Safety and the Constitution

[Rich Lucibella]

There's been much discussion on TFL of late regarding necessary police powers to ensure our "safety". Seat belt laws, "papers please" roadblocks, RealID, RFID, drug busts and the like.

Just for kicks I decided to trace the concept that it's the government's job to keep us all safe from ourselves. Unfortunately, it is evidently a rather modern contrivance. To wit:

- The Bill of Rights never mentions the word "safety"; not once; nowhere.

- The Declaration of Independence mentions the word "safety" once....just once....and that in connection with the inalienable right of the People to reject oppression, for their own safety.

- The Constitution of the United States uses the word "safety" once....just once....and this in context of "invasion" or "rebellion".

In fact, it would appear that the founding concepts of this Nation stand in pretty stark contrast to this growing need for "safety":
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness- These are each endeavors which, if pursued with passion, are inherently dangerous.

Hardly a scholarly treatise; hardly anything new to anyone at TFL.
Just thought we could all use a reminder of what sovereign citizens should be focused on.

The "safety" dodge is just that. It cannot be employed without a spoken or unspoken preamble of apology for ignoring or trampling the precepts on which this Republic was founded. "Safety" is never a reason; it is only an excuse.
Rich

[redhawk41]

safety - The condition of being safe; freedom from danger, risk, or injury.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=safety

in order to be free from danger, we cannot be free. an amazing paradox indeed.

when given the choice between freedom and safety, which do you choose?

[Trip20]

I choose freedom, and being responsible for my own safety. I have common sense, God given, and put to use in everything I do.

For those who do not have such attributes, here's your Darwin Award.

The Darwin Awards salute the improvement of the human genome by honoring those who accidentally kill themselves in really stupid ways. Of necessity, this honor is generally bestowed posthumously.

[Avizpls]

No, I can very well be safe and free.

I can be free in that I am not forced to wear a seat belt, and I can be safe in that I choose to anyways.

I can be free in that I may own firearms, and I may be safe in that I choose to only use them at a firing range.

I can be free in that I can have a cigarette when I want, but I can be safe by shoosing to quit.






I want to be safe, but I dont want laws telling me HOW i HAVE to be safe

[Spotted Owl]

I side with Franklin - "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[TheBluesMan]

If one equates the word "safety" to "security," the results are quite different.

If this point significantly alters the focus of this thread, I apologize, please disregard this post.

-Dave

[Rich Lucibella]

Dave-
Security?.....fell right into the trap, didn't you?

"Security" is mentioned once in the Declaration of Independence....just once: again in context of the Peoples' Right to throw off tyranny to provide for their future security.

"Security" is mentioned once in the Bill of Rights....just once: in the Second Amendment; concerns for "security" were used to explain the inalienable right of the people to bear arms.

"Security" is mentioned nowhere else in the Constitution.


Seems the founders were just too interested in "freedom".
Rich

[Marko Kloos]

If giving up some rights makes us a little safer, then the necessary end of that logic is that giving up all our rights makes us totally safe.

Life is dangerous. Get over it. I want the government to neither be my mommy (blue-staters), nor my daddy (red-staters). I want government to leave me the hell alone and live my life without some bureaucrat butting in and trying to improve it for me.

[TheBluesMan]

Rich,

You're welcome.


...back under my rock...

[redhawk41]

Seems the founders were just too interested in "freedom".

unfortunately, it seems, most americans are not

if they were, this would have not even begun

to worried about the 'security' of the next paycheck

what caused this paradigm shift? to busy watching TV, they are

[USP45usp]

That is the reason that most here think that I either need to get help or just totally off my rocker.

I don't subsribe to the general good of anyone, yet I know that I'm responsible for my behavior if it goes against the freedoms of another.

And, if being allowed to be totally free, I end up being a winner of the Darwin Award, then that is my problem. As long as I do something stupid by myself (which is when I do such things), all I have to be responsible for is my own maiming or death. And I pay, out of pocket for my health insurence, I pay for long care assistance, and my grave, casket, and memorial is already paid for so there is no money coming out of tax payers pockets. This is the way it should be.

I know that many here think as me as one of the most stupid people on earth. To do stupid things, just to show that a simple inch separates you from being a felon, and being law abiding and free, should have woken up some here and elsewhere. To show how absurd the laws are and that only an inch separates you from years in jail and no gun ownership and being able to have the same, an inch later.

Like I said, you can't regulate stupidity, you can't and will never be able to do so. The same goes with criminals, you're not ever going to regulate it, and lastly, you can't regulate safety, because this is the real world and safety will never be obtained. And regulating people like me (trying to do so), criminals, and others by the laws that are created, does nothing but ensure that law abiding people, don't and can't have the means to ensure your own safety.

Think about that. No matter the laws, no matter what laws they come up with, it's not going to stop anyone, me, criminals, the insane, from owning or the ability to get, or worse yet, to make, guns.

Wayne

*over the top maybe? Just presenting the truth here, that what most to all believe in, doesn't work, won't work, and can never work without more and more government interference that will only work, maybe, if we go to a complete police state and total control of the government (federal).

[Webleywielder]

The vast majority of homo sapiens are sheepeople, willing to give up responsibility and accept some predation for effortless comfort. Occassionally the sheepeople can be stampeded in the right direction by the sheepdogpeople. Most of the time the sheepeople resent the sheepdogpeople because they mistake them for annoying wolfpeople, never realizing real wolfpeople are not annoying but predatory and often poseing as very charming sheepeople.

Freedom and liberty are precious, perishable aberations. History indicates despotism is the norm. Preserving freedom and liberty is like juggling balls. If you throw the balls too far or too little in one direction, equilibrium is destroyed, and gravity causes the anarchy of bouncing followed by the despotism of immobility. I hope our society has the endurace to keep juggling indefinitely. I am worried.


"In a world devoid of semiautomatics, a properly set-up Webley is the ultimate full-size self-defense handgun."

[Sir William]

Safety, security and service. I am responsible for my own safety. I have a state license for a right to security. Why I pay the state for my right I will never know. I pay gladly for services. Trashstinks, I like smooth roads and I appreciate health standards. I fail to see why there are so many administrative agencies though.

[jonathon]

All I care about is that its no ones repsonsibility but my own to take care of myself.

Where this "entitlement" mentality comes from beats me. Folks, I hate to say it, but you ARE NOT entitled to "free" perscriptions, health care, money, food, etc.

That is what it comes down to, people are getting lazy. They don't want to, or realize that working hard has great rewards.

[tyme]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...rg&btnG=Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...rg&btnG=Search

Founding-era quotes make it clear, to me at least, that the founders were more interested in the proper formulation of government and maximization of liberties rather than concerned with their safety. Safety is quite a vague term, as you point out.

Then there's the whole fiasco regarding the proposition that the constitution is not a suicide pact.

[sm]

Steve

[jefnvk]

No, I can very well be safe and free.

Yes you can. Because by being free, you are free to make the choices necessary to keep you free.

What we are talking more about, is that while you can be free and safe, you can also be free and make stupid decisions, thereby making youself not safe. Some people realize that they cannot make their own decisions on being safe, so they decide the government should decide for them. When the government gets involved, it cannot provide both. It can either guarantee you that you are free to make your own decisions, or it can guarantee you that it will keep you safe by making those decision for you, and everyone else. In that way, no one is free. Others have decided that people telling them how to live a safe life is more important than me being able to make my own decision about how to live a safe life.

[Ben Swenson]

Seems the founders were just too interested in "freedom".

... a word which appears only once in the BoR and not at all in the Constitution or DoI and in the context of words, not actions.

"Free" appears more often (4 times in the Declaration, once in the Constitution and twice in the BoR) but only once in the Declaration does it use the word to refer to a free people as opposed to those who live in tyranny. In the constitution, it refers to those who are not slaves and in the BoR it refers once to free exercise of religion and once to the freedom of the state.

Not that I disagree with your underlying point Rich, but I don't see the frequency count of a given word to be indicative of much.

Anyhow, I doubt people that believe in legislating your behavior for your own safety will be swayed by the thoughts of the Founders.

[Rich Lucibella]

Ben-
Frequency doesn't count? Well let's see.
Safety is mentioned twice in these three documents....and only once in context of Government role.
Security is mentioned twice in these three documents; and never in context of government role.

As you point out, Free and Freedom are mentioned eight times.
As to context, as you point out, there are multiple references to a "Free Society", none to a "Safe Society" (except in context of the Second Amendment).

I submit that frequency most certainly DOES count.
Rich

[XavierBreath]

I do not trust the state with my or my family's safety. That is my responsibility.
To me, it really does not matter to me how many times safety is mentioned in a document. If it was addressed in every paragraph I would still feel the same. For me, personal responsibility for one's own safety and one's children's safety is a truth, not some right, privilege, or teaching of the state.
Living itself is dangerous. Death is safe.

[TheBluesMan]

Originally Posted by Ben Swenson

Not that I disagree with your underlying point Rich, but I don't see the frequency count of a given word to be indicative of much.

The words "no", "not", and "nor" appear eighteen (18) times in the Bill of Rights. Each of these occurances references a restriction on government.

[butch50]

Famous line?

"I'm from the government and I am here to help you; it's for your own good."

Whenever someone wants to do something for me for my own good I know that someone wants to take something away from me to give themselves more power.

[Wildcard]

Declaration of Dependence

Action of the New Intelligentsia of Amerika, July 4, 1999

by Robert Baier

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary of one People to
strengthen the Political Bands through which they have exploited others, and
to assume the Powers of the Earth, the superior and elevated Station which
they perceive as their own and of obvious entitlement, a Disrespect to the
Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel
them to Solidify their Station.

We hold Truths to be irrelevant. That all human obligations to Society are
equal. That among these are Obedience, Taxation, and the Pursuit of a Safer
Society. That to secure these obligations, governments are instituted among
People, deriving their Powers from the Apparatus of the State, that whenever
any act of People becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the right and
duty of Government to protect the People from the People, and to institute
such laws, that may contribute to a more Prophylactic Society. Laying its
foundation on such principles, and organizing its principles in such form,
government shall deem best what are the interests of the People to effect
their safety. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long
established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and
fortunately 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.

And when a long Train of Indulgences and Usurpations, pursuing invariably
individualism, liberty, wanton and reckless expression, the operation of
dangerous conveyances and the wielding of violent instruments, immoral
consortings and associations, boundless and unregulated commerce, frivolous
claims to use, misuse and horde property and income, and to believe in
whatever one pleases, however objectionable, and to conspicuously consume
any substance of choice in any quantity deemed pleasurable, to support these
tendencies evinces a Design to subvert the order and safety of Society, it
is the Right, it is the Duty of Government, to control such acts, and to
provide new Guards for their future Safety and Security.

Such has been the patient Sufferance of this Government; and such is now the
Necessity which constrains them to alter the conduct of its People. The
History of the present People is a History of repeated Idiocies and
Irresponsibilities, all having in direct Object the pursuit of Individual
Whim and Fancy and the subversion of the Order and Safety of the State. To
prevent this, let our views be Forced Upon the World.

http://www.gunnewsdaily.com/soc4.html

[Hugh Damright]

I would not expect US documents to regard safety ... the US is is not delegated broad powers such as "keeping us safe". But I suspect that if you look over the State Constitutions, you may find that safety and security are mentioned. Here is how my Virginia Bill of Rights begins:

SECTION 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity, namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

SEC. 2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.

SEC. 3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety

But I think it is one thing to have laws trying to keep us safe from each other (i.e. laws against driving while impaired) and another thing to have laws trying to keep us safe from ourselves (i.e. laws against driving without a seatbelt).

[tyme]

Isn't the power to "keep citizens safe" equivalent to the general police power, which judges have repeatedly and expressly stated belongs only to the states?