Individual Rights Need Protection

Individual rights are often considered a superfluous notion, dispelled by the concept of human rights, as discussed in my last post. Consequently many folk esteem democracy to be the just form of government. It is a representative government; some say representative republicanism, wherein the people’s representatives make binding decisions called statute laws, and enforce them, backed by violence and threats of violence.

Was authoritarian government the original intention? Was not the goal to protect the people, and their right to live in freedom and peace, as the diagram illustrates? Consent of the governed  One can see that government, as a protective body, could justifiably claim to have the ‘consent of the governed.’ However, as the diagram shows, consent is only granted for protecting people and their rights. That was the original intent and purpose of government.

The switch is deadly.

What guarantees that government will stick to this charter, and not start controlling peoples actions, albeit in the name of protection? Who will decide what is permissible and what is not?  What baseline reference will determine what is desirable, honourable, just, or protective, to formulate such rules?

If the goal is to protect people’s lives then for each our right to life is paramount above all. Creator endowed us each with the right to life, hence individual rights. Rights are of individual people, therefore, not of government. If, however, those roles are reversed, then rights are of government and not people. The government cannot grant rights, only permissions.

The switch is deadly. What purports to be a representative government is not a body upholding the people, but people in government buttressing their process of domination and control.State rule

People are then nothing but ‘human resources,’ fuel for a monster that determines who gets crushed and who does not, as the next diagram shows.

Individual rights are denied.

Statute rules direct people’s activities into sustaining and maintaining the control beast at their own expense. Justice diverts from people’s right to life to the governments claimed right to determine rights. Compliance with every edict demanded, with enforcement through violence if necessary, such immoral action is hailed essential for a moral society.

Not only is such so-called representative government impossible, but it is also insane. We are stuck with legally approved (non-consented) violence, in place of protection from aggression according to natural law. Worse even, this in the name of morality, justice, and for the common good. Most folks agree to governments of this ilk, and agressive enforcement because they consider they will ultimately benefit. So they champion democracy.

Blind obedience

The sick joke is on them. Entirely convinced of (legal and moral) majority benefit, they are blind to authoritarian rule and tyrannical enforcement demanded by a tiny minority. So it is that people are a dispensable fuel that keeps the fire of dictatorial rule burning bright. So long as people believe that government represents them, they’ll not grasp that it now exists only in support of itself. Consequently, they’ll never see how individual right to life is rejected.

Now, do you see what the phrase ‘consent of the governed’ really means, today? It’s the exact opposite of what was originally sought and intended. Today, we support that moral reversal every time that we vote for it. We consent to violence while demanding to be protected from it. To fall for this magician’s trick and not challenge it, is to consent, isn’t it? It’s called tacit consent. Have we lost our minds?

Individual rights need protection

Let’s go back to the idea of protecting people and upholding their right to life. Right to life belongs to every individual because life belongs to every individual. To deny another’s right to life is to deny one’s own. Thus no right can exist to deny another’s right to life. Accordingly, there is only one issue. The arrest of that which violates or denies people’s individual right to their life. That is it—nothing more.

The principle is justice. One who violates another’s right to life serves unjustness. Their actions violate natural law, by which, trespass is self-confessed. Activities outside of natural law are those of an ‘outlaw.’

Justice is the process of remediating that unjustness. It is the means of restoring natural order; meaning natural law.

A Constitution – of Man

A constitution that defines individual rights is necessary. Such is not a bill of rights. It is not a document written for Man. Such a ‘constitution’ derives from the natural laws encrypted within our nature.  It is of Man, exactly because it derives from the natural laws encrypted within the nature of every individual man, woman, and child on earth. These natural laws are universal, independent of race, creed, colour, or country, all described in my book, ‘Law from Within.’ Together they constitute a ‘Declaration of Individual Rights,’ as endowed by Creator. Although personal to each, their orderly interconnectivity is ripe for social adaptation without change.

Commission of Justice

Such a Constitution calls for a ‘body’ commissioned by the people to protect and uphold their right to life. Such may be called a ‘Commission of Justice†.’ Constitutionally forbidden to write rules that would violate another’s right to life, its sole task would consist of arresting those who do, to restore justice. Force may be necessary at times, but only that needed to terminate the original trespass. All else is new trespass. Consent of the governed


As best described, symbiosis is the interaction between two different organisms living in close physical association, typically to the advantage of both.
Do the words heart and lungs spring to mind? Picture them as two unique individuals living in society, and we get a glimpse of what symbiotic community surely is. One organ in our body is not a bureaucrat and the other a slave. Both are unique, independent and creative. One’s right to life upholds the other. Expand that idea into a social context, and social advancement emerges from the individualistic creativity of artists, scientists, and entrepreneurs working in cooperation and collaboration. Creating achieves much more than conquering. Prosperity, stability, and service begin with asserting our right to life, the natural laws of Creator encrypted within us, and the protection of both. Do not fight for a better future, create it.

Back to Blog Index



One thought on “Individual Rights Need Protection

  1. Hi Ken,
    I love the idea of the Commission of Justice as the upholding service to protect and support our natural inherited rights, as described in your book, ‘Law from Within’, which is not about aggressive enforcement of Statute Rules such as we have in our Legal, but not lawful, System today. It is about the return to true, balanced justice if anyone does deny the right to life of another. Consequences of these choices need to be faced by any individual who decides to break the Creator given natural laws within us, with due diligence applied, always mindful of respect man’s right to live, and for the good of all in doing so, as nature intended. How wonderful this change would be!

Comments are closed.