Individual Rights vs. Government Powers

What exactly is natural conception of individual rights and what makes something an individual right? Also, what makes an action a power or privilege?

For individual rights, an individual right is one which someone is at natural and moral liberty to do. Who decides what individual rights are? The individual him/herself does as the rights to life, liberty, and property are of individual nature meaning no other person nor government can abridge or redefine any right that has an individual nature. What is individual nature anyway? If activity is solely consensual and not done with malicious, reckless, or deliberate harm to others and society, then it is an individual right. Some individual rights also check against state tyranny such as freedom of speech, assembly, press, right to keep and bear arms, due process, privacy, trial by jury, freedom of worship, etc. But where do we draw the line between Liberty and Policy? What about "welfare" rights? A person is not automatically entitled to healthcare or education as these services need to be provided by someone. Being served at a restaurant is not an inalienable right since the business has a right to serve whom they wish. A person does have the right to have a contract respected such as having insurance terms respected according to the contract signed.

A power is something delegated to authority by a higher source, the people. God remains above the people so God gives people rights, privileges, and immunities. Government is run by man and any ideas coming from man are not infallible. Science is not always reliable and scientists have abused science to fit agendas. Jews in Nazi Germany were portrayed as sub-human vermin and that the Aryan race was the master race, calling discrimination and genocide science. Science doesn't give government powers and no government can receive powers if the people don't have the power at all. If a person can't murder another human being absent reasons of defensive action, then how can government be given the power to kidnap and kill people without due process? Democracy doesn't have regards for freedom as it can negatively affect freedom just as it had in 1928-33 Germany. Governments have even delegated powers to themselves without regard to people's consent. How can a government claim power to decide individual rights on someone's behalf? Plus, how can government also claim the right to tax anything it wants if people don't know where the money is flowing or if it's being used merely to carry out a delegated power?

How can you tell what powers government legitimately has? For starts, check it's laws such as statures and constitution. If you notice anything either left out or stained in legal documents, you'll know how your government respects rights. If government doesn't recognize certain rights(right to keep and bear arms) yet claims others(Abortion, Same-Sex Marriage, Healthcare, etc.) as rights, you know something's wrong. What if government makes you fear it more than they fear you? Who has the power or rights to defend your rights? Individuals retain right to defend themselves and rights, even if it means slaying dozens of government law enforcement officers and thuggish soldiers.

People have usually relied on the courts for redress but rarely does redress come. Did the Glorious Revolution of 1689 happen through the courts? The British courts had no litigation presented to it because people confronted British troops and succeeded due to the unrestricted right to keep and bear arms and accepting nothing more than victory at all costs, even if it meant harming and killing many British Troops. George Washington also would accept nothing less than Victory as there is no compromising with tyranny at all. You either kill tyranny or let it flourish more. Though the courts have sometimes ruled in favor of freedom, the other two branches and even other jurists ignore these decisions and continue violating people. They do this because they can get away with it and feel no physical or psychological threat.

When do you forfeit your rights? Since early civilization, if someone were to harm another, the perpetrator would if convicted through fair trial be sentenced to loss of freedom such as incarceration and all sentences are handed down by the courts of justice as legislated by the legislature. Due Process is the concept that ensures fairness, justice, and freedom including freedom from coercion. Without due process, government will become arbitrary and people will have no freedom from coercion. The massive confiscation of firearms in Australia in 1996 did not constitute due process as it was Port Arthur Shooter Martin Bryant who was guilty of that crime, not Australia's gun owners. Why didn't Australian gun owners protest and attack law enforcement officers or call for the overthrow of administration? Haven't Australians throughout the 20th century been braver and have more sense of individualism than Americans? Even though Australia lacks a bill of rights, courts have protected some rights and I feel if people had faith in God, rights would be exercised whether government approves or disapproves. You can't be forced to forfeit your rights unless there was an injured party that you were directly responsible for injuring. A convicted criminal being sentenced for a crime with an injured party is considered part of justice, but not if the convicted person is innocent.

Does someone go to jail or face any legal consequences because their neighbor robbed a bank or went on a shooting spree? No, doing so would violate due process which requires that the person be at fault for the crime commit via fair trial. How are people unfairly forced to forfeit their rights such as keeping and bearing arms due to assumption of mass shootings and abuse of weapons? Confiscation without due process of course. Of course you could always appeal but it puts you in the position of being presumed guilty and must prove innocence.

Plus, how could public servants decide what's best for us, especially children, who are known better by family than anyone else? Can government honestly assume it knows best when it comes to child care and how can there be any laws in which you can be treated as a child due to restrictions and prohibitions such as buying guns, alcohol, drugs, tobacco, and sometimes mature entertainment yet be considered fully responsible for adult consequences such as adult prison time? The reason a 6 year old can't vote, drive, buy guns, alcohol, tobacco, sign into contracts, get a full time career, or do many things outside parental consent is because they normally do not have the capacity to be held responsible for their actions. Politician's law says a 17 year old is presumed mostly as irresponsible as a 6 year old yet unlike the 6 year old who can't be charged in any court(not even juvenile) the 17 year old can be tried as an adult.

Does this sound like due process to you?  How about armed thugs arriving at your house without proper warning coming to take your guns? No due process hearing just that you fit criteria for prohibited person.

what is the denominator in this? Denominator here is that government cannot act in powers it doesn't have and nor can people delegate powers they themselves lack. Does a person naturally have the right to kill an unborn child? Abortion has been forced on us by the U.S. Supreme Court despite the U.S. Constitution giving courts nor other branches no such power. The courts have also attacked the God of the Bible by prohibiting prayer and bibles in class. Where does the judicial system have authority to make law?