kamino
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2008
- Messages
- 320
- Reaction score
- 79
- Location
- Silverdale, Wa.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
No, I do not believe in them.
1- I do not believe that all men are created equal. This is not only not self-evident, but all available evidence is quite clearly to the contrary. No two men are equal in their strengths, in their desires, or in their potential-- and this dissimilarity exists from the moment of their creation to the moment of their destruction.
Thus to claim that all men are equal in moral value is to say that moral value has no relationship with any other measure of value; in other words, it is to declare that moral value is utterly meaningless.
2- I do not believe that men are endowed with rights, by their Creator or otherwise. Men are endowed with power, and it is by their power that they may secure rights; the more power a man wields, the more rights he may secure for himself. A man's rights exist in proportion to his power, relative to other mens' desire to exercise their power against him.
3- I believe that government exists as an expression of power, and thus it is not instituted for any purpose save that which powerful men put it to. And, again, every man's right to alter or abolish the government he is subject to is strictly a function of his power to do so.
4- The only point that I will agree with. Men are far more inclined to tolerate familiar tyranny, so long as it is bearable, than they are to seek an unfamiliar freedom from it. People start or join in revolutions for one of two reasons: unbearable suffering or unrestrained ambition.
I make no moral distinction between the two.
I think what the OP has written is the ideal and what you have written is the reality.
I can't support an ideal that exists in direct contradiction to reality. There is no way to make men equal, and it would be undesirable even if it were possible. Any civilized society-- any functional society-- has men below to be commanded and men above to be obeyed. It is the struggle between men to determine which is which that drives all social and human progress.
To reject this natural opposition of interests is to condemn men to stagnation and decadence. Applied to the whole species, it is to condemn ourself to irrelevance.
I can't support an ideal that exists in direct contradiction to reality. There is no way to make men equal, and it would be undesirable even if it were possible. Any civilized society-- any functional society-- has men below to be commanded and men above to be obeyed. It is the struggle between men to determine which is which that drives all social and human progress.
To reject this natural opposition of interests is to condemn men to stagnation and decadence. Applied to the whole species, it is to condemn ourself to irrelevance.
Yes, i was refering to the ideal not its actual practice. I do have hope though, that this may one day be us again. Hope, beign a pescience of what is and a deep seated belief of what can be.
These ideals must be read in there entirety, it does not mearly stop at "all men are created equal" but goes into saying how they are created equal by being "endowd by there creator with certain unailianble rights that among these are life liberty and pursuit of happieness" (property)
And that leaves you playing my game again: men struggling over the power to secure rights for themselves and deny those same rights to others.
And not only have I already spoken out against the existence of these rights, but the Declaration of Independence itself contradicts the "unalienability" of those rights by claiming the right and the duty to establish a government. A government-- any government-- carries out its duties pretty much exclusively by depriving people of their lives, liberty and/or property.
That's how they fund their operations, that's how they enforce their laws, and that's how they defend their borders. Every possible action of government-- except the declaration of pointless resolutions-- is itself a violation of the principles which the Declaration of Independence proclaimed. The only thing that remains, then, is to determine the degree to which those rights shall be violated and for what purposes, and you cannot logically claim that you are violating a right for the purpose of protecting it.
And that leaves you playing my game again: men struggling over the power to secure rights for themselves and deny those same rights to others.
Ok so I am just wondering how many Americans hold these beliefs in the highest regard?
Declaration Of independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
I guess I don't see freedom in your equation.
I realize not every human makes every single thing he needs, but then I don't feel that voluntary barter necessitates much of this control either.
It's only people for whom the system does not provide security, and people who desire power by any means, who must be controlled by force-- and until there's a critical mass of them to overthrow government, they are rightly regarded as criminals and kept from organizing and amassing power.
That's why liberal revolutions fail. They're a natural magnet for people like that.
How does the revolutionary war fit into your truly unique spin on history?
Around ten years before our "liberal" government used armed force to suppress a tax rebellion similar to the one the Revolutionaries fought, ninety years before they used conscription to abolish slavery, one hundred and seventy years before "premature anti-fascism" was used as an excuse to destroy peoples' lives and livelihoods, and two hundred and thirty years before this thread was started.
There isn't any, unless you have the power to take it. That's my point. And wishing it otherwise does not change it-- you're either strong enough that treading on you isn't in anyone's best interests, or you get trampled. If you value your freedom, you have to play the game. You either have to be a player, or you have to find a master whose rules you find tolerable enough to protect you from the others..
That's what the liberals wanted government to be, but they forgot that people don't want freedom; masters prefer power to freedom, and slaves prefer security. So the corporations became law unto themselves, and the government adjusted its focus to service them, and special interest politics became the rule of the day.
.
they are rightly regarded as criminals and kept from organizing and amassing power.
I believe there desire are in use, however there practice is disapearing due to extreamists on bothsides, an example of this would be the whole craigs list thing or our current tax system, or the 14th amendment or the change of control of the military from the states to the federal government or publically spanking your children. We have allowed the extreamists to ultimatly control how we live.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
You consider the founding fathers "liberals"?
That's...unique.
Ok so I am just wondering how many Americans hold these beliefs in the highest regard?
Declaration Of independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
If the founding fathers were conservatives they would have been loyalists not patriots.
You consider the founding fathers "liberals"?
That's...unique.
I'm an atheist, so I don't think things were granted via some god, but rather rights and liberties are innate to all humans. Humans are equal, even if not treated as such; we all have the same base rights. Beyond those thing, the rest is right on. It is the right of the people to establish for themselves a government which governs by the rights and liberties of its people. Should a government act against those rights and liberties for too long, it is the duty and responsibility of the People, as freemen and owners of the government, to do away with that government and construct for themselves a new one which rules by the rights of the individual. 100% true then and today and something which should be well understood by all. The People are the source of all power of government. Should government abuse and misuse the People's power for too long, it is necessary for the People to do away with that government. It is our right, it is our duty, for the preservation of freedom and liberty and for the ideals this Republic were founded on.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?