I … Reformed Christianity is a religion based upon the concept that God has two Wills and two Vessels; and that the Vessel either belongs to God or to Sin And Death.
One is owned either by God, or is mortgaged to Sin and Death. Human beings do not own themselves. For those in Christ, The Apostle Paul said in 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, “Ye are not your own: for ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.” Paul simply states a fact: one does not own one’s self, one was redeemed by Christ’s blood. And he states a consequence, one is to glorify God in body and spirit; and he emphasises the ownership of God, stating that the believer’s physical body and spirit belong to God. Every limb of one’s frame belongs to God; it is his property; He has bought it “with a price.”
II …One has a choice of four sources to determine what right(s) exist: religion, law, philosophy, or the state.
1) … Reformed Christianity holds there is only one right: But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. 1 John 1:12
Right or Rights can only exist where there is power. Where the power is, there the right is.
1 John 1:12 means that one, after having received Christ, has the power to manifest as, or to develop as, the son of God. In other words, one having received Christ, can exercise his right and actuate as the progeny of God
Either one will manifest genuine concerning the faith of the Son of God or one will manifest reprobate concerning the Son of God. Manifesting faithful to the Word of God is the only Right there is.
The Apostle John wrote 1 John 1:12 under inspiration of the Holy Spirit to confront the “Law of The Jews? and the “Wisdom of Greeks ? Wisdom of the Ancients”. The Jews held forth the Prophets, The Nation of Israel and The Law for one’s identity and experience. The Greeks held forth the Wisdom of the Ancients, such as Plato, and philosophy for identity and experience.
The only way one can live free, is in Jesus Christ and in Him alone.
2) … Some look to Constitutional Law, State or other Law to determine what rights one has. For example, Chuck Baldwin, Pastor of the Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, FL, and the Constitution Party’s presidential candidate in 2008, called for a “revolution of the individual states: to reclaim their sovereignty and fight for the liberties of their sovereigns (We the People)”.
3) … Some look to philosophy for rights.
Some hold Libertarianism. For example, Glenn Jacobs looks to Libertarian Philosophy for rights. He relates that lLibertarian philosophy is based on the concept of self-ownership. Human beings own themselves. When we rightfully acquire property, either by making first claim to that property (homesteading) or through voluntary transfer with another person or persons, that property becomes part of our lives, and thus we lay claim to ownership of that property as we would our own bodies. One of the problems that libertarians encounter when discussing various issues is determining ownership, or, in many cases, articulating the nuances of applying property rights to the issue. These problems are compounded when government is thrown into the equation since the same rules about property and ownership that apply to private individuals do not apply to coercive government. The hot-button issue of immigration is a great example, illustrating the complexities involved in applying property rights to an issue. Ownership means that one not only possess something, but one also controls the thing. In other words, if you truly own something, you must be free to use the thing as you wish so long as doing so does not violate the property of others. You must also be free to transfer the thing to another person so long as the transaction is voluntary and consensual. When it comes to land, property rights, i.e. control over that land, include controlling who enters into the boundaries of the land. When dealing with the topic of immigration, that is, the movement of individuals across political designations, this is where things get confusing. The State claims not only to be able to control who crosses the land that it owns, but also to control who enters land owned by private individuals. It also claims the authority to prohibit certain individuals from living within its borders, even if these individuals acquired their land rightfully (using the criteria above) by homesteading or through voluntary exchange. Those of us who believe that private property is the basis of a free society must ask: how was this authority engendered?
Wikipedia on the topic of self-ownership relates that some have traced the concept of self-ownership to certain individuals such as John Locke, who said, the individual “has a right to decide what would become of himself and what he would do, and as having a right to reap the benefits of what he did.” Or, as stated more succinctly by Locke, “every man has a Property in his own Person.” Sovereign-minded individuals usually assert a right of private property external to the body, reasoning that if a person owns themselves, they own their actions, including those that create or improve resources. Therefore, they own their own labor and the fruits thereof.
In The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard argues that 100 percent self-ownership is the only principle compatible with a moral code that applies to every person – a “universal ethic” – and that it is a natural law by being what is naturally best for man. He says if every person is not entitled to full self-ownership, then there are only two alternatives: “(1) the ‘communist’ one of Universal and Equal Other-ownership, or (2) Partial Ownership of One Group by Another – a system of rule by one class over another.” He says that it is not possible for alternative (2) to be a universal ethic but only a partial ethic, which says that one class of people do not have the right of self-ownership but another class does. This, therefore, is incompatible with what is being sought – a moral code applicable to every person – instead of a code applicable to some and not to others, as if some individuals are humans and some are not. In the case of alternative (1), every individual would own equal parts of every other individual so that no one is self-owned. Rothbard acknowledges that this would be a universal ethic, but, he argues, it is “Utopian and impossible for everyone to keep continual tabs on everyone else, and thereby to exercise his equal share of partial ownership over every other man.” He says the system would break down, resulting in a ruling class who specializes in keeping tabs over other individuals. Since this would grant a ruling class ownership rights over its subjects, it would again be logically incompatible with a universal ethic. Even if a collectivist Utopia of everyone having equal ownership of everyone else could be sustained, he argues, individuals would not be able to do anything without prior approval by everyone in society. Since this would be impossible in a large society, no one would be able to do anything and the human race would perish. Therefore, the collectivist alternative universal ethic where every individual would own an equal portion of every other individual violates the natural “law of what is best for man and his life on earth.” He says that if a person exercises ownership over another person, that is, uses aggression against him rather than leaving him to do as he wills, “this violates his nature.”
And from the Libertas article What Is A Sovereign Individual: A Sovereign Individual believes in rights and power for the individual. Some of those defining characteristics include: a belief in the concept of self-ownership; a strong commitment to individual rights; a distrust of political democracy; a market-anarchist or natural order mindset; a belief in the right to financial and personal privacy; a willingness to think and act outside the square – as regards being beholden to existing nation states. The term was popularized by the book The Sovereign Individual: Mastering the Transition to the Information Age, written by William Rees-Mogg and James Dale Davidson in 1997. The term Sovereign Individual could also be applied to another less known word – PT (meaning Perpetual Traveler). The term PT was first coined by W. G. Hill in his underground classic of the same name. In many ways the ideas suggested in PT are very similar to the concept of life as a sovereign individual. A PT is someone who lives a private life, and spends his time “visiting” countries – as a tourist, not being a resident. The thinking behind this idea is that as a tourist you are afforded a much more hospitable welcome and general treatment, than if you were a citizen or resident. Another related word is internationalist – meaning someone who thinks globally and has broken formal and emotional ties with any particular nation state. I’m not sure I can actually break emotional ties to Oklahoma, Texas or Hawai’i though. So, the term sovereign individual is a confluence of many different ideas – all linked with the basic concept of self-ownership.
Street Dictionary provides the word, Anarcho Capitalist: a person whose philosophy is based on the idea of individual sovereignty, and a prohibition against theft, coercion and fraud. It sees the only just basis for law as arising from private property norms and an unlimited right of contract between free and sovereign individuals. From this basis, anarcho-capitalism rejects the state as an unjustified monopolist and systematic aggressor against sovereign individuals, and embraces anti-statist laissez-faire capitalism. Anarcho-capitalists would aim to protect individual liberty and property by replacing government monopoly, which is involuntarily funded through theft by taxation, with private, competing businesses that use physical force only in defense of liberty and property against aggressors. Hence, they believe that all goods and services, including law, order, and security, should be supplied through the mechanism of a free market. Anarcho capitalists know that when you keep all of what you produce, you have an incentive to produce more, thus the whole of society benefits greatly from each individuals inherent greed.
Facebook Understanding Personal Sovereignty, relates that the term, personal sovereignty, emphasizes a fundamental premise: Your body belongs to you exclusively. It is your property to do with whatever you want, as long as you don’t infringe on the property rights of others. Acts commonly considered self-destructive or eccentric are within the prerogative of the owner. In short: nobody owns you.
Serge Kahili King relates personal sovereignty is an issue which affects each of us as individuals and as a society, whether we realize it or not. Understanding it can help us to interpret what is going on within us and around us. Increasing it can radically transform our existence. The word “sovereign” means to be in supreme authority over someone or something, and to be extremely effective and powerful. Therefore, it is usually applied to gods, royalty and governments. We speak of kings and queens as sovereigns (even when they are figureheads), and of the sovereign rights of nations and States. Personal sovereignty, then, would imply the intrinsic authority and power of an individual to determine his or her own direction and destiny. If that sounds suspiciously like free will, it’s because personal sovereignty and free will are the same thing. Just as being a sovereign nation means having the right and power to make decisions and take actions in the national interest without being forced to by another nation, so being a sovereign person means being able to choose one’s actions and reactions without being forced to by another person. To the degree there is free will in all such choices, national or personal, there is sovereignty. Although sovereignty also means to be powerful and effective, it doesn’t necessarily follow that once you have it you can do anything you want. Whether you are a nation or a person, you also have to consider the sovereignty of others. Of course, you could try to diminish or destroy the sovereignty of others to get what you want, the way nations and people sometimes do, but human experience shows that you can usually accomplish more by cooperating than by conquering. Ultimately, however, we each have only as much sovereignty as we can demonstrate. Having sovereign rights and being sovereign are not the same thing. The way to increase your personal sovereignty is to increase your use of free will. The way to do that is to decide for yourself what actions to take and reactions to have in any situation, and to decide for yourself how to interpret your actions and reactions whether they are freely chosen or not.
Karl John writes the anarcho-capitalist rejection of the state is only the ultimate consequence of individualism, which also rejects the very concepts of “society,” “community,” and the “common good.” The “liberated” individual has no connections to any other individual except those he contractually enters into; his relation to the state is not as an active citizen of a republic, but as a passive consumer of government services, otherwise demanding to be left alone; why should he accept government services on a non-contractual basis? Libertarians all agree that the state, if it exists, should be nothing more than an abstract legal framework setting ground-rules within which autonomous individuals may pursue their divergent “values” and material interests.
Yet, Neoconservative Philosophy is the guiding and transcendent philosophy of the age; it came through Leo Strauss , a philosophy instructor at the University of Chicago. He developed and held forth Straussism. And today, Straussism is the prevailing and predominate philosophy of the age. Straussism presents the Wisdom of the Ancients: there is only one right: The Natural Right of the Few to Rule the Many.
Strauss called for “philosopher kings” to arise to manifest this right. His student-disciples, the Straussians, headed by Paul Wolfowitz, left academia in search of political power. They called themselves neocons and constructed neo-conservatism; they rose to power in the White House. Straussism is now the dynamo behind foreign and domestic United State policy.
Strussians, hold that those who are fit to rule, are those who realize there is no morality — that there is only one natural right — the right of the superior to rule over the inferior.
Strauss divided the history of political thought into two camps: the ancients are wise and wily, whereas the modern philosophers, like Locke and other liberals, are vulgar and foolish.
Yes, there is a major conflict between religion and philosophy.
Realizing the perceived difference about rights, the Apostle Paul communicated that the conflict is to be resolved in a non-resistive manner:
1 Corinthians 13:1-7: 1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same. 4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. 7Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
Tyrannical neocon rule is God’s furnace and forge, hammer and anvil where one’s right is learned, developed and exercised.
It is highly likely that a national emergency will arise: either the outbreak of pandemic bird flu, or rioting due to gasoline shortages during the upcoming war with Iran. The national emergency will require the use of United Nation’s peace-keeping troops under NORTHCOM, and its chain of command, that is its command authority, for security and order. This will establish tyrannical neocon rule.
If one be a genuine Christian, one will manifest his right, that being the power to actuate as the son or daughter of God; and in doing so he will manifest the presence of Jesus Christ in a non-hostile and non-resistive way to those who desire to rule over him, even if it means suffering or hardship or death.
Being subject to Straussian rule is God’s will.
Yet, being subject does not mean one can share in the deceitful deed of wicked governance: one is not to participate in another’s sin by counsel, command, consent, provocation, praise or flattery, concealment, partaking, silence, or by defense of a wrong done.
Furthermore, one is to come out and be separate from the world.
Tyrannical rule is God’s forge and furnace, hammer and anvil where one’s right, the right to become the son of God — is learned, developed and exercised.
Paul served as living example of the one and only right in 2 Corinthians 4:7-10: We have this treasure in earthen vessels that the excellence of the power may be of God and not of us. We are hard pressed on every side, yet not crushed, perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed always carrying about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body.not your own: for ye are bought with a price:” the price being the blood of Jesus.
I feel the Libertarians usurped the principle of Liberty, from Christ, who said You will know the Truth, and the Truth will set you free and who said If the Son sets you free, you are free indeed. It’s only through Christ that one has freedom; as the Apostle Paul said: for the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and of death.
Could it be that the Libertarians “peddle” Liberty for the sake of filthy lucre?
4) … In the age of global governance, the announcements of state leaders or regional leaders determine what rights one has.
One is wise to ask what is sovereign and who is sovereign as rights are exercised out of sovereignty. Let me ask: is the individual sovereign? …. Are the states sovereign entitites? It looks to me that states rights have gone bye-bye; they are a principle of a bygone era. In Washington DC and in Arizona, President Obama is now sovereign, his will, his way and his word is the law of the land. We are living in the era of global governance, when a crisis arises in a geographical region, finance leaders and state leaders meet in summit and announce policy, mechanisms, and rules that define one’s rights. The precedent has been set by both President Bush and now President Obama, that when a crisis emerges, the President can militarize an area to secure and stabilize it militarily. As greater crises develope and become more severe, I expect a world leader, a Sovereign, and a world banker, a Seignior, to emerge, fulfilling the call of Timothy Geither for unified regulation of banking globally as related in James Politi and Gillian Tett Financial Times article NY Fed Chief In Push For Global Bank Framework Personally I believe that God and His will are sovereign; and that in eternity past, He foresaw all that would happen and is happening, and is simply letting things proceed along a pre-established course.
We have President Obama announcing that he is sending 1,200 National Guard to the Arizona-Mexico border, as Erica Werner and Jacques Billeaud of the Associated Press, on Tuesday May 25, 2010 at 8:51 PM, in article Obama To Send 1,200 Troops To The Mexican Border, report from Washington that under pressure to take action, President Barack Obama ordered 1,200 National Guard troops to boost security along the U.S.-Mexico border, preempting Republican efforts to force a congressional vote to send the troops.
Obama will also request $500 million for border protection and law enforcement activities, according to lawmakers and administration officials.
The president’s action comes as chances for comprehensive immigration reform, Obama’s long-stated goal, look increasingly dim in this election year. Obama has been all but compelled to do something since Arizona’s passage of a tough illegal-immigration law thrust the border problem into the public spotlight.
Indeed, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer credited her signing of the controversial new law for compelling Obama to act. Signing the law, Brewer said in a statement, “clearly ignited the talk of action in Washington for the people of Arizona and other border states.”
The National Guard troops will work on intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support, analysis and training, and support efforts to block drug trafficking. They will temporarily supplement Border Patrol agents until Customs and Border Protection can recruit and train additional officers and agents to serve on the border, according to a letter Tuesday from top administration security officials to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich.
In 2006, President George W. Bush sent thousands of troops to the border to perform support duties that tie up immigration agents. But that program has since ended, and politicians in border states have called for troops to be sent to curb human and drug smuggling and to deal with Mexico’s drug violence that has been spilling over into the United States.
The White House released the letter signed by national security adviser James Jones and White House countertenor chief John Brennan not long after Obama met at the Capitol with Republican senators who pressed him on immigration issues, including the question of sending troops to the border.
Arizona Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl have been urging such a move, and Republicans planned to try to require it as an amendment to a pending war spending bill.
In a speech Tuesday on the Senate floor, McCain said the situation on the U.S.-Mexico border has “greatly deteriorated.” He called for 6,000 National Guard troops to be sent, and he asked for $250 million more to pay for them.
“I appreciate the additional 1,200 being sent … as well as an additional $500 million, but it’s simply not enough,” McCain said.
McCain’s amendment would direct the defense secretary to deploy the National Guard troops. The letter from Jones and Brennan took scathing aim at that approach.
“It represents an unwarranted interference with the commander in chief’s responsibilities to direct the employment of our armed forces,” Jones and Brennan wrote.
Democrats were considering countering McCain’s amendment with a proposal of their own after disclosure of the administration plans. The White House wasn’t expected to formally send its spending request to Capitol Hill until after the Memorial Day recess, said Kenneth Baer, spokesman for the White House Office of Management and Budget.
A military official said Tuesday that details were still being worked out on the troops’ orders and destinations, adding that the timing of their deployment was not yet clear. Also undetermined was which units from which states would deploy.
The Defense Department, which has been jousting with the Homeland Security Department for the better part of a year over the possible deployment, had previously expressed concerns that the troops not be used for law enforcement duties. Pentagon officials are worried about perceptions that the U.S. was militarizing the border.
The administration’s plans appear to use Guard troops only in a supporting role, according to the military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the details were still being worked out. Some of the troops will be armed, but others will not.
Arizona Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords said the situation on the ground now is different from when Bush deployed the Guard. Arrests have fallen in the Arizona sector and there’ve been record drug seizures.
She said the border is more violent and law enforcement is outgunned. She and other lawmakers want the troops to be armed — they were not in the previous deployment.
She said the U.S. needs to “spend what it takes” to secure its border with Mexico.
The Mexican Embassy said Tuesday it hoped the National Guard troops would be used to fight drug cartels and not enforce immigration laws. Mexico has traditionally objected to the use of military forces to control undocumented migration, saying such measures would criminalize migrants and open the way for potential abuse.
Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, told a group of Spanish-language reporters Tuesday that the National Guard troops would not deal directly with migrants.
More than 20,000 Border Patrol agents are deployed now, mostly along the nation’s southern border.
Billeaud reported from Phoenix. Associated Press writers Andrew Taylor, Suzanne Gamboa, Lolita C. Baldor and Luis Alonso in Washington and Paul Davenport in Phoenix contributed to this report.