Unalienable Rights

[PatriotResistance]

"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."

My question concerns the "by their Creator" part of this quote from the Declaration of Independence. I assume Objectivists fully agree with the "created equal" and "unalienable Rights" phrases.

Would an Objectivist easily substitute "nature" or "Objective Reality" for "their Creator"? Or something else? Or do Objectivists have an objection to the founding fathers attributing the source of unalienable Rights to a Creator?

Bob

Galts Gulch Gifts

Patriot Resistance store

[AdamantLaw]

I believe that it was unwise to include "by their Creator". I have seen that phrase used more than once as an excuse for religious tyranny by Christians.

"By objective reality" would be a more accurate and responsible phrase.

[Jake_Ellison]

I would say no. (One small point would be that they're attributing man's endowment with rights to a Creator, meaning that men posess rights, because in the process of creating the World, men were created this way, with rights. They're not claiming that there's a Creator who is the direct source of these rights, through commandment, or that he could at any point take away or stop "giving" these rights)

Had they known what we know today about evolution, I think they would've used "are" rather than created. But, in the context of their knowledge, it's understandable. They steered clear of any religion, it's just that it had to be said one way or another: without knowing about evolution, the more sensible choice between "created" and "are" (as in just appeared out of nowhere), might just be the former.

They could've left it up in the air, maybe, with a formulation such as "came to be". But I don't think this is important at all. They couldn't have foreseen the nonsense Creationists are flooding this country with, but we can easily look back at that time and understand that they weren't in agreement with the aforementioned nonsense.

P.S. If anyone's to blame for any misunderstandings stemming from the DoI, its American leaders post-Darwin. A second version of the Declaration should've been written, with the appropriate corrections.

Edited October 6, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[Grames]

A second version of the Declaration should've been written, with the appropriate corrections.

"Even God cannot change the past." - Agathon

[SD26]

I believe that it was unwise to include "by their Creator". I have seen that phrase used more than once as an excuse for religious tyranny by Christians.

Yeah, that part is a real pain isn't it? LOL!

On the Christian side, I've heard many claim that the US is a Christian country, but I fail to recognize where Jesus is mentioned in the founding documents, etc.

Maybe someone has some understanding of the context of Creator. Jefferson was a deist, and that ideology is based upon reason and nature itself. Someone should more on that than I. Am I off base? Hence, Jefferson placed it there to cover a lot of bases from those that were religious to those that were more based in reason and/or nature?

[Steve D'Ippolito]

As I understand it, Deists believed there was a god, who created the universe... but that aforementioned god had a benevolent "hands off" attitude towards us. Wanted us to be happy and prosper, but didn't go stomping around handing down commandments.

Given pre-evolutionary understanding it was pretty much as close as one could get to being an atheist without having some really tough unanswered questions like "where did we come from?"

[PatriotResistance]

Yeah, that part is a real pain isn't it? LOL!

On the Christian side, I've heard many claim that the US is a Christian country, but I fail to recognize where Jesus is mentioned in the founding documents, etc.

Maybe someone has some understanding of the context of Creator. Jefferson was a deist, and that ideology is based upon reason and nature itself. Someone should more on that than I. Am I off base? Hence, Jefferson placed it there to cover a lot of bases from those that were religious to those that were more based in reason and/or nature?

I've been looking into this quite extensively lately. You have to be explicit in whether the claim is that the U.S. was a nation of Christians versus the founding fathers created a Christian government. Those are two different things, the former is true while the latter is not. I think it is undeniable that the United States was a Christian country. The evidence from books, quotes, the history of immigrants to engravings on building and monuments around the capital in D.C. as well as the rest of country is overwhelming.

Jesus is not mentioned specifically in founding documents or laws because the founders understood the original meaning of the 'separation of church and state' to mean that government shall not establish a state religion. What noone knows today is the other half of 'separation of church and state' is that the government shall not restrict expression of religion in any way. This included the expression of religion in schools and public arenas like courtrooms and legislatures. The founding fathers and generations afterward quoted scripture in Congress daily. Thomas Jefferson rode his horse to Sunday church services held IN THE CAPITOL BUILDING through rain, sleet and snow. So regular was his attendance that it began the tradition of reserving a seat in the front row for the president.

I could go on for pages but the point is that the moral basis for many of the ideas found in the founding documents come from the Bible. This was only natural for the times. One example: of the eight 14 feet tall by 20 foot wide murals hanging in the capital building rotunda in D.C. four have religious contexts. One is a depiction of the pilgrims in which is featured a very large Geneva Bible. That Bible was specifically included to depict the pilgrims' use of a verse from Exodus that led them to change their original charter from a "communal" organization to an "individualistic" approach, after which the community began to prosper. The mural was commissioned by Congress to depict one part of the "roots" of the republican form of government they created.

NONE of which means that the U.S. is a Christian nation in the sense of having a Christian government. Only that the roots of the U.S. was overwhelmingly Christian, which is nothing to be feared or written off. The pilgrims discovered the virtue of selfishness a few centuries before Ayn Rand and expressed it the only way they knew. So what!

So I agree with your opinion on the reason for Jefferson's use of "the Creator" as an all-inclusive term is probably correct.

Bob

[Marc K.]

I think it is important to note what the Declaration doesn't say. I doesn't say "the Creator" or "a Creator". It says "their Creator" and "their" is a personal possessive pronoun which means, to me, that "the Creator" is whatever I think it is.

Besides it isn't the crucial part anyway. It doesn't really matter where rights come from in the context of establishing a fundamental law for people with differing viewpoints. The important part is that we all have rights, they are inalienable and government is instituted to secure them.

[2046]

Am I wrong in the assumption that it shouldn't say rights are "given" or "endowed by" anything because a right, by definition, cannot be given, otherwise it would be "a permission?"

[PatriotResistance]

Am I wrong in the assumption that it shouldn't say rights are "given" or "endowed by" anything because a right, by definition, cannot be given, otherwise it would be "a permission?"

Well, the definition of "unalienable" is "not to be separated, taken or given away" or "incapable of being surrendered". I've always thought of unalienable rights as being inherently possessed by all humans - simply as a result of being born human. Neither of those would be technically consistent with a right that is "granted", as you point out. I suppose this is the reason for my asking the question in the first place.

However, I think Jefferson was trying to be as all inclusive as his times would allow and none of them even considered including atheists. So my interpretation is that they thought ALL men believed they were created by some type of god somewhere, and as such rights ARE inherent to all men. Therefore, it is only a technicality that they used the words "their Creator". The intent of rights being inherent to all human life is what is important.

Bob

Galts Gulch Gifts

[Kevin Brown]

I believe that it was unwise to include "by their Creator". I have seen that phrase used more than once as an excuse for religious tyranny by Christians.

"By objective reality" would be a more accurate and responsible phrase.

Greetings: Of course I reject all versions of primacy of consciousness metaphysics and thus all forms of Theism, supernaturalism, collectivism, and Romanticism, so I also reject creationism; however, I take issue with the idea that human beings have rights as an intrinsic attribute of their basal material existence. I assert rights are social conventions that people agree to honor in order to facilitate and ease living in association. As such rights constitute licenses we grant to one another to behave morally in pursuit of our own personal self-interest. If a lone Homo Sapien lived on a remote uninhabited, except for herself, island, she would have no rights because there would be nobody else with whom to establish interactive rules of conduct. (She could still be morally good by committing actions that resulted in her survival and enhancement.) Rand's confusion on the topic can be used as one fork of a dichotomy dilemma via the Law of Excluded Middle because either rights actually exist as a basal component of material existence or they do not.

"A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context." Wrote Ayn Rand in VOS, and later she added that:

"Rights” are a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context—the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law."

Here she indicated that she thought rights to be social conventions used to protect Homo Sapien from associations of other Homo Sapiens.

However in “Galt's Speech,” she claimed: "The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth,....."

Placing her assertion that rights are part of material existence in the mouth of Galt required her to hold an unsupported presupposition that the evolution of Homo Sapien was deterministically casual and could have been no other way. But that proposition is not in evidence since the fact is that great apes do have volitional will. It is both possible and plausible and thus to some extent probable that the common ancestor species of hominids and great apes had volitional will. If so, then the fact of Homo Sapien's survival and existence was by chance and not deterministically casual meaning there is no categorical imperative for "Man Qua Man" to live as Rand presupposed in Galt's speech. Thus the fact that I need such and such to survive can not be a basis for any moral license granted me from an by others to perform actions to acquire the needed substances or circumstances. If that is true, then rights are indeed mere conventions comprising rules of conduct applicable to circumstances wherein Homo Sapiens interact one with another so that individuals either acquire needed substances or at least incur no harm.

Since Rand tried to have it both ways and since she can't have her cake and eat it too, then her argument for rights sourced from "A is A—and Man is Man." cannot but fail. It may be objected that Homo Sapiens have a genetically programmed drive or overwhelming desire to live that functions in place of Rand's presupposed categorical imperative. To the best of my humble knowledge, no philosopher has yet been able to make a case for evolutionary-biological altruism in Homo Sapiens accepted by any Objectivist philosopher. If that is the case, then an appeal to a genetically programmed drive to live cannot relieve Rand's self-contradiction. That which is self-contradictory cannot obtain. The negation of her predicates ala Galt's speech holds and the dichotomy dilemma via LEM means Rights are social conventions.

Further regarding the appeal to creationism in the DOI, ironically, if the superstitions of the primacy of consciousness mystics and Theists were to be the case, then nobody would have rights, nor could they; for then, there would not be any material existence. All would be mere appearance and complete skepticism would reign. In such a scenario, lacking existence and identity, nothing could be known as the foundational prerequisites of cognition would not be present. Only complete entropy and chaos would attend, but even that is questionable. How funny it is to think that one of the best, if not the best, States on the planet is founded on ideas that if true would render life incomprehensible.

<flame proof underwear on>

Best Wishes for Your Success

[Marc K.]

I assert rights are social conventions that people agree to honor in order to facilitate and ease living in association. As such rights constitute licenses we grant to one another to behave morally in pursuit of our own personal self-interest.

Since rights don't require anyone's agreement, your assertion is false on its face.

If a criminal doesn't agree that I have rights and proceeds to rob me, I don't give a damn whether he agrees or not and neither does the law.

Also, rights not only allow for moral behavior, they allow for certain immoral behavior, as long as it doesn't infringe on another's rights.

[Jake_Ellison]

Placing her assertion that rights are part of material existence in the mouth of Galt

There's no such assertion, in fact your quotes mention that rights are a moral concept. They are conditions of man's existence qua man, and they aren't part of material existence. Imagine that.

Direct your imagination in this direction: The concepts involved in Newton’s second law (F=ma - force, acceleration), as well as the principle itself, are a necessary condition of flight, without being part of material existence. Unless you care to mail me an acceleration, or half a pound of force in a bag, then they are part of material existence.

It may be objected that Homo Sapiens have a genetically programmed drive or overwhelming desire to live that functions in place of Rand's presupposed categorical imperative.

You're off topic. No one would make that claim, you're having a conversation with yourself. You should've spent that time understanding what Rand said instead, from a more direct source then wherever you found that "human beings have rights as an intrinsic attribute of their basal material existence" is the Objectivist position.

For instance, stumbling upon this sentence in the Romantic Manifesto, would've served you well:

Abstractions as such do not exist: they are merely man’s epistemological method of perceiving that which exists—and that which exists is concrete.

Or, you should find someone who does believe that "rights are intrinsic to men, and part of material existence", and present your objections about it to him. (along with mine, I guess, since that sounds quite stupid: abstract concepts are not part of "material existence", by definition)

<flame proof underwear on>

Best Wishes for Your Success

That better not mean that you're a professional troll, since I just spent ten minutes answering you.

[Eiuol]

Since rights don't require anyone's agreement, your assertion is false on its face.

If a criminal doesn't agree that I have rights and proceeds to rob me, I don't give a damn whether he agrees or not and neither does the law.

Also, rights not only allow for moral behavior, they allow for certain immoral behavior, as long as it doesn't infringe on another's rights.

I do not have a complete understanding of rights, and Kevin's post seems to mention the exact problem I'm having. I understand that rights don't require an agreement, but that does not prove anything. "I assert rights are social conventions that people agree to honor in order to facilitate and ease living in association". What you said still allow "rights" to be "social conventions". But obviously without any particular moral meaning if those conventions are violated. It would be against my self-interest to violate the conventions because people would get mad. If I stole property, I would be claiming something that isn't mine. I would suggest that the "violation of rights" isn't the immoral act, but the "lying to myself" so to speak of what I possess.

(I'll add more later if I don't have time to edit this post soon)

[softwareNerd]

Eiuol,

There are two different things that one can refer to when one talks of rights: those principles (that define man's freedom of action in society) that objectively follow from the nature of man, and those that are actually allowed to particular men by particular governments. These are two different things, but the same word is often used to refer to them.

Imagine, for instance, a jew being sent to his death in Nazi Germany, for nothing other than being a jew. Does he have a right to life? By one usage he does; by another, he does not. As long as one recognizes that there are these two things, one is basically fine, except for the need to be careful about terms. (For instance, some Objectivists refuse to use the term "rights" for the boundaries allowed by law and insist on using the term only for the boundaries that ought to be allowed.) The real problem is folks who deny the existence of rights in the sense of objective principles that man requires by his nature in a social context, and who hold that there is no objective way to determine what rights man ought to have.

[Eiuol]

Eiuol,

There are two different things that one can refer to when one talks of rights: those principles (that define man's freedom of action in society) that objectively follow from the nature of man,

But what about apart from society? Morality still exists apart from society, so that is more than a social convention. But can rights ever exist apart from society? I suppose that is the question I'm asking.

For me to interact with another person it is necessary (and therefore rational) to not murder them, steal their property, etc (as in not violate rights). To me it's hard to understand where rights become a characteristic of man. Laws, for example, are not characteristics of man, but they are necessary for any rational interaction with people. I have trouble seeing where rights are anything besides "a proper legal standard". It is against my self-interest to make taxation legal, since I would also be permitting someone to take property of mine and use it as theirs. It would be wrong to initiate force because it is in that person's self-interest to protect themselves by any means. To prevent constant warfare, it would be important to establish laws that a group of people agree upon. This is what I mean by "social convention". But even without a law, it is still more rational not to kill (but without a mutual agreement, there is chaos). That's not the same thing as saying initiating force is wrong because it is "violating rights", though.

[softwareNerd]

But what about apart from society? Morality still exists apart from society, so that is more than a social convention. But can rights ever exist apart from society? I suppose that is the question I'm asking.

No.

I have trouble seeing where rights are anything besides "a proper legal standard".

Sounds good to me. Do you see this as different from the Objectivist viewpoint?

[Kevin Brown]

Since rights don't require anyone's agreement, your assertion is false on its face.

If a criminal doesn't agree that I have rights and proceeds to rob me, I don't give a damn whether he agrees or not and neither does the law.

Also, rights not only allow for moral behavior, they allow for certain immoral behavior, as long as it doesn't infringe on another's rights.

Hello: Your statement is preposterous nonsense, self-refuting, and contradicts Rand's doctrine. Go back and reread the Rand quotes I posted earlier.

The law is a social construct in the form of agreements between citizens of the State. It is the joint or majority agreement of Citizens in the form of mutually assented to rules of conduct that gives each of the Citizens their moral (goodness) license to good actions and protects them from bandits or brigands. I pointed out Rand's contradiction in my earlier post. However, the implication of her assertion in Galt's speech that rights are sourced from the LOI tautology cannot but fail her alleged purpose because there is nothing intrinsic about existence that proclaims that Homo Sapiens must necessarily live. There are no gods to mandate that Homo Sapiens necessarily live and exist. Primacy of consciousness metaphysics are false. There is no collective consciousness or universal consciousness, nor a world consciousness that dictates Homo Sapiens have some moral license to action apart from associative interactions. The "Universe" is the name we give to the set of all things that exist and not one tinsy-weensy bit of it gives a shit about Homo Sapiens such that a magical categorical imperative is imparted to compel Homo Sapiens to necessarily exist.

Rand via Galt: "If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work."

This conditional statement is subject to a material conditional truth table. The antecedent conditional if clause betrays Rand’s false presumption. By conceptually loading the conditional if clause with an enthymeme presupposition that Homo Sapiens are somehow magically endowed with a necessary mandate to exist, she denied the the fact of existence that existence is not consciousness. She did a stolen concept here by asserting the LOI while denying that existence doesn't give a shit about Homo Sapiens. This means that the antecedent premise cannot be true, but the inference is true because if the Rand's supernatural presumption was fact then her conclusion would be true. Her conclusion is, nevertheless, necessarily false, and thus the conditional statement is false. ( see http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html for conditional truth table )

The fact that Homo Sapiens want to live is due to genetic configuration resultant from evolutionary development. However, as Objectivism rejects all versions of evolutionary ethics stemming from universal common descent and ignores that all life forms on Earth are related by DNA inheritances, no valid case from the facts of material existence can be made for Homo Sapiens having a LOI constitution consisting in part of intrinsic natural rights within the confines of Objectivism. Consequently, any rights a person has stems from their association with others in the form of a set of rules by which they agree upon to abide, "e.g.", the Law of a State. That which comes from a consciousness is subjective. Rights come from the State and are subjective stemming from Homo Sapien's consciousness in the form of agreed upon social constructs. Thus rights are subjective and not objective.

Marc K wrote "rights not only allow for moral behavior, they allow for certain immoral behavior, as long as it doesn't infringe on another's rights.

Your assertion is contra Rand:

“Rights” are a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context" Man's Rights, VOS

If Rand was correct, then there can only be rights to moral or good actions. The State as representative of the association of citizens would, if the citizens so directed it, compel moral action by punishing non-moral, "i.e.", non-good actions and or rewarding moral and good actions. Hitherto wit, there can be no rights to non-moral or non-good actions.

Your statements are false on their face.

Best Wishes and Regards

[Grames]

Hello: Your statement is preposterous nonsense, self-refuting, and contradicts Rand's doctrine. Go back and reread the Rand quotes I posted earlier.

Your writings are so wrong as to be not worthy of further dialog. You have provided evidence of massive and systematic failure of reading comprehension of Rand's works and it is highly likely that failure will persist through any exchange of forum posts. It would be as futile to debate with you as with a wall.

[Jake_Ellison]

That's not the same thing as saying initiating force is wrong because it is "violating rights", though.

No, it is not. The abstract concept of rights means that human nature is such that it requires of men to be free in order to live qua man. The moral principle of not violating anyone's rights means that respecting individual rights is moral, and is supported directly by the abstract concept of rights.

This is exactly the same as any other principle, in physics for instance. If you wish to move a car that has a mass x, with friction f, at a speed v, you need to apply a certain ammount of F - force to it, depending on m, f, and v. This is not a convention between you and the car, it is a real principle that is a given, not subject to any agrement on anyone's part.

The same way, rights being necessary for men to live, and the morality of respecting rights, are not subject to agreement, social conventions, or contracts, or whatever else you wish to call them. They are abstract concepts, they are not concretes (part of material life), but they are something that is necessarily a consequence of metaphysically give reality. What we do is identify them, and use them to understand reality and our choices within it.

We don't agree or disagree with reality, we accept or ignore it. As a consequence, we accept or ignore rights, we don't agree or disagree with them.

[Eiuol]

To clarify, I was trying to say that the consequences of rights being merely social conventions would be the same if following one's self-interest.

My confusion isn't really with what it means to have rights, but the fact that rights are a characteristic of man. That people are born with any rights.

[Jake_Ellison]

To clarify, I was trying to say that the consequences of rights being merely social conventions would be the same if following one's self-interest.

My confusion isn't really with what it means to have rights, but the fact that rights are a characteristic of man. That people are born with any rights.

Rights is a very different concept than "man". While they are linked, the concept "right" is not a characteristic of the concept "man". (that would imply that right is part of the concept man)

I believe this would help in giving you at least an idea of the difference between an abstraction such as plant or man and another such as "moral" or "rights":

"There are many special or “cross-filed” chains of abstractions (of interconnected concepts) in man’s mind. Cognitive abstractions are the fundamental chain, on which all the others depend. Such chains are mental integrations, serving a special purpose and formed accordingly by a special criterion.

Cognitive abstractions are formed by the criterion of: what is essential? (epistemologically essential to distinguish one class of existents from all others). Normative abstractions are formed by the criterion of: what is good? Esthetic abstractions are formed by the criterion of: what is important?" (The Romantic Manifesto)

What John Galt is saying is that "The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival.", meaning that it is a real, actual, proper concept, and a consequence of man's nature, not society or civilization.

It does not claim any of the nonsense epistemologically challenged libertarians are claiming about rights being intrinsic, because they can't conceive of the meaning of "abstract". Nowhere does Rand say that "rights are a part of men" or that "rights are concrete, part of the material world".

Edited October 15, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[softwareNerd]

To clarify, I was trying to say that the consequences of rights being merely social conventions would be the same if following one's self-interest.

Not really. Saying that something is a social convention does not say anything about the rationale behind its derivation. Even if rights are in everyone's self-interest, they may be denied by social convention (as many rights actually are). Now, if instead of calling them social conventions, you spoke of them as being rationally-derived social-conventions, or social conventions based on rational self-interest, that would be more precise.

[freestyle]

"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."

My question concerns the "by their Creator" part of this quote from the Declaration of Independence. I assume Objectivists fully agree with the "created equal" and "unalienable Rights" phrases.

Would an Objectivist easily substitute "nature" or "Objective Reality" for "their Creator"? Or something else? Or do Objectivists have an objection to the founding fathers attributing the source of unalienable Rights to a Creator?

An objectivist would substitute "nature" for the term "their Creator"--

...assuming the following quote is legitimate (which I have no reason to doubt):

[The Founding Father I most admire is] Thomas Jefferson – for the Declaration of Independence, which is probably the greatest document in human history. There is, however, one minor fault on the level of fundamentals: the idea that men are endowed with rights by their Creator rather than by Nature. (pg. 1)

Ayn Rand Answers, Page 1 (source)

I believe this is in line with some of her other writings and some of the discussion at the end of the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFy9A7WEzPA. There's also this other reference (from the same Q&A source):

She went on to say that "This is an issue of the choice of language. Philosophically, it doesn't change the Declaration's meaning."

And she is right. "Their Creator" comes after clearly stating that the truths are SELF evident. Strictly speaking, our "creator" is nature. Philosophically, people may use different words or terms to express the source of their creation. Personally, in the context of the Declaration of Independence, I would keep the phrase, "their creator" as it is. This projects the meaning to be as universal as possible in the mind of any reader, with any philosophical bend. As a reader of the document, I interpret it properly as my being endowed these rights by nature.

Edited October 16, 2009 by freestyle

[PatriotResistance]

An objectivist would substitute "nature" for the term "their Creator"--

...assuming the following quote is legitimate (which I have no reason to doubt):

I believe this is in line with some of her other writings and some of the discussion at the end of the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFy9A7WEzPA. There's also this other reference (from the same Q&A source):

She went on to say that "This is an issue of the choice of language. Philosophically, it doesn't change the Declaration's meaning."

And she is right. "Their Creator" comes after clearly stating that the truths are SELF evident. Strictly speaking, our "creator" is nature. Philosophically, people may use different words or terms to express the source of their creation. Personally, in the context of the Declaration of Independence, I would keep the phrase, "their creator" as it is. This projects the meaning to be as universal as possible in the mind of any reader, with any philosophical bend. As a reader of the document, I interpret it properly as my being endowed these rights by nature.

Thanks for the links, freestyle. Great post.

IMO, the declaration of "self-evident" also suggests that Jefferson considered rights to be an absolute. That all humans throughout time possess these right and that only just governments recognize those pre-existing rights.

Bob

Galts Gulch Gifts

Patriot Resistance store