Friday, November 18, 2011

American Exceptionalism the concept of unalienable rights

Newt Gingrich and the author of the Economist article are both incorrect about what creates American exceptionalism. The author of the article is of course disparaging Gingrich because the Author is a liberal and he is expected to attack republicans wherever possible.

It would have been more effective to disparage Gingrich for dragging in God to what is otherwise the correct answer about American exceptionalism.
It is 100% correct to conclude American Exceptionalism comes from Americans understanding we are endowed with individual unalienable rights. It has nothing at all to do with God. The world creator was chosen to encompass any concept, idea or myth about the individuals existence to merely put forth the understanding that you existing is why you have those rights.

What needed to be explained better by Gingrich is ALL rights an individual can imagine are his unalienable rights. The Right to Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness really do define any right possible and ensure it is not possible to define a right that would deny the same to all other individuals.

The individual on his own or in cooperation with others now can become exceptional, once the individual realizes he is the owner of his rights as well as the one who defines his rights along with the most important concept of the rights being unalienable, the individual is not even able to voluntarily give up his rights, let alone have them taken.

The Federal government or more specifically the liberals, progressives and religious conservatives do not understand the true concept of owning ALL unalienable rights by the individual. Evidence for this lack of understanding is the incorrect Supreme Court ruling that created the unconstitutional concept of Privilege. Rights defined by the individual and unalienable are never a privilege. The government has no authority to create or grant rights and it has no authority to alienate an individual from his rights and that includes declaring rights privileges. Another example of this is the entire socialist/liberal varieties of welfare. A person has the right to his life and pursuit of happiness, which includes the property and wealth he creates. There is no condition available to alienate an individual from the right to the fruits of his labors in the name of giving it to others. Gay marriage is another example. The right to happiness in life and the freedom to pursue what makes an individual happy is entirely defined by the individual, which would include who this individual associates with and the definition of that relationship. There is no authority in the concept of unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that allows the government or a society to define the types of acceptable relationships for happiness to be pursued.

What makes America exceptional is the fact that all rights are owned by the individual upon his existence and are unalienable. Knowing you can define your own rights, which includes by default defining and owning your entire existence plus doing as you will with your existence, including keeping what you produce is what allows America to be the best country in the world.

It has nothing at all to do with God. Even if God could be proven to exist as the sole grantor of rights, the fact that God is unable to take those unalienable rights away is what makes those rights only part of the individual.

Gingrich is wrong to make it appear as if God is the arbiter of rights. The reason it is a mistake is both a lack of understanding the declaration's words correctly but also this God sourced rights concept creates a false condition of control over rights outside the individual. Meaning God, or more specifically, priests, ministers and imams who claim to speak for god, will being to determine your rights based on bibles, korans or their own delusions and use those same sources to alienate rights as well. It is the same effect we have now with the various American governments believing they have authority to alienate the individual from his rights. The more dangerous outcome of this is eventually the secular and theocratic political class will begin to grants its own class "rights" to itself that contradict or even attempt to alienate the individual from his rights, including life. Effectively the political class will create its own group rights which do not have the natural control individual unalienable rights have. The control is the individual is unable to grant himself a right that alienates others from their own rights. The political class granted rights have no natural protection from this dangerous concept.

Still Gingrich at least understands we do have unalienable rights, which is significantly better than the liberals in the democrat party who believe the individual has no rights at all beyond what they grant to the collective.