SBH also posted this in the comments:

"That is why the U.S. system defines rights as it does, strictly as the rights to action. This was the approach that made the U.S. the first truly free country in all world history—and, soon afterwards, as a result, the greatest country in history, the richest and the most powerful. It became the most powerful because its view of rights made it the most moral. It was the country of individualism and personal independence.
Today, however, we are seeing the rise of principled immorality in this country. We are seeing a total abandonment by the intellectuals and the politicians of the moral principles on which the U.S. was founded. We are seeing the complete destruction of the concept of rights. The original American idea has been virtually wiped out, ignored as if it had never existed. The rule now is for politicians to ignore and violate men's actual rights, while arguing about a whole list of rights never dreamed of in this country's founding documents—rights which require no earning, no effort, no action at all on the part of the recipient."
-Leonard Peikoff

While I disagree with the idea of rights being earned, Peikoff is spot on. The McCain-Feingold law which directly abridges political speech - the very type of Speech the Founders sought to protect - was passed in the same era in which a court expanded Free Speech to include stripping.

I spent too much time this evening reading comments on the Human Rights Commissions in Canada. That these tribunals exist is an abomination. They do not exist to uphold basic Rights protected in Canada's Charter. They exist to come up with new Rights, including a Right not to be offended. That none of the 4 HRCs involved in the Steyn/McClean's and the Ezra Levant cases threw out the complaints with a forceful " As government entities, we have no authority to question, let alone judge, anyone in Canada for writing, publishing or refusing to publish anything ( libel, incitement, copyright infringement, and fraud excluded) " is an abomination. That so many commenters claimed Freedom of Speech should be limited to promote harmony, to prevent offense, or to prevent false ideas from spreading is frightening.

True, the US does not have any of these appalling Star Chambers . . . so far. But we will. Colleges and Universities across the country have them and the Speech Codes and Re-education Penalties that go with them. Private businesses can be required by US courts to prevent their employees from offending each other and often preemptively put their employees through Re-education. We have seen public schools ban controversial speech which dissents from an approved view and more than one temporarily ban American flags to avoid offending students who might not be American. Some of our elites - and a large part of the educational elites - are more than eager to replace Freedom with Socially Acceptable and are working to use the force of government to recreate all of us in their image.

Machinist said...

Democracy by it's nature is rule by man at his worst. A constitutional Republic allows rule by man at his best. It may still not be good enough. History will tell us if man's shortcomings will doom him to rule by force or if he can rise above his base nature. Our founding fathers gave us as perfect a start as anyone has been able to conceive of. It is up to us to carry it forward and I am not optimistic.

I do not know that a "Constitutional Republic allows rule by man at his best". It provides a process for blocking mob rule, but does not prevent it. Those granted the power to veto bad laws or strike down unconstitutional ones must also disagree with the mob and be willing to stand up against it. A Constitutional Republic also provides incentive for elected officials to pander to voters by buying votes with the public purse, as Fatwa noted, and by supporting laws outside the purview of the gov't to please the "there oughta be a law" voters and the "I want my Mommy" voters, as X noted. From Day One of the US under the Constitution, there have been legislators who wanted to use the Federal gov't for more than its authorized purposes and even Lincoln supported Federal intervention in the economy for the benefit of farmers and American workers.

Fatwa provided another apt quote:

"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in their struggle for independence." - C. A. Beard

and added:

"It's distressing that most Americans neither understand our Constitution nor have read and comprehended the Federalist Papers. (The latter were especially an eye-opener for me. It would be very nice if fully half of the year spent on U.S. history in American high schools was spent on reading - and understanding - select tracts from the Federalist Papers...)"

This was very apparent in the comment section I was reading. These citizens, who either do not understand or do not respect the Constitution, are the ones who will vote for the next abridgement of our Rights and for Star Chambers to punish those of us who dare to exercise them. As, Mac said. I am not optimistic.

Gov't stays limited only as long as the citizens vote for limited gov't.



to be continued . . .