order shall be endowed with all rights and powers
as deemed necessary to realize said rights and freedoms. The rights and
powers of this order shall supersede the rights and powers of individual
States, regardless of whether or not they have accepted this Declaration
as law. The power to enforce this article by whatever means necessary shall
be within the exclusive domain of the international order.
Article 29
1. Everyone has duties to the community, the nature of which
is left to the determination and discretion of the State.
3. The rights and freedoms of everyone may in no case be exercised
contrary to the purposes of the United Nations, which are not stated
in this Declaration. The purposes of the United Nations supersede all individual
rights and freedoms. If any rights are freedoms stated in this Declaration
are determined to be contrary to the purposes of the United Nations, then
such rights and freedoms will be so found invalid.
Article 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any
State, group or person any right to engage in any activity, including
speech, protest, questioning, discussion, writing, art, or any other form
of expression or communication, or to perform any act in private
or in public, regardless of intention or result, aimed at the destruction
of any of the rights and freedoms, or powers therein implied
set forth herein. The penalties for such criminal activity are
left to the discretion of the international order.
Well, Shawn, that’s the last of the UN Articles. Pretty interesting
and scary when you read it in terms of what it encompasses and the
powers it seems to grant to the international order, the nature of which
is not described too well.
END: Discussion of UN Declaration
I also read the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen
(1789), the Bill of Rights for the Republique Française,
composed the year of their Revolution. It’s similar to ours, but subtle
wording leads to incredible huge differences in what they are saying and
what the fundamental principle of their government is. Recall that my Grandfather’s
Declaration of Independance declares,
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inaliable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The 9th Amendment of the Constitution establishes one of the sentiments
herein expressed as the Supreme Constitutional law by stating:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Read those two excerpts very carefully, Shawn, and think about what
it says. As a side issue, I find the use of Capitalization by Th. Jefferson
very interesting and agreeable. Now I want to play with you the game of
“One of these things is not like the other”. Remember this game from Sesame
Street? Sesame Street teaches a lot of important things. OK, so now kids
we’re ready to look at the French people’s version...
Article 2—The aim of every political organization is the preservation
of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are
Liberty, Property, Safety and Resistance to Oppression.
...so does it surprise you that the French go on to say...
Article 10—No one may be disturbed on account of his opinions,
even religious ones, as long as the manifestation of such opinions does
not interfere with the established Law and Order.
Article 11—The free communication of ideas and of opinions
is one of the most precious rights of man. Any citizen may therefore
speak, write and publish freely, except what is tantamount to the abuse
of this liberty in the cases determined by Law.
Obviously with these kinds of restrictions, exemptions and exceptions
there can be no real rights protected or even granted at all. This kind
of language means “except in any case where the State determines otherwise”.
It means that this cannot be a declaration of inalienable rights, but rather
one of alienable privileges, which makes it worth only the paper it’s printed
on. It protects no rights at all, ensures no protections from the excesses
of government. I also find interesting that while all men are entitled
to their opinions, only French citizens may speak, write, or
publish freely!!! Note that opinions are explicitly distinguishable
from speech in this declaration. By dividing these two terms up
like that, we see that opinions, being separated from speech, must only
include thoughts, or unexpressed beliefs, since speech is considered a
separate category from opinion!!! Once this is realized, the exception
that makes some forms of thought illegal: “as long as the manifestation
of such opinions does not interfere with the established Law and Order”
becomes particularly intriguing in the powers it grants. What exactly
are those powers? No restrictions on their range and compass are given.
I suppose some of the permissible powers it grants to the French government
are only now becoming scientifically feasible.
Is your mind blown yet, dude?
Another of Jeff’s dandy Observations
Documents which grant powers to governments as being above rights
of individuals cannot be considered Declarations of Rights of Individuals.
Rights of Individuals may not be taken away, restricted, or controlled
by governments.
It is a bastardization of the word “right” to consider it a thing which
is granted or guaranteed, by force if necessary, by a government. However
it is conceded that many Americans seem to believe that a right is a thing
which he is entitled to, rather than an absence of restriction upon what
an Individual may do, say or think. I also concede that there are no nouns
spelled right in the American Heritage Dictionary which are
compatible with the language of the Declaration of Independence. The closest
is “that which is just.” However justice is definitely not a thing which
is guaranteed or protected, it is certainly not inalienable, so what Th.
Jefferson meant does not appear in this dictionary. Justice is a thing
that happens when someone is stopped from or punished for depriving another
of an Inalienable Right. So a Right is not “that which is just”, as this
dictionary states.
The distinction between people and citizens is a real and important
one. I am not extrapolating some fantasy, laws really are interpreted in
France and in the United States to make a distinction between the word
“people” and the word “citizens”. In our 14th amendment, for example, it
is a long established and accepted legal principle that non-citizens,
but not citizens, may have their privileges and immunities abridged. This
is likely to be a distinction which the authors of these documents intended,
especially in the case of the 14th amendment which explicitly defines what
it means by the word “citizen” first. The 14th goes on to say that no persons
may be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.
Not that the government follows that law very often. I’ve heard that the
Supreme Court has supposedly (source: Reader’s Digest) specifically exempted
the IRS from the 14th amendment. This appears unfortunately to be Constitutional
because the 16th amendment grants Congress the "power to lay and
collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without regard
to any census or enumeration”. No restrictions as to the nature or extent
of that power are defined, thus it was in 1913 that the United Sates legally
became a Fascist State, a State in which there are no restrictions as to
the power or extent of governmental powers. I believe it is highly unlikely
that this Amendment will ever be repealed. I also believe that governments
with unrestricted powers are inherently evil and always throughout history
have acted to destroy man by converting him to the legions of evil through
various means. This Amendment may also either grant or prohibit (what does
“without regard” mean? It might be interpreted to mean that enumeration
and census are specifically considered issues which may not be used to
restrict the powers granted by this amendment) the power to the IRS to
assign numbers to all citizens (enumeration, see I Chronicles 22:1-17 for
an early example of the influences that provoke governments to enumerate
men) as a Constitutional power of government, pre-empting and nullifying
any other perceived or derived rights previously guaranteed by the Constitution
(such as freedom of religion).
END: Discussion of French Bill of Rights and the 16th Amendment
They are saying that Bill Clinton can’t be tried for crimes while in
office because as President, he is exempt. This is clearly in opposition
to the principles given by Article II, section 4 of the United States Constitution:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United
States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction
of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Given this, I don’t see how there is any way to interpret the Constitution
so that it is unConstitutional for the President to be indicted
and/or tried for crimes when the Constitution specifically states
what shall happen should he be convicted of them while in Office.
I will note that in the past, it has been an issue as to what high Crimes
and Misdemeanors means. Even if this is interpreted to be murder and
not attempted rape, by stating that he can be removed from Office for XYZ
doesn’t mean he may not be tried for ABC. Regarding my mention of attempted
rape, I am surprised that the federal courts have determined this is definitely
not a high Crime or misdemeanor. In the Paula Jones case, where Clinton
allegedly sexually assaulted a woman in a hotel room, State Police Officers
who were there allegedly attested to the veracity of her complaint, but
it has been determined by a Federal District Court that being the president,
Clinton is immune from prosecution. How can women support a man like Clinton?
Men that treat women like trash seem to end up being very popular with
women. They’ve got charisma. Look at Kennedy and M.L. King, Jr.,
Mike Tyson, O. Simpson. Some people say that women like to
be assaulted and treated disrespectfully. I don’t want to believe this,
but it’s hard to maintain that in the face of the evidence. I don’t think
women will consciously admit to it, but perhaps there is some primordial
need over which women have cannot rise above, to be dominated, overwhelmed
and taken by Og, the well-built caveman. Yech.
Jeff’s Principle 4
A man cannot be considered to have any conscience, morality, or
code of ethics if he considers his individual will, whims, or desires to
be more important than his code.
Of course that does not mean that good men are not tempted by evil!
Even Christ got to undergo the trial and strengthening of surviving temptation.
I do draw the line at which a man considers more important. I
am not sure if I can draw the line between actions and words for it seems
that historically many relatively good men have been lured into performing
evil acts. If the man justifies it by saying “It was OK for me to do that
because my needs supersede my code. I am above my own law”, then he is
under the influence of the evil one and is lawless. If he says, “I have
violated my code of ethics and I deeply regret this and will endeavor not
do so in the future”, then he is still alive and sentient, but learning.
When presented with strengthening temptation and the opportunity to make
a mistake, there is growth only if there is freedom. This includes the
freedom to make the mistake, and to suffer the consequences.
END: Discussion of Special “Rights” of Presidents and Individual Conscience
Now here’s a very interesting and what I think obvious argument, though
I’ve never heard it before and now that it’s occurred to be it seems incredible
that it was ever less than obvious.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Some people say that this amendment, in mentioning the term Militia,
guarantees this right only to this Militia.
I will skip the obvious linguistic distinction between the categories
of people and of Militia. I will skip a discussion
of the definition of infringement and the overwhelming restriction upon
powers granted to the State which that implies.
Instead I wish to ask the question...
For what reason would any government need to explicitly
guarantee to the Military the right to keep and bear arms? Does
that make any sense at all to you? That the framers of the Bill of Rights
only meant to guarantee this right to the Military? All Militaries have
arms. All of them. What are they supposed to fight with? Wet noodles? That’s
not a right that needs to be protected. It would also make the second Article
the only article which dealt not with the rights of all people, but instead
with the rights of some small group. It would also make this amendment
unique in being the only one within the Bill of Rights which restricts
the rights of individuals, rather than restricting the powers of the government,
as every single one of the others do.
I put forth that people who state that the Constitution’s authors thought
it necessary to explicitly grant the Military the right to bear arms are
irrational and have very little reason or common sense. It makes particularly
little sense to grant such a right in a Bill of Rights, dealing
with rights of all men, rather than in a section granting government powers.
They have simple accepted without questioning an irrational, nonsensical
assertion as truth, probably due to some warm fuzzy feeling, or self-righteous
glow that adopting such a belief may give. In that light, it really becomes
a religious belief based on faith and so we see why argument and reason
does not fail to convince said persons any more than evolutionists seem
to wish to permit arguments against their irrational and scientifically
unsupported religious beliefs to be heard or tolerated.
END: Discussion of the naïve and endearing Religious Faith of the
Simple Minded
Well, there’s much more. So much more to tell you above what’s up, but
look at the time! Dang. Dude, the Republican Convention is in town NOW.
It’s Party Central USA Dude! It’s the biggest Party Time I’ve seen since
Jean-Michel Jarre’s concert! Dude, people are dancing in the streets and
wearing crazy costumes and running around acting nuts. Come down here dude,
right now. Not in a few days, get on that train and be here. Forget work
for a couple days, this is a better opportunity. They had the largest fireworks
display in the Western United States since Jean-Michel Jarre’s Houston
concert (the biggest ever in the US)! They had fireworks shaped like elephants
dude, I’ve never seen anything like it. It was crazy man! One-million people
wandering around downtown, trying to figure out the trolley ticket machines.
Secret Service and other mysterious governmental agency goons running around
with suits or sweatsuits, and cellular phones. Trying to look indiscrete
while scanning trolleys for bums, bombs, and communists. Boy they look
like fish out of water. I already scored (on my first try) seeing Newt
Gingritch and Jeanne Kirkpatrick up close (20 feet away & for 1/2 hour,
though in the past I got one foot away from Jean-Michel Jarre and 4" away
from the King of Jogjakarta). Too cool! Met delegates with Southern Accents
and RNC badges lurking around, pretending they have nothing to do with
the Convention, claiming to have found those badges on the ground. Yeah,
right! Perhaps a form of Southern humour? Just jump on the train and arrive!
Call my mom’s machine to leave a message and my pager (595-6545),
though I only check it in the evening. The trolley now goes directly from
the train station, right up to my house (Washington St. stop, one stop
before the end of the line at Old Town.). Dude, that is way-cool! $1 to
get from downtown to my apartment in 5 minutes!
Got a promotion at work. I think it means less creativity and more technical
and more hours and frustration. Got a raise with it. Maybe I’m terrified
of change? Maybe not, maybe it really is a loss of creative freedom. Or
maybe it’s more creative freedom since I will be capable of more. So I
appear to be the senior VLSI chip designer for now. It does seem far enough
away from musical expression to warrant concern for me. It’s a pretty sexy
job though with enormous worldwide fundamental power over the future of
music, if I’m good enough. It’s the most technically advanced and technically
complex achievement of man. So I have reasons for concerns there too. I
am pretty scared. I think it was my fear that gave me the runs (gone now)
on Friday, preventing me from being able to walk to work (it was my first
day of not going to work). Incidentally, I got the promotion on the six-month
anniversary of my starting work there, although that was only a coincidence.
Write back soon and tell me you are arriving on the next train! Bring
Karen too.
BTW, my cousin is visiting town too; I hope she’ll hang out with me
during the convention. It’s her first time away from home.
Take care, good things are coming for everyone.
— Jeff
|