Rights vs. Privileges

I do not know why it is so difficult to find corresponding Canadian content, but it is
I have not yet entered into the Labyrinth of Law where all Freedom resides because to do so I would have to study, not read and glance over but do earnest study and the prospect of that is some what frightening because of old fears and conditioning. I have a willing mentor who supplies me with information known to so few that when I try to write about it I am at a loss and the responses from some here are less than kind or polite.
There IS something going on behind the scenes so complex that to speak of it to those who do not know of it is self defeating and yet what I want I want for all.

The reason for vive le Canada is to be found in the FAQ section,

“What is Vive le Canada.ca's mission?
The mission of Vive le Canada is to protect and improve Canadian sovereignties and democracy through education, dialogue, and advocacy, especially using existing and emerging communications tools.

We believe that the direction of this country should be set by its citizens, rather than by corporations or corporate trade bodies/trade agreements, the United States, or a small number of Canadian corporate elites.

Our goal is to build a website-based organization which is a respected hub of civic nationalist information, theory, community, and activism. Our vision is to build a social movement for popular sovereignty in Canada by educating and engaging citizens. This social movement can then support the adoption of legislation and/or government that prioritizes and institutionalizes mechanisms for protecting and improving Canadian and global democracy and self-determination.

We believe that Canada should maintain a position as a responsible and involved global citizen, and we support the continued development of a socially progressive Canadian society. We remain committed to the value of democratic decision-making, the value of citizen's rights over those of corporations, the value of reciprocal solidarity with other self-determination movements and/or organizations around the world, and the value of cultural diversity”

God! The mission sounds so noble, “…to protect and improve Canadian sovereignties and democracy through education…”
But here is the rub, or so I am told. We are slaves. And slaves do not have right and in reality dammed few privileges.
We really do not have a democracy either. What we have is mass ignorance acting under a party system that pretty much does wtf it wants .SPP Nay NAFTA and the rest of the alphabet soup acronyms are political.
Politics, thus far have done about as much use for a quality of life as prohibition does for a sober society, and will continue to do so as long as we continue to do what has proven to not work.
That way lays insanity!
If you doubt me look around
Imagine, if you will that you are a Sovereign.
How will you act?
How will you act towards me, as I am a Sovereign as well?
Dio

http://www.semperliber.org/Rights.htm

Rights vs. Privileges
There are essentially two "camps" on the issue of freedom. In one camp we have those who believe that government exists to provide people with freedom, based on the assumption that the ultimate authority lies in an area transcendent from humankind itself. Then, opposite them are those who believe that government grants "rights", which really, by definition are privileges since they are bestowed and revoked by other groups of humans. The latter groups must believe in and practice slavery, although individuals in this group will generally have to convince themselves through some psychological "gymnastics" that they are not perpetrating such a crime.
Rights are bestowed by a creator. This doesn't mean your parents, nor does it mean the state.
Privileges are NOT rights! They are bestowed by other humans - under their rules. What that means is that you grant THEM fealty, the fidelity sworn by a vassal to his feudal lord. I.e., you agree to play by their rules or even on their behalf. In essence, this is an "owner/owned" contract between people. Accepting privilege means you grant ownership of your behavior to another human being. Government grants privileges. Therefore, government can take them away.
The problem is that government is confusing rights with privileges. It doesn't see the distinction. So, your right to breath may well be confused with a privilege that the government may choose to revoke, like it did for the Branch Davidians and Randy Weaver's family.
In our view, only a creator can bestow or revoke a right - no matter what name you assign that creator. The job of government is to ensure that no human usurps the creator's power to bestow or revoke a right.* That means that the job of government is to protect individual rights: It has no power to grant or revoke rights and is clearly prohibited from doing so in the United States Bill of Rights. The Constitution clearly defines what powers the Government DOES have, and it is clear that the government may not interfere in inalienable (Absolute/Natural) rights.
End of story. No further discussion.
The only legitimate question at this point is, "Why is it important that I understand the difference between rights and privileges?", to which I'll answer:
It's important for you to know the difference between rights and privileges so that you know when someone is trying to deny you your rights. Believe me, there are plenty of people out there who would prefer that you DO NOT know the difference between rights and privileges because if you understand rights, they cannot enslave you.

"The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or by the hand of the divinity itself: and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power." They are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, -- Alexander Hamilton, 1775
"The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God." -- John F. Kennedy
*Even our Bill of Rights only acknowledges rights, it does not grant them. It just makes clear to present and future governments that the foundations of this country were built on the assumption that we, as individuals all possess inalienable rights beyond the powers of government.

Judicial Activism - undermining Constitutional Rule of Law and denying your rights - Ninth Circuit Court Disconnect from Natural Law (link)
What you can do (link)

Ninth Circuit Disconnect from Natural Law.
When you read what follows, keep in mind this one point: when you depart from natural law, you haven't gotten anywhere…
Apparently, the ninth circuit court has not kept this in mind, nor are they dimly aware of the consequences of attempting to flout natural law the way they have with their latest position, an insane position that they've taken about self-defense being only a collective right. That's right! "Insane" is the operative word, here, and I will conceptually connect the term "sanity" with the term "natural law" to expose the reality of the ninth circuit's collective mental illness which precludes a basic understanding of individual rights and which has them flying in the face of the American Way.
First, the dictionary definition of sanity: the quality or state of being sane; especially : soundness or health of mind.
Now, my definition of sanity - is that an individual is using enough of their mental potential so that they are connecting observable reality with properly-formed and interconnected abstractions in consciousness (which manifest on a conscious level as clear thought) so that the individual is in tune with natural law. This attunement with natural law maximizes mind/body coordination on both microcosmic, organic levels as well as macroscopic spiritual levels. More simply, sanity is the degree to which the individual is in tune with natural law, which is determined by the fineness and balance of that individual's overall mind/body coordination. It is the sharpness of and balance between heart and head which rules perception and conception.
Could this possibly explain why the ninth circuit court has missed the connection between individual rights, specifically the individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - and the means to preserve that life? I mean, how do they "square" individual rights as defined in the Declaration of Independence and the rest of the Bill of Rights, which so clearly expound on individual inalienable rights - with their ruling that individuals possess no right to keep and bear arms? Could it be that the individuals that comprise the ninth circuit court - are insane?
I submit that the ninth circuit court buys into that form of government we shall refer to here as collectivism (a.k.a. "mob rule") which tramples individual inalienable rights. That is, the judges on the ninth circuit court are collectivists, who see their judicial "solutions" only in terms of the collective, not actually on the level of individual rights. Well, the NAZIs operated on the basis of public or collective "health" too, in the same manner these judges on the ninth circuit court have ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is only a collective right "owned" by the state, which they believe should maintain a monopoly on the use of force. Their ruling makes the state supreme, not the individual and it turns our form of jurisprudence on it's head.
I submit that there are only two ways to perceive these ninth circuit court judges. Either they are mentally ill, or they are domestic enemies who conspire to undermine our form of government. Of course, that the megalomaniacal ARE mentally ill, there can be no doubt. What I'm suggesting, however, is that they are opposed to the American way and are working for and toward another form of government, that being a collectivist one. That is, they are denying you your individual rights.
Clearly, they are socialists and traitors to the United States of America - unless they are willing to concede that they are mentally unbalanced, that they are out of tune with natural law and that they are incompetent to sit on the bench where the clear thinking of the sane must prevail. Western civilization DEPENDS on this issue being resolved. (Of course, collectivism IS a symptom of mental illness, but I believe that in this case it's more of a conscious choice than the manifestation of disease.)
For the longest time, the ninth circuit court has "loosed" their decisions on the United States, the highest peak of western civilization yet known to the world. The ninth circuit's consistent flouting of Constitutional rule of law which constitutes an attempt to flout NATURAL law - reveals malice. The truly insane are not consistent, since they are divorced from reality and their personal constitution with regard to natural law is by organic fiat. That is, as their brain chemistry changes from nutrition, drugs and so forth, they will experience variable mental states which should therefore yield variable approaches to dealing with reality. Not so with the ninth circuit court. They are consistent in their malice towards the western values documented in our founder's writings. So, I must once again submit that these leftist judicial activists are carrying out conscious subversion and they should be charged accordingly. (In my view they're not insane, they're criminals! At least, they're lobbying for criminals - by disarming law-abiding citizens who then become future victims...)
The whole basis of Western civilization is that the individual, free from the constraints of over-burgeoning government - can create, he can forge a higher standard of living (note that key word, "living"…), he can make a better world for himself and his progeny by harnessing (operating in tune with) natural law in such a way as to raise he and his family above the mean, crawling things of the earth - without doing harm, without violating the rights of others. The ninth circuit court, however, disagrees with this view that man should be able to protect his family and himself from those who DO NOT understand the premise of Western civilization, those who are intent on doing harm. They (the ninth circuit judges) disagree with natural law which says, "I, as an individual have inalienable rights, one of which includes the right to defend that life". They disagree with the natural laws which even govern our own bodies, namely those natural forces which constitute an immune-system which protects us from organisms that would do us harm on a cellular level.
The ninth circuit court - is not a friend of western civilization. In fact, they are undermining it wholesale, with forethought and malice. Specifically, they are in DIRECT OPPOSITION to the founding principles of the United States, they are opposed to Constitutional rule of law which states that individuals DO have inalienable rights like the right to self-defense, the right to keep and BEAR arms! The ninth circuit court is destroying the "immune system" of this country by declaring that the "individual cells" (individuals) in this country - do not have the right of self-defense. This is clearly a case of the "mind" (the ninth circuit) being at odds with the "body" (us), to use a transdisciplinary "holographic" model. This would be the definition of insanity, except that it is being done by a conscious mindset that is alien to Western civilization. Call it an invasion by the brain-snatchers, if you want to abuse that old title… In any case, it is fiat rule of law, not American Constitutional rule of law.
Therefore, I must submit that we have a domestic enemy among us. Whether they are infiltrators from the third world who have sprung up among us via adoption of alien views or whether they're simple mental dysfunctionals who are ruled by the fiat dictates of their diseased brains which have observable trouble apprehending natural law - those principles which promote life - these ninth circuit court judges must be removed. I am hoping that mere exposure will stop their uncivilized, third-world, anti-American rantings which are subverting my country. After that, there are few alternatives.

Frederick P. Blume Jr. 12/12/2002
Permission to repost the article immediately above is granted under the condition that you repost it in it's entirety.
For more on ninth circuit and/or California judical activism, see: Twisted History and the Smith Case. The authors of these two articles - should be taken seriously. They are quite aware of the shape of our future, should things continue down this road... Also read Peter Mancus' article on this recent usurpation by the Ninth Circuit.
See also: Spitting on the Constitution on the FFF (Future of Freedom) Website.

To contact Semper Liber directly, click here.

Ok , that was a long read on a early sunday morning. Normally go for the short read.
this line stood out and made me rwead further.
.....................................................
We believe that the direction of this country should be set by its citizens, rather than by corporations or corporate trade bodies/trade agreements, the United States, or a small number of Canadian corporate elites.

............................
Then the natural laws thingwas fascinating. It would be nice to have a list of what are rights and what are privilages to see the difference.

I didn't like the riligious under tone of it but hey the rest sounded sound.
So we are all going to hell in a handbsket so slowly that we won't notice it when we get there.

Yup it wants me to buy a gun now.
I don't care if the law goes against me but if someone threatens my life or tries to enter my home with out my permission he will be sorely greated..

Well, a right is supposedly something you are automatically entitled to and a priveledge is something granted by someone else.
That said, I think the only right you really have is what you are strong enough to enforce, individually or collectively.
The right to breathe for example, is only as good as your ability to prevent someone else from stopping you from breathing.

More info

http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/index.html

http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_pre.htm

Survival of the fittest; is that what you advocate, Chumley?
Not a bad idea.
Everyone surely has a right to the necessities of life. As for priveleges, they can be granted, but perhaps should be taken away when they are abused.

"rights vs priviledges" triggers a belief in me that our constitution and attitude towards rights in Canada are all f#cked up.

In the US constitution, there are dozens of sentences stating " the government shall not..." Canada's charter of rights doesn't do this. It smuggly assumes that we never have to worry about our own government violating our rights.

Furthermore, I often see an attitude among Canadians that "if its not in the canadian charter of rights, then it isn't a right" We canadians obviously have a much different definition of 'freedom and liberty'. Ideally, freedom and liberty would be broadly defined, restrictions placed on it only after great hesitation.

Rights vs. Privileges vs. Popular Sovereignty is a more complete picture.

Benoit, the second part does have several freedoms which extend on to the Bill of Rights.

Anyways, it is alot easier to defend your freemdoms when you can rally behind something that exists rather than an implied agruement. The Constitution is not a piece a paper, it is the accumualation of sweat and blood that this country has had to collect over its lifetime.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The founders made it the second ammendment cause they found it that important,

My opinion they should have made it the frist cause you cant have freedom of speech with out the right to bear arms.