A “right” is; tangible matter’s eternally omnipresent warrant; A right is a single being’s just ability to commit any act that does not infringe on another’s right. “You have Rights antecedent to all earthly governments: Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe.” (John Adams) Rights, exuding from a material source -from the inside out - are first recognized - from the outside in - as a principle. “Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity.” (Mother Teresa)

Right(s) are uniquely a domain of an individual. By example; A woman has an absolute right to an abortion. "BUT"! ! ! if that abortion includes a baby, forced or paid for health care, a third Party doctor, or other third party — the act NO LONGER abides a domain of right(s).

When rights are divided into groups (civil, religious, parental, etc.) the understanding and realization of what a right "IS", is lost. Civil rights are granted and/or recognized by carnal gods (such as Rome or the occupying statist theocracy infesting this land). Religious rights are created by corporate gods, 501(c)(3) status, staying within the gods discussion parameters, etc. When civil and religious "rights" are merged, human sacrifice and sacramental norms — like marriage become simple ordinances of the god's statist theocracy.

Freedom's use in an eternal / temporal sense does not include the concept of "free from", the unlimited whole is "free to". That "free to" is an expression at nature's law (individual sovereignty, inalienable rights and liberty).

A “right” is; tangible matter’s eternally omnipresent warrant; A right is a single being’s just ability to commit any act that does not infringe on another’s right. “You have Rights antecedent to all earthly governments: Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe.” (John Adams) Rights, exuding from a material source -from the inside out - are first recognized - from the outside in - as a principle. “Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity.” (Mother Teresa) Rights are individualistic, if a third party is involved (by mandate or otherwise) it is NOT a right. By example; a woman in and of herself has a right to an abortion. When the abortion involves a third party mandated doctor, a baby, etc. the being/action no longer exists within the realm of a "right".

To be free and equal under the law vs. free from hunger is a linguistic twist of words, a homograph. Homonyms may sound a like or may be spelled the same but, they have different meanings; like, lead, the reference is either a frontrunner of followers or a mineral. The quote is speaking apples and you are applying a definition of an orange.

This expresses a most noble attribute of natural law. I still like it a lot.

Ummm, just a thought. The Hebrew feminine noun תּוֹרָה tôwrâh (Pronounced: to-raw’, tôrâh or tôrâ); translates into “law”. Such ”torah” / law is divided into meanings of reality (nature’s law), custom (common law), and function (Heavenly law / earthly law, life style, etc). Torah divides into further subcategories but for the purposes here, this mini-definition is most relevant. When a translation on original scripture is done, the intent of the translators becomes illuminated (by example; the term ”thou shalt”, does not show up in the original decalogue {10 commandments}). The Patriarch / King of Eternaty did not give a codex or codify man’s behavior as current carnal man would perceive. Our King revealed nature’s law and the principles of best how to live with such. From Adam to current, heirs to the King have for most part rejected the example of our Father. By example; the vast / VAST majority of the ”Law of Moses” falls into the philosophy of men, legal positivism (a perverted hegimony of man’s control over man), not that which was endowed in nature.

Jack, so called laws governing behavior come under a philosophy of men (legal positivism). The "republican form of government" / Constitutional law was to be an administration of "the law of nature and of nature's God". Under the Constitution's law of nature, there are no laws governing behavior, there is only justice that restores like unto like / that which corrects injustice, etc. A law enforcement entity is antithetical to Constitutional law / agents of justice / peace officers, etc. 

Can the "A" from Reston please enlighten the here audience with your definitions of liberty and ideals.

The once desired "republican form of government" (Article IV, Section 4, U.S. Constitution) exists no more. An occupying statist theocracy has replaced the land of the free and home of the brave. All are no longer individual sovereigns but rather, equal chattel under the carnal god's ANTI-nature's law canons.

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: “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). 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) “So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.” (James 2:12) 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 5:16)

FREEDOM is: “The state of being free; liberty; self determination:” (Black’s Law Dictionary 1st Edition); freedom is: “the power or liberty to order one's own actions” (Colins English Dictionary); freedom is: “The ability to act at liberty.” (Webster’s Dictionary) “All men by nature are equal in that equal right that every man hath to his natural freedom, without being subjected to the will or authority of any other man; being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.” (John Locke) “Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere.” (Franklin D. Roosevelt) “Freedom is independence of the compulsory will of another, and in so far as it tends to exist with the freedom of all according to a universal law, it is the one sole original inborn right belonging to every man in virtue of his humanity.” (Immanuel Kant) Freedom is an endowed expression from an inherent creation; NOT ! an abstract ethos based / outside-in to-be-controlled anomaly.

Jack, I say hmmm. Most everything you write says you prefer the slavery of socialism, as is averse to the animating contest of freedom. I guess it is all in how you define freedom and equal.

Joe, NO!  —  One of the latest examples of a huge NO! is the growth in numbers and intensity of the theocratic Woke. By way of a very terse list demonstrating that most people would rather be shackled equally is the hard core acceptance of ANTI-freedom's compelled compliance, victimless crimes, government licenses, larceny with impunity (2nd plank of the communist manifesto, police state confiscations, funny money, etc.), socialism, a choice for human sacrifice / a choice against individual sovereignty and a NON recognition of inalienable rights and nature's law.

The qualifier in the essence of the quote is “in the state of nature” (i.e. “the laws of nature and of nature’s God (Declaration of Independence)) When the Baron here states: “Society makes them lose it, and they recover it” is incorrect and antithetical to nature’s law. Nature equally endows, as a faculty of birth, individual sovereignty, inalienable rights, and liberty at nature’s law (which can NOT be lost, only subdued). When nature’s law is not within the domain of measure, it is an accurate observation when the standard of measurement is a philosophy of men (such as legal positivism or maritime law), OR materialism (inclusive of opportunity), OR physical well being and normality, can there be a loss of equality. There is no protection of the law! The law is what the law is. Procedural “order”, organizing nature’s law does provide a simple level of protection. By example, driving on the right or left is not “law” but rather, mere rules of order.

A democracy and a republican form of government are 2 categorically / demonstratively different systems that work best when everyone participates.

A democracy is: “2 wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for supper. Freedom is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.” (Attributed to Benjamin Franklin) “A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.” (Lysander Spooner) It is offered that democracy is the will of a carnal whole. A democracy is unbridled power by force of numbers (tyranny was born from the democracy on Tyre). Democracy does not recognize individual sovereignty, inalienable rights or liberty at nature’s law. Democracies embrace a philosophy of legal positivism to dictate slavery through that which is erroneously called law.

A republican form of government is the uniting of individual sovereigns (each and every, any and all heirs to the Eternal Patriarch and King) to protect and enhance equally, through legislated “order” - inalienable rights and liberty at nature’s law.

Liberty and equality are diametrically opposed to democracy. When all persons alike share in democracy, tyranny is attained. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (John Adams) - a democracy is a government of “other:”

David, the whole of the 2nd plank of the communist manifesto is unfair. The concept is based on the 'State' being god owns all the slave chattel's beings, doings and labors inclusive of the fruits thereof. At law, there are no government (statist theocracy) services. Only as religion enforces its dogmas are services provided. By example feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, financing the indigent, caring for sick and the elderly are all tenets of religion. Mixing law and religion produces a theocracy. What ever religion you aspire to will determine who pays for what services and functions. Your theoretical word salad is misplaced, off topic, a misdirection delusion and based on a non-sequitur. 

It completely depends on what is being measured as equal. At law (a nation of laws), each person is equal before the law — all have the exact same individual sovereignty, inalienable rights, justice and liberty. If equality measures ability, economic accumulation, socialization of the individual(s) or other physicality then, it is a most heinous slavery.

Okay not so much

I'm not quite sure how to rate this — a thumb's down for the propaganda, hiding the corporate MSM to be nothing more than theocratic dogma slaves of the corporate government (or vise versa) or a thumbs down for the incorrect observation for an extraordinarily free and vigorous . . .  I say hmmm

Owing a duty to our friends is a religious tenet — not obligatory or lawful. Religion is: “ real piety in practice, consisting in the performance of all known duties to ... our fellow men.” (Bouviers Law Dictionary) It is pure religion that keeps one's self unspotted from the world. Such honorable and virtuous venture assists others in their nobility, goodness, purity and incorruptibility.

John, your word salad reeks of the old adage: Those that forget history are doomed to relive it. Shia and Sunni were fighting each other since before 1948 (when we took a side, we had enemies). When the Barbary wars were fought by Jefferson, there were Sunnis throughout the Middle East that were our enemies. Since America's special brand of colonizing in the Middle East (Iran for example), Shia have become our Enemies. Before Israel (1948) America had plenty of enemies in the Middle East. I could, and probably should go on but...

I'm not quite sure how to rate this, there is not enough context to know Lee's full or actual mind set. Today, the best (or worst if you will) generals are both commanding the military as well as presenting the news (such perfected collaboration between the two make each one indistinguishable — one from the other). The lying pony faced dog soldier, with his Woke appointments and supporting theocratic propaganda (MSM), is well intrenched with the best in their fields that can be found.

As a religious assembly, the royal heirs to the King of Eternity once embraced individual sovereignty, inalienable rights and liberty at nature's law, WE have given our enemies the means of our own destruction. The occupying statist theocracy now infesting this land has, with a religious fervor and methodology, corrupted man's minds, souls and beings with its/their religions of violence, destruction, immorality, and a prideful ignorance. The united enemy of my enemy, being my friend has/have together plucked the eagle's plumb.

Sillik, how off topic, shallow and socialistic is your ad hominem? Hmmm, very!, extremely! and exceedingly! come to mind. Your inability to stay on topic in a rational conversation where the only retort is to attack the messenger — how socialist of you ;-) I guess you don't need a miracle when you know socialism is the challenge of social abilities to create death, destruction, chaos, poverty and a painful existence outside the reality of nature's law; AND, that is the high points of your goals.

Sillik, socialism really does challenge, in a most horrific way, abilities when creatively directed at social circumstances. Socialism, by its very nature creates death, destruction, false gods, theocratic atrocities, an existence where lies are preferred to truth, dictator / slave chattel cast systems and a domain of deceit.

According to your psycho-babble, after the U.S.A.'s universal call to reason / declaration of respect of life / a rational demand for negotiations with the "socialist" Hitler, Congress had no authority to defend itself by a "declaration of war"?

Could the free Chinese that fled to Formosa simple have stayed in China (alive and free) if they had been able to negotiate with the socialist Mao? 

We hold this truth to be self evident. History has proven the fact over, and over, and over again. WWI — the war to end all wars for example.

Sillik, when your suggestion was tried pre-WWII; how did that work out? When many nations prepared themselves for peace by a procedure of negotiations with the socialist Hitler, entailing a coinciding process promoting and promising relinquishment of all dangerous weaponry and a pronouncement of an all pervasive mutual progressive health benefit and interest.

Not according to a majority of the founders?

Sillik, socialism is the challenge of social abilities to create false gods, pain, poverty death and destruction.