Skip Navigation LinksHome : Government : The American Way : Rule of Law : State granted privilege?

Skip Navigation Links
Government Expand Government
Supporting Articles
Welcome Expand Welcome

Rights and Privileges - a Comparison

First, let us make clear the distinction between the UN's concept of rights and the American view on rights. The UN acknowledges only the state, not any supreme organizing intelligence that is responsible for the order of the universe, it doesn't acknowledge the author of natural law. This is in direct opposition to the basic American view that there is a supreme being that is the author of natural law who acted to create humankind that possesses intelligence and the capacity to develop that intelligence. So, the distinction between the UN globalist view of rights - which are actually privileges by definition - and the American view of rights - is night and day. Americans believe rights are inalienable, that is that they are non-transferrable, not being in the human domain to grant or revoke. Thus government is of the people, by the people and for the people.

UN rule, on the other hand, is capricious and can decide - based on political currents of the times and the whim of corrupt individuals with their own agendas - which rights they will grant and which they will revoke, placing the subjects of that tyranny under an arbitrary system of laws where those subjects are never sure whether they are violating some law and must therefore always seek permission prior to doing just about anything, for fear of running afoul of arbitrary, capricious statutes and their dire consequences (read "cruel and unusual punishment"...).

A side-by-side comparison is in order so that you can see the clear verbiage which hightlights the distinction between the two views on rights and how they apply to freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the right to self-defense.

UN Privilege

American Right

Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.*
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
Note that in the UN Declaration, it says "rights granted him by the constitution or by law." Obviously, this is a far cry from the premise that rights are endowed by a Creator. You see, the Bill of Rights only ACKNOWLEDGES rights already bestowed by a higher authority. It doesn't grant them. The real difference is that these inalienable rights are placed outside the domain of humankind, unlike the UN version which clearly places "rights" in the domain of government or of law, thus actually defining privileges while calling them "rights".

Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.*

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.


Bill of Rights

Clearly, section (1) above asserts that "full development of his personality" is only possible only as one carries out their "duties" in the community. You couldn't devise a clearer definition of socialist slavery than that.

Here, the word "rights" is once again given the definition of privilege and there is no mention of any limitation on government. In fact, it clearly states that government shall be all-powerful. It also refers to a "democratic" society. That should make your hair stand on end!

In the preamble to the Bill of Rights, it is made abundantly clear that the Bill of Rights was intended to limit government by defining areas where government may not pass law, which is completely opposite the UN stance on what it calls "rights". Note that this part of the preamble to the BoR places "further declaratory and restrictive clauses" - on government, specifically. Now, read the first amendment (linked above) where it states that "Congress shall make no law...".

What you should keep in mind after comparing the two views side-by-side is that American rule of law, the written body of law on which our country is based - is based on the idea that people have inalienable rights that cannot be revoked by government. Even the Bill of Rights only acknowledges these rights.

Compare that with the "Univeral Declaration of Human Rights" of the UN, which, as it turns out, uses the definition of the word "privilege". You see that UN rule of law is based on the idea that GOVERNMENT grants and revokes rights. So, the UN rule of law is based on no constants and is therefore fiat rule of law where the underpinnings of government may be changed at whim by government itself. This therefore places government beyond the reach of people to change it from inside that system, since the citizens are placed inferior to government and since government can and will enact laws which protect government, making it superior to the citizenry, thus casting citizens into the role of peasants or subjects.

* The "fine print", directly from the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights

What good is the UN?