One of the signs that our republic is falling apart is the fact we are less and less willing to protect the integrity of the vote. Fortunately, we still have leaders willing to fight for our republic. Here is an email I received from Delegate Rob Bell today.
Dear Richard,
Today’s Washington Post headline: “He fought in World War II. He died in 2014. And he just registered to vote in Va.” According to the article, a JMU student in Harrisonburg registered 19 dead Virginians to vote in the 2016 election. Read it by clicking here.
This follows on a TV news report of a long-dead voters who have nonetheless cast ballots in Colorado.
Virginia is a battleground state, and every vote is important. In the General Assembly, I have long supported the photo ID requirement and other voter fraud bills. Election crimes like that in Harrisonburg prove these laws are needed.
You’d think honest elections would receive bipartisan support, but Terry McAuliffe vetoed an absentee ballot measure in 2015 and Attorney General Mark Herring refused to defend Virginia’s photo ID law against a lawsuit funded by George Soros. Virginia taxpayers had to pay private lawyers $600,000 in taxpayer money to do the job Herring was elected to do, and the case is still being considered by the federal court.
Enough! Stand against voter fraud – sign the online petition by clicking here.
Sincerely,
Delegate Rob Bell
Candidate for Attorney General
If you do not think voter fraud is real, then consider.
We have a political party that features “campaign finance reform” as one of its big issues. If we are supposed to believe that rich people will buy politicians, why are we not also supposed to believe that rich people will buy elections?
We are supposed to believe that voter ID is all about voter suppression. If we are willing to believe people would suppress the votes of some people, why are we not willing to believe that other people would over-count the votes they like?
Hillary Clinton is a known liar. There is no doubt about it. Even under oath she will lie and deceive. (And I see reason to debate the obvious. Look it up.) Why are we supposed to believe that a political party that would select someone as dishonest as Hillary Clinton as its presidential nominee does not have people in it who are capable of voter fraud?
Instead of just calling our rights God-given, we now call them “human rights”. Why? Well, here is the excuse.
Attributing human rights to God’s commands may give them a secure status at the metaphysical level, but in a very diverse world it does not make them practically secure. Billions of people do not believe in the God of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. If people do not believe in God, or in the sort of god that prescribes rights, then if you want to base human rights on theological beliefs you must persuade these people of a rights-supporting theological view. This is likely to be even harder than persuading them of human rights. Legal enactment at the national and international levels provides a far more secure status for practical purposes. (from here)
Is that what happened in the United States? Were people just persuaded without the benefit of theological support to respect each others rights? No. Consider.
Natural law was deemed to pre-exist actual social and political systems. Natural rights were thereby similarly presented as rights individuals possessed independently of society or polity. Natural rights were thereby presented as ultimately valid irrespective of whether they had achieved the recognition of any given political ruler or assembly. The quintessential exponent of this position was the 17th. Century philosopher John Locke and, in particular, the argument he outlined in his Two Treatises of Government (1688). At the centre of Locke’s argument is the claim that individuals possess natural rights, independently of the political recognition granted them by the state. These natural rights are possessed independently of, and prior to, the formation of any political community. Locke argued that natural rights flowed from natural law. Natural law originated from God. (from here)
The ideas, if not the words of John Locke, found their way into our Declaration of Independence. Here is a pertinent excerpt from the SECOND TREATISE OF GOVERNMENT by JOHN LOCKE.
Man being born, as has been proved, with a title to perfect freedom, and an uncontrouled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of nature, equally with any other man, or number of men in the world, hath by nature a power, not only to preserve his property, that is, his life, liberty and estate, against the injuries and attempts of other men; but to judge of, and punish the breaches of that law in others, as he is persuaded the offence deserves, even with death itself, in crimes where the heinousness of the fact, in his opinion, requires it. But because no political society can be, nor subsist, without having in itself the power to preserve the property, and in order thereunto, punish the offences of all those of that society; there, and there only is political society, where every one of the members hath quitted this natural power, resigned it up into the hands of the community in all cases that exclude him not from appealing for protection to the law established by it. (from here)
Those who founded our nation were familiar with John Lockes ideas. Hence, these words in the Declaration of Independence.
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 instituted 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 institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. (from here)
What Volokh focuses upon in his presentation is something called positive rights. What are positive rights? Volokh believes “positive” rights should remain limited, but we should not deny they exist. What are “positive” rights? Wikipedia provides this distinction between positive and negative rights.
Philosophers and political scientists make a distinction between negative and positive rights (not to be confused with the distinction between negative and positive liberties). According to this view, positive rights usually oblige action, whereas negative rights usually oblige inaction. These obligations may be of either a legal or moral character. The notion of positive and negative rights may also be applied to liberty rights. (continued here)
Basically, when we observe each others negative rights, we don’t commit crimes against each other. We don’t murder, rob, and enslave our neighbors. On the other hand, when the government insists that we observe other people’s positive rights, we have to give other people something. If we did not agree to give other people something and don’t want our government to give away our life, liberty, or property, that can be especially irksome.
This distinction between positive and negative rights is a 1979 invention by the Czech jurist Karel Vasak. Still unsatisfied by the additional complexity he had added, Vasak split our “rights” into three separate generations.
There are three overarching types of human rights norms: civil-political, socio-economic, and collective-developmental (Vasek, 1977). The first two, which represent potential claims of individual persons against the state, are firmly accepted norms identified in international treaties and conventions. The final type, which represents potential claims of peoples and groups against the state, is the most debated and lacks both legal and political recognition. Each of these types includes two further subtypes. Scholar Sumner B. Twiss delineates a typology: (continued here)
Effectively, first generation rights are negative rights, and the second and third generation “rights” are positive rights.
What is the problem with “positive rights”? Since Libertarians have a pretty good understanding of this issue, let’s hear from one. See the video below.
Prof. Aeon Skoble accepts the nomenclature of “positive” and “negative” rights, but he points out a basic problem with so-called “positive” rights. Unless government infringes upon people’s “negative” rights, government cannot guarantee anyone’s so-called “positive” rights.
Here is the problem in a nutshell.
Natural rights—or, as they have been un-euphoniously dubbed, “negative rights”—pertain to freedom from the uninvited interventions of others. Respect for negative rights requires merely that we abstain from pushing one another around. Positive rights, by contrast, require that we be provided with goods or services at the expense of other persons, which can only be accomplished by systematic coercion. This idea is also known as the doctrine of entitlements; that is, some people are said to be entitled to that which is earned by other people. (from here)
Biblical Support For God-Given Rights
The first book of the Bible speaks of human rights. Genesis 1:27 says we are each made in the image of God.
The image of God in man also means that murder is a most heinous crime. “Whoever sheds the blood of man, / by man shall his blood be shed; / for in the image of God / has God made man” (Genesis 9:6). The severity of the punishment underscores the severity of the offense. The Mosaic Law is full of examples of how God expects everyone to be treated humanely. The Ten Commandments contain prohibitions against murder, theft, coveting, adultery, and bearing false testimony. These five laws promote the ethical treatment of our fellow man. Other examples in the Law include commands to treat immigrants well (Exodus 22:21; Leviticus 19:33-34), to provide for the poor (Leviticus 19:10; Deuteronomy 15:7-8), to grant interest-free loans to the poor (Exodus 22:25), and to release all indentured servants every fifty years (Leviticus 25:39-41). (from here)
Are there positive rights in the Bible? Not exactly. What the Bible speaks of is our responsibilities towards each other. When Jesus told The Parable of the Good Samaritan, He gave us an example to follow, not a government program.
Consider this quote from John Quincy Adams.
Jesus Christ. . . . came to teach and not to compel. His law was a Law of Liberty. He left the human mind and human action free. — John Quincy Adams (from here and here)
OF A POST TO COME promised to compare the governing approaches of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton with respect to two issues.
The growth of the power of government.
The protection of our rights.
The Growth Of The Power Of Government
Why is it a problem when government is powerful? Government exists to protect our rights. Yet the power we give our government makes government itself a threat to our rights. Therefore, we must choose between giving the government just enough power and giving it too much.
To give our government the resources it needs to defend our rights, we must give our leaders the authority to tax us and spend our money. Nevertheless, the more we allow our government to tax and spend, the more we work for government instead of ourselves. At some point, we risk slavery.
Some decisions which effect a people must be made jointly. Thus, government must sometimes make decisions we would otherwise make for ourselves. So it is that in a nation of free men and women, we have laws that restrict us from harming each other (traffic laws, for example). In a nation of slaves, however, the laws just list a few trivial decisions that the leaders permit the people to make for themselves.
Here is a table that summarizes where the candidates stand. Not certain the information is correct? Then check their web sites. I have only provided links where their positions are not available on their own websites.
What you won’t often see in any list is the expression “Philosophical Conservatism.” Why? Well, many of the people who educate us are opposed to the concept of Conservatism. They don’t like Conservatism, they don’t understand Conservatism, and they don’t want anyone to be Conservative. The last thing they want is any discussion of a coherent Conservative philosophy.
Consider some quotes.
Some are just shallow and silly.
Philosophical conservatism is defined as the belief that people are evil or selfish by nature, while philosophical liberalism is described as the belief that people are good or have great moral potential. (from here)
Some are so “deep” they drown in their own nonsense.
Fourth, there is what I would call philosophical (or also anthropological) conservatism, that in turn is rooted in a particular philosophical anthropology or perhaps social ontology. This stance implies a commitment to realizing a set of substantive values, irrespective of whether these values are already instantiated in the present. In other words, for philosophical conservatives, the primary question is not about what the past suggests, or how, or by which proven method, these values should be implemented. The question is of course what sets of values we are talking about in this context. I claim that philosophical conservatives are primarily invested in the importance of hierarchical relationships, or some more or less naturalized conception of inequality. They do not simply emphasize the particular and the potential importance of its preservation; they attribute differential value to particular sets of human beings, and they emphasize that certain social arrangements distributing power unequally are unalterable. (from here)
Some are just hateful.
The philosophical conservative is someone willing to pay the price of other people’s suffering for his principles. (from here)
This last quote is actually fairly popular, and it is the way too many see Conservatism. Such is the headache with letting politicians educate our children. Should we be surprised that our SOCIALIST school system does not encourage us to ponder what it means to be a Conservative?
Consider this observation.
Conservatives typically possess a pessimistic vision of human nature, drawing on the modern tradition, on Hobbes’s belief, that were it not for strong institutions, men would be at each others’ throats and would constantly view one another with deep suspicion. (Their emphasis is thus not on the ensuing hypothetical pacifying social contract but on the prevalence of fear in human society). Conservatives are highly skeptical of power and man’s desire to use it, for they believe that in time it corrupts even the most freedom loving wielders: hence, the potential accession to any position of supreme power over others, whether in the guise of a national or international chamber, is to be rejected as being just as dangerous a state as Hobbes’s vision of the anarchic state of nature. Conservatives thus applaud those institutions that check the propensity for the stronger or the megalomaniacal to command power: conservatives magnify the suspicion one may hold of one’s neighbor. (from here)
Do Conservatives possess a pessimistic vision of human nature? Yes. We realize that we are all imperfect and quite corruptible. The Christian Conservative takes it for granted that but for the grace of God we would all be going to hell. And yet because God loves us we all have infinite worth. With the help of the Holy Spirit, we each can do good works.
Are you a Social Conservative or a Fiscal Conservative? Why? What is the logic that drives you to be a Social or Fiscal Conservative? Have you ever asked yourself questions such as these questions?
What is the purpose of government?
What powers should the government have?
Can the government provide justice? What sort of justice? How should the government provide justice?
When is it moral to force our neighbors to pay taxes? What functions of government justify punishing people when they refuse to pay their taxes?
When is it proper for government officials to transfer public funds to private charities? Is a private charity that is funded entirely by the government still a “private” charity?
Is it moral for government officials to take money from some citizens and provide charity to other citizens? Can we trust the same government officials to redistribute the wealth and protect our property rights?
What is a constitution? What purpose does a constitution serve? How should a constitution be interpreted?
What is the role of the Declaration of Independence in our nation’s heritage?
Are men corrupted by power? How do we prevent our leaders from becoming too powerful?
What obligations does each citizen have to exercise control over the government?
When do citizens have an obligation to rebel against the government?
Unless we consider such questions, and we have ready answers, how can we say we have a coherent Conservative philosophy? To be any kind of Conservative, we must first construct a coherent Conservative philosophy. Once we have done so, I think many Conservatives will realize that for our Conservatism to have any meaning, we must be Philosophical Conservatives, that is, we must be able to logically explain why we believe what we believe.
One of the signs that our republic is falling apart is the fact we are less and less willing to protect the integrity of the vote. Fortunately, we still have leaders willing to fight for our republic. Here is an email I received from Delegate Rob Bell today.
