There are a variety of things that torque me off. There are also a lot of people and organizations that torque me off. It happens. I'm an opinionated individual. In return, I would reckon that there are quite a few people and organizations that don't like me. No biggie. I can live a comfortable life and allow for people to dislike me.

But, I may just add to that list with this post. Really. If you don't hate me after this one, then I will commend you on being able to not only think outside the box, but also in your ability to understand what it means to be a freedom loving individual.

Much of this recent thinking has come about thanks to the antisocialist's post on god in this country. In this post, the antisocialist makes some very interesting thought provoking arguments regarding freedom in this country, particularly the intentions of the founding fathers when determining what freedom meant. Whereas he takes a very idealistic approach to things, I chose to argue the herd mentality problem and the fact that people may want absolute freedom but they also want to be guided and belong to something bigger. It is an interesting contradiction in humanity, and something that I find very frustrating because it results in a deep conflict between individual rights and "guaranteed" rights.

But I digress, the element of this post that is bound to upset more than a few people is the fact that I don't like the Bill of Rights. I don't think it was a good idea and I don't think that it serves the noble purpose that so many others seem to believe. It is strange how often people know more about the Bill of Rights than the original Constitution. I would dare to guess that many people actually feel that the Bill of Rights is a more powerful document than its parent document. But to people like me it's a real head scratcher. The Bill of Rights wasn't originally part of the US Constitution, so why is it of such vital importance today? I would almost go so far as to say that it was with the birth of the Bil of Rights that we also saw the fledgling birth of the nanny state.

Strangely, this seems very contrary to what I usually say. I sit and root for freedom and accuse the left of working to infringe on my rights. Whereas that may be true, you have look a bit deeper. With every step to violate my rights as an American citizen, what do the libs use as their backing argument? The Bill of Rights. Interesting how a document designed to ensure rights is so often used against the very people it was designed to protect. But this is more interesting than it is surprising, and even [founding father] Alexander Hamilton recognized this problem when he wrote Federalist Number 84 where he specifically wrote:

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"

And he goes further by giving a spectacular example that not only applied in 1788, but is also just as big (if not bigger) an issue today. He tackles the so-called "Freedom of the Press" by saying:

"Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."

Very interesting. It would certainly seem that Hamilton was trying to warn people that "guaranteeing" certain rights will have consequences - particularly when it comes to people seeking to abuse those rights.

Part of the flaw in guaranteeing certain rights to people through government control is that it violates the very principle of rights. It blurs that ever-important line between where your rights end and mine begin. Using Hamilton's idea concept of the press, where does the freedom of the press actually end? If I do not want my life violated by the press, do where is my freedom to keep them out? All too often members of the press claim that they have the right to things, but how often does that right infringe on the individual rights of another person?

Now, don't go thinking that I am against civil rights. Quite the contrary, I am all for civil rights but I do not believe that it is up to the government to outline those rights to the extent it has. A great deal of damage has been done to this country in the name of civil rights, and it has mostly stemmed from the fact that the Bill makes the mistake of claiming seemingly unlimited rights in matters that conflict with the rights of others (or other rights). It opened the door to allow for the government to determine what rights people are afforded and who is subjected to what. In a sense, it impedes on individual rights while favoring the rights of the whole.

It would seem to me that a free country should not have to worry about assuring the rights of its people. It's an absolute contradiction. The government of a free nation should doe exactly what is stated in our Constitution's preamble:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."

Nowhere there does it say that they should guarantee right. That is the job of the individual. When individuals are assured their own rights, there is no need for another power to step in and regulate. This is the premise of individualism, which is a concept that is essentially the opposite of Socialism. Look at it this way, Socialism takes the guarantee of rights to the point of ensuring that everybody has the right of being taken care of and that the well being of the whole is more important that the rights of the individual. While I am not a strict individualist (namely because I acknowledge the reality of dealing with human nature), I do believe that there should be a happy medium where the government protects an individuals ability to have rights but does not dictate what those rights are or to whom they apply.

Anyway, that's about all I have to say about that. Sorry it's a bit wordy, and probably a bit scattered, but I just felt the need to get that out there so people understand where I'm coming from when I talk about rights...