Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
Well actually there is. It is implicit in the actions and words of the founders. Individuals make the decision to join other individuals and act in concert to oppose, with violence if needed, a government that has betrayed them, as they felt they had been betrayed by the Crown. That is an extension of the right of self defense, a right conferred upon individuals by God, by the reason of their being, an individual right. The nature of human affairs and capabilities however is such that that right is most efficaciously realized by individuals acting in concert with other individuals, especially when dealing with tyrannical governments. It cannot be any other way, since humans can't act simultaneously, each individual makes a decision to act on his own. Hence you have a collection of individuals exercising their individual rights, but in concert with others.
Rights should be explicit, not implicit, since by their nature, as you claim, they are granted by God. If it is implicit, then it is a derivation from some other explicit conditions. That said, here's a run-down of the philosophy so far:

1) Dayuhan asked if there's a right "to armed revolution, secession, or whatever else"...

2) To which you replied in the affirmative, "That is an extension of the right of self defense, a right conferred upon individuals by God, by the reason of their being, an individual right."

3) You later qualified it with "And an aggregate of men has the may exercise that right in concert "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents...".

Notwithstanding that "armed revolution" and "secession" are not the same, there are some other terms that require qualification. What is meant by "self-defense"? Again, I ask if policy leads to impoverishment, starvation, or even death, does this justify "armed revolution"? Can "armed revolution" or "secession" be justified as a preventative measure? How many individuals working "in concert" does it take for an "armed revolution" or "secession" to be justified? If a majority rejects "armed revolution" or "secession", is the action still justified? What if the majority rejects the government that the "armed revolution" implements? What if a minority rejects the government that an "armed revolution" implements? Is it just to impose that government on them without their consent? Constitutionally speaking, in the United States neither armed revolution or secession are lawful. Would you be willing to argue that the United States Constitution contradicts your view of natural law?

As for McVeigh, he targeted the Oklahoma City Federal Building as a response to the federal raids on Ruby Ridge and Waco. Not sure if race was an element of his ideology, but it typically is a fundamental issue in far-right ideology in the US. The militia and sovereign citizens movements share your sentiments about a supposed "right to revolution" derived not from the collective conditions of the public, but from the individual perception of his treatment by the state. And usually the ideal 'state of nature'sought by this ideology where all men are free and equal typically devolves, if it ever exists, into anarchy, dictatorship, and warlordism.