The Ignorance of Newt versus the Inalienable Rights of All

Monday, November 21, 2011
By Paul Martin

by Scott Lazarowitz
LewRockwell.com

During a recent Republican Presidential debate, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich implied that he strongly disagrees with very important assertions of the Declaration of Independence: “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.”

Additionally, like many people now, Gingrich seems to believe that there should be a different set of laws for society when there is a “war” underway. But the truth is, war is an artificial concept used by collectivists and statists to rationalize the commission of criminal acts of aggression against others and get away with it.

The truth is, there are really two kinds of behaviors in general:

Peaceful, non-aggressive behaviors, in which the people of a society act voluntarily amongst themselves, and under the rule of law that forbids physical aggression (except in a case of actual self-defense), theft, fraud and trespass; or
Non-peaceful, aggressive behavior that consists of the violation of others’ persons or property. These are the crimes of society, which include theft and the initiation of aggression against others, terrorist acts, and the use of the State’s armed apparatus to initiate violence against foreign peoples.
By “all men,” the Declaration refers to all of humankind created equal, and endowed with unalienable rights to life and liberty that are inherent in all of us as human beings. The Declaration does not state that such rights apply only to Americans. And “unalienable” (or inalienable) means that such rights are not given to anyone by government because they are inherent rights. If these basic, inherent rights are not given to us by the State and its agents, then the State may not take such rights away. And the Founders were very clear on the idea of due process, which are very strict rules placed on the government to prove its case against a suspect.

Gingrich disagrees with these basic points. He opposes the idea of presumption of innocence. If Gingrich believes that the President, a CIA officer, a soldier or general may have the power to be judge, jury and executioner against someone, then he certainly couldn’t believe in the idea of inalienable rights.

The Rest…HERE

Leave a Reply