Changes

<blockquote>"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of [[citizen|the governed]]." </blockquote>

<blockquote>"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of [[citizen|the governed]]." </blockquote>

==Background==

==Background==

# To establish, monitor, control, and petition our servant government to help secure the above rights.

# To establish, monitor, control, and petition our servant government to help secure the above rights.

# To abolish said government, when it becomes destructive of these rights.

# To abolish said government, when it becomes destructive of these rights.

== Early History==

== Early History==

In England as with much of the medieval world until the 16th century, people accepted the view called the "devine right of kings" to govern.  God gave a king the right to govern, and the king would then grant rights, privileges and titles to people.  To the extent that the English people enjoyed freedoms, it was because '''the King of England''' had signed the [[Magna Carta]].  Because rights did not inherently belong to each individual, English society accepted many inequities that would not be accepted today, such as slavery, indentured servitude, and limited rights for women.

In England as with much of the medieval world until the 16th century, people accepted the view called the "devine right of kings" to govern.  God gave a king the right to govern, and the king would then grant rights, privileges and titles to people.  To the extent that the English people enjoyed freedoms, it was because '''the King of England''' had signed the [[Magna Carta]].  Because rights did not inherently belong to each individual, English society accepted many inequities that would not be accepted today, such as slavery, indentured servitude, and limited rights for women.

As these early [[Christian]] communities continued to grow and flourish in the new world, the notion that each individual possesses inherent dignity, value, and freedoms which the government ought to protect, became a recurring theme in political discussions and in religious writings and sermons.  Preachers, pastors, civic leaders, and lawyers drew extensively from the [[Bible|Bible’s]] teachings on morality, Creation, and the nature of God to support this position, and the American public was very receptive.  By 1775 the concept of unalienable rights was firmly entrenched in the collective consciousness of the thirteen colonies, having been sharpened by decades of abuse and taxation under British colonial rule. The time was right for change. In the hope of achieving a new political construct dedicated to preserving each person’s God-given rights and liberties, American patriots severed all ties with the British Crown and initiated a [[Revolutionary War|daring war]] against the most powerful nation at that time:

As these early [[Christian]] communities continued to grow and flourish in the new world, the notion that each individual possesses inherent dignity, value, and freedoms which the government ought to protect, became a recurring theme in political discussions and in religious writings and sermons.  Preachers, pastors, civic leaders, and lawyers drew extensively from the [[Bible|Bible’s]] teachings on morality, Creation, and the nature of God to support this position, and the American public was very receptive.  By 1775 the concept of unalienable rights was firmly entrenched in the collective consciousness of the thirteen colonies, having been sharpened by decades of abuse and taxation under British colonial rule. The time was right for change. In the hope of achieving a new political construct dedicated to preserving each person’s God-given rights and liberties, American patriots severed all ties with the British Crown and initiated a [[Revolutionary War|daring war]] against the most powerful nation at that time:

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

==Nature, scope and limits==

==Nature, scope and limits==

The concept of "unalienable rights" draws controversy over how they are identified and enforced. In the eighteenth century, the definition that unalienable rights were defined by God, meant that the rights were not subject to the whim of the King to grant or withdraw.  Social structures have evolved since then, so the debate has shifted to whether a particular right originates with God or is recognized by a particular society. In a society with freedom of religion, the practical definition of the nature, scope and limits of rights is not decided by theologians.  If unalienable rights come from God, then people will differ on those rights in societies with many religions.  For example, the early [[Mormon]] Church accepted polygamy, where a man could marry more than one woman at a time. American society did not accept that as an unalienable right, and armed conflict resulted.  Similarly, the [[Roman Catholic Church]] did not recognize the rights of people to [[divorce]], while the views of American society as a whole viewed people as holding those rights.  People can debate whether someone's views on these subjects are inspired by God, but probably both sides could argue whether divorce or polygamy were included in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."  So, in a democracy, individuals' understanding of their unalienable rights get resolved in the context of maintaining social order through the rule of law.  While unalienable rights should in theory be protected from the opinions of the majority, as a practical matter, if there is a consensus in society, legislation and litigation will result in the scope and limits of a right being set in a manner that does not reflect the opinions of a minority.  Because consensus evolves over time, the latitude that people have to enjoy what they believe are unalienable rights can shift as well.

The concept of "unalienable rights" draws controversy over how they are identified and enforced. In the eighteenth century, the definition that unalienable rights were defined by God, meant that the rights were not subject to the whim of the King to grant or withdraw.  Social structures have evolved since then, so the debate has shifted to whether a particular right originates with God or is recognized by a particular society. In a society with freedom of religion, the practical definition of the nature, scope and limits of rights is not decided by theologians.  If unalienable rights come from God, then people will differ on those rights in societies with many religions.  For example, the early [[Mormon]] Church accepted polygamy, where a man could marry more than one woman at a time.

 

American society did not accept that as an unalienable right, and armed conflict resulted.  Similarly, the [[Roman Catholic Church]] did not recognize the rights of people to [[divorce]], while the views of American society as a whole viewed people as holding those rights.  People can debate whether someone's views on these subjects are inspired by God, but probably both sides could argue whether divorce or polygamy were included in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."  So, in a democracy, individuals' understanding of their unalienable rights get resolved in the context of maintaining social order through the rule of law.  While unalienable rights should in theory be protected from the opinions of the majority, as a practical matter, if there is a consensus in society, legislation and litigation will result in the scope and limits of a right being set in a manner that does not reflect the opinions of a minority.  Because consensus evolves over time, the latitude that people have to enjoy what they believe are unalienable rights can shift as well.

 

 

 

 

This is why property is inseparable from Liberty, and without the right to property, there cannot be Liberty.  Private property is the litmus test.

== Threats and safeguards ==

== Threats and safeguards ==