ABSOLUTELY !!!

“If by the mere force of numbers a majority should” - do anything, it would be contrary to the rule of law (nature’s law) and a republican form of government. The de jure States united (The United States of America) was to be: “A government of laws, not of men.” (John Adams)

Inalienable Rights are unique to an individual person. A collective (majority / minority) have "NO"!! rights but duties only.

We hold this truth to be self evident.

A very accurate statement. A question may be asked, why are third parties not being more successful? One answer could be the successful dumbing down of the occupying statist theocracy's patrons. Hatred for inalienable rights and liberty at nature's law (replaced by socialist promises) is part of that dumbing down.

An additional note. The de jure States united was NEVER to be a democracy (the de jure States united was to be a political gathering of States that represented "the laws of nature and of nature's God" (Declaration of Independence). The federal government was NEVER to represent any one person or group of people. A representation of a person/people is a corrupt political establishment of despotism, tyranny, usurpation and other — actions contrary to law. The quote is accurate enough, when describing the current establishment a non-democracy (currently the government is run by a few).

It sounds like the totality of the U.S. all over again>

Another note* all the socialists (communists, fascists, progressives, conservatives, those woke, etc.) that vote for the policy of the country have NO CLUE what constitutional law is ("the law of nature and of nature's God" (Declaration of Independence)). Socialists vote their pocket(s) not inalienable rights or liberty at nature's law. All countries / nations on earth are now lawless.

Further I would add, the individual running for office must pass a test showing he/she knows that only constitutional law falls within "the laws of nature and of nature's God" (and the difference between that and what is now occurring).

“A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years”. (Lysander Spooner)

Have those administering the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land lost sight of our liberties? YES they have ! ! ! There has been NO purity, free, fair, virtuous, or independent election in decades. Besides that people only have despotism, tyranny and usurpations to choose from. Compelled compliance, government licenses, victimless crimes, larceny with impunity (2n plank of the communist manifesto, funny money, government confiscations, etc.) and non-recognition of “the law of nature and of nature’s God” (Declaration of Independence) - {inalienable rights / liberty) are all unconstitutional enforcement of a political class of evil. “A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years”. (Lysander Spooner)

(-; Archer, I'm just old enough that I think I may recall such event, vaguely ;-) 

(-; I like it a lot ;-) The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Before the quote may be accurately interpreted or rated, a few definitions must first be established. By example: “integrity”. If “integrity” is the quality or condition of being non-deviating, unwavering and completely undivided concerning a certain issue; the issue then needs be identified. If the issue is a strict moral or ethical code, the subject matter would concern a religion. The quote identifies “knowledge” as the issue. The question then arises, what completes the meaning of “knowledge”? Does knowledge here include absolute truth? Or, just a comprehensive data collection of a particular religion? In context, probably accurate.

Within systems of carnal philosophies (legal positivism, legal realism, maritime rule on land, etc.), enslaving religions (socialism, communism, fascism, collectivism, etc.) and other NON-inalienable rights and liberty at nature’s law tyrannical structuring (democracy, kings/queens, etc.) there is NO recognition of an innocent, honest or free man with/at “peace”. Non-violence under a threat of violence is not “peace”. The current occupying statist theocracy infesting this land (robbers and oppressors) is a demonic usurper / a lawless god that enforces (by threat of violence) compelled compliance, victimless crimes, government licenses, rapine and sponsored larceny with immunity (2nd plank of the communist manifesto, funny money, etc.).

The accuracy / inaccuracy of the statement would definitely be related to one's definition of good and bad.

The judiciary in every jurisprudence has become SO corrupt (at all levels and applications) that ruling on legislature's constitutional accuracy doesn't even exist anymore. The judiciary has even left substantially the unconstitutional philosophy of men, "legal positivism", - supplanting such with another unconstitutional philosophy adaptation of "legal realism" and "maritime law on land" (rule by terrorists immediate wants)

James, who, of all those running are claiming they will represent "the laws of nature and of nature's God" (Declaration of Independence) and the de jure Constitution? OR, in the alternative, unconstitutionally, how many will support the illegitimate legal positivism's enslavement by claiming they will represent the people?

So many things wrong with this quote on its face, makes the whole quote a lie. By example; the “democracy” that Franklin ruled over was diabolically opposed to the de jure Constitutional Republic with guaranteed inalienable rights and liberty at “the of nature and of nature’s God” (Declaration of Independence). A democracy is totalitarianism by the many that is absolutely contrary to inalienable rights and liberty at nature’s within a republican format. A democracy is antithetical to a God that endows self discipline. Again, rulers in a democracy only represent tyrannical masters and not individuals (each and every / any and all) that rule themselves. My above stars for the accuracy is found within a subtlety hidden in side the whole. By way of illustration; Liberty is kept by men and women who are strong and self-reliant, and possessed of such wisdom as God gives mankind -- men and women who are just, and understanding, and generous to others -- men and women who are capable of disciplining themselves.

In context, a good start to a much larger list.

I like it a lot. Depending on the definition of "race", determines the accuracy of the statement.

An accurate list to start with. Additionally, things that are destroying America are; A varying philosophy of “legal positivism” replacing the Constitutional “laws of nature and of nature’s God” (Declaration of Independence). ALSO, a secular religion’s enslaving enforcement of theological dogma. By example; healing the sick, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, clothing the naked, financing the indecent, etc. ALSO, destroying America is the government is the new god replacing any/all otherwise recognized. ALSO, America is being destroyed (maybe already there) by: compelled compliance, victimless crimes, government licensing, larceny with impunity (2nd plank of the communist manifesto, funny money, etc.), and a lack of recognition of inalienable rights and liberty at nature’s law. ETC., ETC., ETC.

Not shooting the messenger, the first sentence is a theological facade to legitimize future illegitimacies. The “press” is in fact, nothing more than an extended expression of the individual’s inalienable right and liberty at nature’s law. The second sentence is accurate enough while attempting to hide the first sentence’s misdirection / misinformation / ultimate lie. “Responsibility” ? ? ? (“The obligation to answer for an act done, and to repair any injury it may have caused.” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary)). Again, another good sounding word salad that does not fit. “Duty to prevent” ? ? ? A duty to prevent, is an action that entails liability. That would mean each time the “press” did not prevent the government from deceiving the people (define, the people), the press would be financially, civilly, criminally or otherwise “responsible”. It is a noble endeavor for a free press to accurately report that which has transpired (certain secrets, of politicians, concerning the public, etc.). BUT, how is the immaterial operation supposed to prevent each infraction?

Sillik, on its face, your statement is more accurate than not. Your here agenda of lies fails to point out who the mentally deranged are; by example the socialists (communists, fascists, woke and people with your derangement).

What IS, a "right" to be free. Rights are inalienable, inherent in the being as a faculty of birth / existence. 

Liberty is; “The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature.” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary)

Liberty is the “exemption from extraneous control. The power of the will, in its moral freedom, to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external acts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons. Liberty is the right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they judge most consistent with their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere with an equal exercise of the same rights by other men.” (Black’s Law Dictionary 1st ed.).

Clarifying original fact, nature’s law intent, and de jure jurisprudence: liberty is; “The condition of being free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor.” (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 5th ed.)

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” (Thomas Jefferson)

“The Natural Liberty of Man is to be free from any Superior Power on Earth, and not to be under the Will or Legislative Authority of Man, but to have only the Law of Nature for his Rule.” (John Locke - second most quoted source for creation of the Constitution)

“Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property ⋯ and is regarded as inalienable.” (16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987).

“In short, is not liberty the freedom of every person to make full use of his faculties, so long as he does not harm other persons while doing so? Is not liberty the destruction of all despotism - including, of course legal despotism? Finally, is not liberty the restricting of the law only to its rational sphere of organizing the right of the individual to lawful self-defense; of punishing injustice?” (Frederic Bastiat)

Liberty, under “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” (Declaration of Independence) – nature’s law, is the state of exercising all inalienable rights. “All men are created equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing the obtaining of happiness and safety.” (George Mason)

“Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint; the more restraint on others to keep off from us, the more liberty we have.” (Daniel Webster)

”For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.” (Galatians 5:13)

“Where liberty is, there is my country” (Benjamin Franklin).

"we have a right to be free" That inalienable right include the free exercise of liberty ! ! !