SNIP Anyway, I'll take our Founders and our Bill of Rights as the last word on liberty and rights if you don't mind. This is very jingoistic, I know, but I am comfortable with this flaw in my character.
OK.
But, what if there is something else going on? A hidden false premise that, accepted, limits your thinking?
Its a big step. Gotta hold your breath, man-up, and be willing to let ago of long-held ideas. (You can always take them back.)
What if the constitution and Bill of Rights are just a milestone on the road to Liberty? A checkpoint on the path? It would be kinda sad if we stopped where the Founders left things and didn't take it any further, wouldn't it?
Consider:
The constitution either gave us the government we have or was powerless to stop it.
Lysander Spooner 1870.
The same wonderful Framers insisted a Bill of Rights was not necessary. For example, that scumbag Alexander Hamilton actually argued a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because powers not granted/delegated couldn't be exercised. Then a few years later, that jerk had a huge hand in establishing the implied powers doctrine. He was on record as wanting a heiarchical society just like the mother country; he knew what he was doing. He knew he was lying about the reasons a Bill of Rights was unnecessary.
Within a few years of ratification the Federalists--the party who worked so hard for the constitution--passed the Alien and Sedition Acts. The anti-sedition part made it an offense to criticize the government and the president. This was an obvious violation of freedom of speech and press. Men actually went to jail for that. John Adams himself was involved in this violation of the Bill of Rights.
The constitution contains an obvious and bald-faced lie in the very first clause. The writers and ratification supporters portrayed it as "we the people". History shows that wasn't even close to correct. Lots and lots of people were opposed to the constitution because they correctly foresaw the fedgov growing into a monster or knew enough not to trust any such broad national government. "We
the people"? Ha! "We Some of The People" who want to impose our will on others is more like it.
In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson gave us the clue to continuing along the path to liberty, telling us which direction to follow: "...to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed." (emphasis by Citizen) Ahhh. Consent. Of the governed.
Government has been lying to us for quite a while. Pretending its "we the people" when it clearly isn't
the people, just some of them. Another lie is the portrayal of consent. Government pretends to govern by consent of the governed. Yet, there is no way to opt-out or withdraw consent to be governed. I'm sure there are plenty who do actually consent, but its quite a stretch (aka a lie) to claim to be governing by consent when plenty do not consent.
So, all one has to do is look over the subject of consent for a while, and the distortions and exaggerations start coming into focus real fast.
Realize that there are lots of rights not covered in the Bill of Rights. For example, a right to stable money so your savings are not devalued by government and banking machinations. Some rights are mentioned but need a lot more reinforcement. For example, the right to contract. Its mentioned in the constitution itself, saying congress may not impair the right of contract. Yet, government tells people who they can or must contract with, and then regulates the hell out of those contracts. That right needs lots more strengthening.
The Bill of Rights was at best a waypoint on the road to liberty. If you take the whole picture, starting way in the English past, you see chieftains morphing into petty kings by might. A few by murder or war. "Just because I say so and because I have the swords to back it up."
Then come the waypoints on the road to liberty--people trying to wrest freedom from government. Magna Carta. The Ordinances of Clarendon. The abolition of the Star Chamber court. The 1689 Declaration of Rights. Turning the king into a constitutional monarch, and then a figurehead (while carefully leaving him in place as the so-called repository of power upon whose sovereignty the rest of the power-hungry could justify their own power.) Its just one long story of people working to get more freedom and keep it.
So, the Bill of Rights cannot possibly be the final word on rights, the final stop. It necessarily must be a waypoint along the way.
Would not the final waypoint on that path be genuine government by consent? No more pretexts. No more false portrayals of the principles involved. A fella is only governed if he consents to be governed.