Here’s what I read, correct me if I’m wrong:
- Nature does not confer rights (I take this to mean nature is not their source)
Correct
- People gave us our rights, and are required to maintain or lose them (people can grant rights and take them away; they are the origin of rights).
Correct
- External authority is not a violation of rights (making demands which others must obey or be violently punished is moral).
Correct, but bear in mind that I describe reality without adding moral judgement.
- People consent to be governed by living under that governmental authority (government’s claim to authority over people is validated by itself: “We claim it the moment you’re born; you must leave our claimed territory, or we’ll consider that inaction as consent”).
Actually your consent or lack thereof is meaningless until and unless you renounce the citizenship you were given at birth. It's a package deal (and a good one). You get the rights, benefits, and privileges of American citizenship but you also get responsibilities like taxes and a requirement to obey the law. Ain't no free lunch. If you are getting benefits paid for by other Americans should you not also be doing your share? Your rights are one of those benefits and they are not transferable.
Considering all this, what would make it “wrong” for anyone to grab power, make any laws they want, and grant or deny any “rights” they want? People are the source of rights, and people may maintain them or take them away. There is no higher standard to appeal to.
Where do you think this Nation and your rights come from? That's exactly what happened. That being the case I have to think that that action can be right or wrong depending on circumstances and intent. The FF quite obviously agreed.
AARP member
Armed
And
Really
Pissed