Would *you* sign this statement?

[pax]

Some truths are so obvious that they do not require an elaborate proof, and so obvious that it is all but ridiculous to attempt one. Among these is the obvious truth that all human beings are equally responsible for their own consciences, behaviors, and actions. This means that all human beings have a right to live their own lives, to do whatever pleases them as long as it doesn't interfere with the basic rights of others, and to be free to make their own decisions about their own lives.

The only real reason people agree to submit themselves to a government is to protect these basic and fundamental human rights.

Thus, government comes from the free, voluntary, and willing consent of ordinary people, and the power of a government comes from the ordinary people who agree to be bound by its laws.

Because the government derives its power in such a way, and because the purpose of government is to protect those basic human rights, it follows that whenever a government no longer protects these rights, or whenever a government begins to destroy these rights, then it is the responsibility of a good citizen to either change that government or to destroy it.

If the government does not or cannot protect basic human rights, the only moral course that a person can take is to participate in changing or abolishing the existing government.

Of course, as a practical matter, a long-standing government can't be changed easily – and shouldn't be changed for minor or temporary problems. Again, that's simple human nature. Most of us are willing to put up with an awful lot of bad stuff before we'll get off our rear ends and do anything about it! Especially if changing things means that ... well, that things have changed. We like the familiar.

But when there's a long and ongoing pattern of human rights abuses, and flagrant abuses of power including some people getting into office who aren't even legally qualified to do so or who cheated to get there, and there's so many repeated offenses of this nature that it almost looks like there's a plan to take away all power from the people and put it in the hands of bureaucrats – well, that's when people have the right and duty to abolish the existing government and found a new one that will be more responsive to their needs and more likely to respect their rights.

Would you sign the above statement? Do you agree with it?

pax

[johnwilliamson062]

I would sign it, but not in relation to any current political situation in the US. I do believe we are standing at the edge of a very slippery slope, but we certainly have not stepped onto that edge yet, let alone slid far enough I am close to thinking about doing anything about it, at least not the type of actions that seems to indicate.

[grymster2007]

Would you sign the above statement? Do you agree with it?

Yeah... I agree.

The key point is that people will put up with a lot of abuse before taking action. Changing a long established government such as ours, that pretty well buys the votes of the lazy with the wealth of the industrious is a very messy prospect indeed. Can't see radical change in our government coming any time soon.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Kathy,

I will go out on a longer limb and say that I believe that our (USA) system of governance is without equal in the entire world. I'll go farther than JohnWilliamson and say we are nowhere near that point now. I have argued on here before that I do not believe the Well-Regulated Militia or even an armed citizenry is the most important bulwark against tyranny. Our democratic institutions as well as a free press are much more a deterrent to a despot than arms in private hands (I am very pro Heller and 2A). That said, of course our system is not perfect and laws get passed I do not agree with as well as other decisions made by polititicians but I have found no better way to govern than our 200 year "experiment".

Finally, how do we in our system keep our government straight. GET INVOLVED. Recently, my county commission here in Tennessee tried to ban concealed carry in county public buildings. The NRA swung into action and about 100 of us showed up at the meeting (after calling virtually all the commissioners to voice our dissent). The result? The motion was pulled and not one of the commissioners would even admit that they favored it and all claimed ignorance as to how it got on the docket . THAT IS POWER!

If we ever get to the point that violently overthrowing our government is our only option then we lost the war way before that point was reached. Stay involved in civic affairs and you won't ever need to sign such a statement.

[johnwilliamson062]

I agree with Tennessee Gentleman on the First Amendment being more important than the Second Amendment. The amendments were not put in a random order. They are ordered by the importance they had and by the ease with which they passed. The First and Second passed far easier than the rest and needed less revision[everyone agreed].

It is just that I meet very few US citizens who believe the First Amendment needs to be further restricted. Few seem to realize that you not only need to be able to pass ideas, but also have the option of doing something about it, in the worst case scenario.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I agree with most of it. I have some slight quibbles:

1. But when there's a long and ongoing pattern of human rights abuses, and flagrant abuses of power that's when people have the right and duty to abolish the existing government and found a new one that will be more responsive to their needs and more likely to respect their rights.

I prefer this - the examples are not really necessary and don't reach the level of the need for the proposed action as normal politics will take care of them. For example, some might think that Bush cheated to get in. Wasn't worth a civil war over - his paradigm is gone. Some think that Obama isn't legally qualified (I do think he is qualified) - so vote him out. Don't need a civil war.

2. The first statement is excellent but it is contrary to social conservative views - if you meant that - that fine as it is quite liberatarian.

This means that all human beings have a right to live their own lives, to do whatever pleases them as long as it doesn't interfere with the basic rights of others, and to be free to make their own decisions about their own lives.

Proscriptions against sexuality, some drug usage, some literary and media expressions are clearly the bread and butter of a section of American politics.

3. Do we think that armed rebellion is justified by those who feel Proposition 8 in California? In theory, that's a violation of their human rights. The gun world hasn't really come up with many examples of what to fight for except for taking guns away. Would opposition to the Iraq War which was based in part on untruths a reason for armed rebellion? Bill Ayers is seen as a terrorist as using force against the Viet Nam war. But Unintended Consequences, the book, proposed violence over gun laws. American Handgunner called it a masturbatory fantasy.

Where is the line that justifies the horror another civil war would bring?

[Al Norris]

Kathy,

Nice rendition of the Declaration of Independence in modern language.

[johnwilliamson062]

The gun world hasn't really come up with many examples of what to fight for except for taking guns away

This is because what most 2A proponents fear most is losing their ability to make the decision to revolt. As long as I have that option I don't get too worked up about the details of what is going on in Washington. I know things will not get too out of whack.
I do not believe I would ever get worked up over a single politician. The problem is when 200 billion dollars worth of pork has to be added to an 800 billion dollar EMERGENCY bailout to get it passed. This clearly shows no one cares about governing the country. The only concern is for being reelected.
Chairman Mao claimed several times that every generation needed some level of revolution in order to keep the government in check. The Cultural Revolution, Great Leap Forward, 'Time of 100 flowers blooming in 100 colors'(or whatever that nonsense was) didn't work out too well for him, but hey maybe he was on the right track.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

This means that all human beings have a right to live their own lives, to do whatever pleases them as long as it doesn't interfere with the basic rights of others, and to be free to make their own decisions about their own lives.

After reading Glenn's comments I agree that the above statement is rather libertarian which I am not. For one thing, I do not believe (as I was taught in Criminology in the '70s) in "victimless" crimes. We are almost always effected by things others do and so I find it hard to rationalize legalizing drugs, prostitution, and euthanizia or alternative marriage. Of course I like their view of guns mostly but not any gun, anyone, anywhere.

[44 AMP]

That only poster (so far) has recognised your restatement of the Declaration of Independence.

I gree, it is a nice rewording in contemporary language. Congratulations on keeping all the salient points of the original document intact.

I would sign it.

[pax]

Al, 44AMP -- I translated it so people wouldn't catch it on first glance, and would be forced to actually think about the (very radical) meaning of that revolutionary document.

Favorite quote in the thread so far? "... I agree that the above statement is rather libertarian ..."

Yup, guys -- the argument I just presented is in actual fact rather startlingly libertarian.

(And almost immediately after I posted it, a friend of mine glanced over at my screen, read the post, and said, "Geeze Kathy! You know, the anti-federalist papers were all published anonymously for a reason!")

pax

[johnwilliamson062]

Well, I realized it was a restatement of the Declaration Of Independence, but I am a Libertarian, so it seemed natural that someone would discuss things in these terms. If you have read other similar documents for other countries you will find they are all so close it could be a restatement of almost any of them.

Keep in mind that everyone who signed the original document was sure they would all hang before all was said and done. Some of them did not survive the war.
Look further into the following list of US interrnal conflicts and you will quickly realize it is best to wait until things get really bad.

Shays Rebellion
Whiskey Rebellion
John Brown's Raid
innumerable slave rebellions
Civil War
Utah War
Athens, Tennessee uprising
Indian Wars
and dozens of others in US history. In most cases leaders and most others died.

[Socrates]

It is really bad, and, it's going to get worse....

[raimius]

I agree with most of it. However, your examples of situations requiring reformation or destruction of a government do not generally meet my requirements.

...and yes, the paraphrasing of the Declaration of Independence was noticed.

...and yes, I am generally libertarian, although I can see restrictions when the net benefit to the public outweighs the costs...so, I do take a stand against things like prostitution (as the unintended consequenses are quite severe and negative--sexual slavery being the main one).

[pax]

raimius, Glenn:

Those weren't my examples. They were a simple and clear restatement of the foundational principles which started the American experiment.

Here's what I wrote, that you both objected to: "But when there's a long and ongoing pattern of human rights abuses, and flagrant abuses of power including some people getting into office who aren't even legally qualified to do so or who cheated to get there, and there's so many repeated offenses of this nature that it almost looks like there's a plan to take away all power from the people and put it in the hands of bureaucrats -- well, that's when people have the right and duty to abolish the existing government and found a new one that will be more responsive to their needs and more likely to respect their rights."

Here's the original:

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 took more words to say it, but I said the same thing -- using several dictionaries and the thesaurus as needed.

In context, "a long train of abuses" means human rights abuses (referencing the earlier portion of the document).

"Usurpations" means the government or people within the government grabbing power that does not rightly belong to them, particularly if they break the law to do so and then use that power in a particularly offensive manner. In a representative democracy, that means people in public office who got there in a fundamentally dishonest or illegal way, such as through vote fraud or breaking the election laws.

"Evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism" means that it looks like there's a plan to take all power away from the people and concentrate it in the hands of the government.

When those things happen as a long and repeated pattern, said our Founders, people have both the right and the duty to change the government and put in a new one.

pax

[johnwilliamson062]

Pax,
How would SCOTUS interpret the differences in wording... just kidding.

I haven't missed a meal because I couldn't afford it or the shelves were bare.
Police intervention is not affecting my daily life in any way I find to be obtrusive Well, owning a full auto kalashnikov for $300 or less might be nice, even if I could only afford to look at it.

The cost in most revolutions is at the beginning when the civilians, almost always having been disarmed, haven't gather arms. The risks involved in gathering a pistol and a few cartridges are enormous in most of the situations. My understanding is the organized French resistance in Paris started out with two firearms. Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto were a little better off, but not much(and the Polish Catholic resistance gave them a bit more help). An old pistol and break action shotgun. Getting to the place where there were SMGs and readily available pistols took a lot of brave, dangerous, and morally objectionable acts by young men and women.

As long as I don't expect to pay that price, or convince someone else to, I have food on my table, and I am not passing through checkpoints every five minutes and having papers checked, my butt is voting Libertarian and sitting tight.

I'll show up to work if the taxes don't get raised from where they are by too much, otherwise I'll be sitting on an old couch watching the tube instead of in my office chair.

[grymster2007]

I suspect anyone who claims they knew pax re-worded the DOI before Al’s post is fibbin’. I didn’t put it together. I thought she was making a veiled reference to a revolution. Kinda testing the waters. Glad I didn’t publicly offer to sign up as a foot soldier in her army!

Some days the two wires protruding from the walnut-on-a-spring that serves as my brain, bump together and some days they don't.

[buzz_knox]

I suspect anyone who claims they knew pax re-worded the DOI before Al’s post is fibbin’.

I won't say that I knew, but I suspected, based on the "sign" comment. As in, would you put your "John Hancock" there.

The more I think about it, I more firmly believe that the greatest generation of Americans was the first one, the generation who created this nation. Every person who signed that document put far more than their reputation on the line. Many of them lost everything for what they believed in.

I know very few people who would do so today. Most offer lip service to the ideals that document embodies, but concerns over jobs, wealth, or even comforts will sway them to obediance and compliance.

[pax]

I know very few people who would do so today. Most offer lip service to the ideals that document embodies, but concerns over jobs, wealth, or even comforts will sway them to obediance and compliance.

Buzz ~

And there we are back at the Declaration. Human beings never put everything on the line to change a government when it's only about "light and transient" causes. We just don't like change that much, and most of us fully believe that in order to outweigh a risk that size the potential reward has to be much, much, much larger than the risk.

As for paying lip service to the ideals, I don't see that at all. Few people recognized the argument in the first place, and most people who responded were inclined to strongly disagree with it. Shows how far we've come from the kind of thinking that started our nation.

pax

[pax]

I haven't missed a meal because I couldn't afford it or the shelves were bare.

Police intervention is not affecting my daily life in any way I find to be obtrusive. Well, owning a full auto kalashnikov for $300 or less might be nice, even if I could only afford to look at it.

The cost in most revolutions is at the beginning when the civilians, almost always having been disarmed, haven't gather arms. The risks involved in gathering a pistol and a few cartridges are enormous in most of the situations. My understanding is the organized French resistance in Paris started out with two firearms. Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto were a little better off, but not much(and the Polish Catholic resistance gave them a bit more help). An old pistol and break action shotgun. Getting to the place where there were SMGs and readily available pistols took a lot of brave, dangerous, and morally objectionable acts by young men and women.

As long as I don't expect to pay that price, or convince someone else to, I have food on my table, and I am not passing through checkpoints every five minutes and having papers checked, my butt is voting Libertarian and sitting tight.

I'll show up to work if the taxes don't get raised from where they are by too much, otherwise I'll be sitting on an old couch watching the tube instead of in my office chair.

The men who signed the Declaration were almost all extremely wealthy men, who had done well under the British rule. Not one of them had missed any meals.

The taxes they objected to -- objected so strenuously that they were willing to start a war over it! -- amounted to a tax rate of approximately three percent. All that fiery rhetoric of the Founders was directed at a "tyrant" who taxed his subjects at a rate of about three percent. (What's your tax bracket? Somewhat higher, I betcha...)

To be clear, I'm not suggesting anyone die on the barricades today. I am suggesting that we, including the self-identified libertarians, have sure moved a long way away from the kind of thinking that founded our nation.

pax

[Technosavant]

I did ID it by the third sentence, even before reading the rest of the thread. Very nice work, pax.

I would sign it. I also recognize how far our nation has come from those principles.

The phrase "there oughta be a law" is one of the worst to ever be uttered in a community that values its freedom. All law constrains freedom. There are times when that is necessary (to ensure the right to life, liberty, and property), but all too often we have uttered that phrase to fix nothing more than annoyances.

Liberty is sold out on the installment plan. It remains to be seen if it can be recaptured in the same fashion.

[johnwilliamson062]

The quartering act was a big part of it. If you have ever housed someone outside your family you would realize the cost is immense. Much more than the three percent.
There were check points leading into and out of cities to check for weapons stolen from British armories among other things(we had quite a few Brown Bess's before any shots were fired).
The main objection was laws especially taxation without representation and where that was going.

I have a vote, it counts as much as anyone else's. We are putting ourselves into this mess. Everyone except me seems to be content with the two party system. Strickland, a Democrat, is probably the first politician I will ever vote for that I really thought was doing a good job and decently representing my interests. Even where he isn't in line with what I believe, he at least seems to be doing what he actually thinks is right, not what will get him re-elected or money for the next campaign. Can't say that about any elected official I have voted for above the county level.

[azredhawk44]

There were check points leading into and out of cities to check for weapons stolen from British armories among other things(we had quite a few Brown Bess's before any shots were fired).

My understanding of this is that the British troops were notorious for selling their weaponry and gear in order to avail themselves of Boston's pubs and... er... industrious women.

I've read reports of quite regular public floggings for this offense.

The quartering act was a big part of it. If you have ever housed someone outside your family you would realize the cost is immense. Much more than the three percent.

There were only about 2500 or so troops in New England in 1775. Most of them were stationed in Boston at the barracks there or in the Navy's fleet. Some manned various forts lightly. While the concept of quartering a soldier is certainly onerous, I'd like to read specific accounts of it happening or hear an accounting of the total times it actually happened. Not defending the british by any means... I'm illustrating that the onerous deeds committed by the Crown pale in comparison to some of the things we face today.

I immediately recognized Pax's OP as a modernized translation of the Declaration in the first sentence. You can only say "We hold these truths to be self-evident" so many ways in the English language without saying almost the exact same thing.

I'd sign it, and be honored to pledge my life, my fortune and my sacred honor to such a noble pursuit in company of like minded men (or women).

[larvatus]

Some truths are so obvious that they do not require an elaborate proof, and so obvious that it is all but ridiculous to attempt one. Among these is the obvious truth that all human beings are equally responsible for their own consciences, behaviors, and actions. This means that all human beings have a right to live their own lives, to do whatever pleases them as long as it doesn't interfere with the basic rights of others, and to be free to make their own decisions about their own lives.

The problem with this claim arises in every instance of economic exchange with one's peers. You don't have to consider yourself beholden to their society, to get affected by their trades. If everyone were to rest content with bartering goods for services and the like, there would be no cause for alarm. But to the extent that people come to rely on bonds and securities, their transactions and holdings become punitively interdependent. As witness the current state of affairs, socialism is an unavoidable consequence of free credit. Resisting it at the grass roots for the sake of notional libertarianism incompatible with full economic freedom is likely to favor the worst variety of socialism currently foisted upon the taxpayers, whereby the losses of the rich get socialized, even as their gains get exempted from taxation. The sole remaining option for fairness is to concern ourselves with safeguarding liberty in the face of creeping socialization.

[bikerbill]

Where do I sign? An artful rendention of the DofI ... would that our elected officials be required to sign -- and faced penalties when the inevitably violated its tenants ...