We hold these truths?

[bluethread]

Many base their arguments for various government actions on the following philosophical statement from the preamble to the 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.

If we leave out the creator, how is it self evident that all are created equal?

If there is no creator, what makes the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness unalienable?

Is it indeed the purpose of governments to secure those rights and the right of the governed to overthrow any government that fails to do so?

[ElCodeMonkey]

Many base their arguments for various government actions on the following philosophical statement from the preamble to the 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.

If we leave out the creator, how is it self evident that all are created equal?

If there is no creator, what makes the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness unalienable?

Is it indeed the purpose of governments to secure those rights and the right of the governed to overthrow any government that fails to do so?

I think it's more self-evident without a creator. With a creator it's not evident at all because he can make some vessels unto wrath and some unto his greater purpose. Further, we assume we're all equally capable instead of simply equally human in our ways. Without a creator we're that much more equal in our understanding how each of us is a product of our environment. It allows for much greater empathy towards our fellow man. With or without a creator, our rights have never been unalienable. There have been many times rights have been impeded by others. The statement is referring more to how they believe we ought to view one another. With respect and without gaining at the expense of another. It's a moral disposition that needs no creator to be founded, useful, and beneficial to all.

[Divine Insight]

If we leave out the creator, how is it self evident that all are created equal?

What does it even mean to say that all men are created equal?

Equal in what way?

I think it's pretty self evident that men are not created equal at all.

Some are clearly created with birth defects, blindness, or other disease. So we can't speak of men being created physically equal because that's clearly not true.

If we place any credence to the concept of I.Q. we also see that not all men are created with equal intelligence or ability to reason.

If we believe in the medical sciences of mental health problems we also see that men are not even created with the same state of mental health.

So what I would like to know is in what way are men supposedly created equal?

Only after that has been clarified can we move forward to discussing whether or not its self evident.

Otherwise it's a vague and meaningless ideal.

If there is no creator, what makes the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness unalienable?

Well, obviously a cultural government can simply proclaim this to be so. In fact, there is no need for a creator at all to make this so. It can be made so by simple decree of the human political powers that be.

And obviously these rights are not given to people automatically by some God because there are many people in the world who have suffered under severe oppression and even slavery. So when people are given the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness they are given those rights by a political body that has the power to at least try to enforce these ideals and support them.

A creator would have nothing at all to do with this, obviously.

Is it indeed the purpose of governments to secure those rights and the right of the governed to overthrow any government that fails to do so?

The purpose of governments are whatever those governments chose to make their purpose.

Unless, of course, you are asking for my personal subjective opinion of what I feel should be the role of governments?

If you are asking for my personal subjective opinion I think a government should be for the good of the citizens that make that government possible. A government that is by the people for the people seems like the best idea to me.

[Nickman]

Many base their arguments for various government actions on the following philosophical statement from the preamble to the 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.

If we leave out the creator, how is it self evident that all are created equal?

If there is no creator, what makes the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness unalienable?

Is it indeed the purpose of governments to secure those rights and the right of the governed to overthrow any government that fails to do so?

I'll start by saying that the DoI is not a binding document. It was a letter to King George stating that we are no longer under his control, and that we are doing our own new thing.

Why do you need a god to establish equal rights? Why do you need a god to establish the idea that everyone is equal? Or deserves equal rights? If you need a god to teach you about equality, you definitely need to go to church right now and stay there. Your ideas are barbaric. Do you need a god to feel bad about abused animals? Do you need a god to tell you when to have emotions?

[Goat]

If we leave out the creator, how is it self evident that all are created equal?

What does it even mean to say that all men are created equal?

Equal in what way?

I think it's pretty self evident that men are not created equal at all.

It is a declaration of principle.. that all men are 'equal under the law'. Mind you, it doesn't work out that way, the rich have the advantage of being able to afford better lawyers, and to wrangle themselves out of trouble with big fines rather than pay for their mistakes.. but in theory, the principle is everyone is under the same law.

[Darias]

Many base their arguments for various government actions on the following philosophical statement from the preamble to the 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.

You see this a lot; Frédéric Bastiat argued for natural rights on this assumption. The problem is that you can't really argue for rights with priori assumptions. That's weaksauce, and it's hard for anyone to take seriously. Anyone who does is just believing they are proving some sort of objective ethical standard by appealing to force.

If we leave out the creator. . . .

How is anything under the sun relevant to a proposed deity?

how is it self evident that all are created equal?

If there is no creator, what makes the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness unalienable?

It is not logical to deem some men naturally free and others slaves. Any agent who deems himself and his (group) alone worthy of freedom, but not others, cannot do so without special pleading. This sophistry is invalid and therefore unethical; it is objectively evil via reason alone. Objectivity cannot be derived from authority or the masses or threat of force, this is why Yahweh is not the basis for human liberty.

Is it indeed the purpose of governments to secure those rights and the right of the governed to overthrow any government that fails to do so?

Governments are by definition the initiation of force, or threat of force. Governments can only exist via violence and theft. Governments can only be voluntary, insofar as rape is voluntary.

States do not simply 'fail' to secure and respect freedom; when considering human rights abuses by governments, 'failure' can only be doublespeak. Did the Third Reich fail to secure the rights of Jews? Do you see how ignorant this sounds?

Governments cannot secure rights. To the contrary, governments violate rights more regularly than buggery occurs in prisons. Anyone who isn't comatose can see this.

The words on parchment are symbols, not of our freedom, but of the illusion of freedom. Ink and animal skin protect no one.

The problem is, people think governments grant rights, as though they were Yahweh dishing out stone tablets.

Asking, "Without government, who will give us rights?" is in the same category as asking "Without Yahweh, who will give us rights?" The hidden assumption in both questions is that appealing to force is a sound way to get to the truth that all peaceful people should not be aggressed against.

You cannot build castles on sand. You cannot reason objective truths with fallacies.



As for people's right to resist, resistance is futile -- beit bullet or ballot. Everyone hates NSA spying but they love Obamacare. It's hard to break the trance of victims suffering from live-Stockholm syndrome. Idols and governments are simply abusers so feared, that they are beloved.

[center][/center]

Without Obamacare, who will insure the sick?

Without HAMAS, who will give to the needy?

[bluethread]

Very good responses, in that they are clearly individual and not group think. That said, there does appear to be a common theme here. It appears that all who have posted so far to greater or lesser degree would not expect King George to respect such a plea. So, if you had been a delegate, would you have signed it and why or why not?

That said let me address some specific statements.

Divine Insight:

Well, obviously a cultural government can simply proclaim this to be so. In fact, there is no need for a creator at all to make this so. It can be made so by simple decree of the human political powers that be.
. . .

If you are asking for my personal subjective opinion I think a government should be for the good of the citizens that make that government possible. A government that is by the people for the people seems like the best idea to me.

Couldn't such a government also then just as easily proclaim them not to be so? If you are referring to pure democracy, as your preference, what would make this granting and withholding of rights by decree anything other than the tyranny of the majority that John Adams warned us about?

Nickman:

I'll start by saying that the DoI is not a binding document. It was a letter to King George stating that we are no longer under his control, and that we are doing our own new thing.

Why do you need a god to establish equal rights? Why do you need a god to establish the idea that everyone is equal? Or deserves equal rights? If you need a god to teach you about equality, you definitely need to go to church right now and stay there. Your ideas are barbaric. Do you need a god to feel bad about abused animals? Do you need a god to tell you when to have emotions?

Well, you are correct in that it was a declaration to King George, but do you think the signers all thought it a thinly veiled declaration of war? Also, sense King George was ruling based on the devine right of kings, do you believe this was meant to be a sarcastic tweaking of that notion, or do you consider it to be sincere shifting of devine right from the king to the governed?

Goat:

It is a declaration of principle.. that all men are 'equal under the law'. Mind you, it doesn't work out that way, the rich have the advantage of being able to afford better lawyers, and to wrangle themselves out of trouble with big fines rather than pay for their mistakes.. but in theory, the principle is everyone is under the same law.

Your Jeffersonian appeal to principle is laudable. However, given your pragmatic view of how things actually work out, do you think this was a sincere statement of principle, or was it just a product of compromise?

Darias:

You see this a lot; Frédéric Bastiat argued for natural rights on this assumption. The problem is that you can't really argue for rights with priori assumptions. That's weaksauce, and it's hard for anyone to take seriously. Anyone who does is just believing they are proving some sort of objective ethical standard by appealing to force.

Taken as a whole, your post appears rather fatalistic. I surmise that you would not have been voted most popular at the convention. However, in hopes that you would not have set fire to Independence Hall an set out for the frontier, I am very interested in what you would have done. Given the portion of your post above, would you have proposed a different declaration and if so how so?


Thanks again for your initial posts and I look forward to a rather stimulating discussion. It appears we have the makings of a reinactment here.

[Darias]

You see this a lot; Frédéric Bastiat argued for natural rights on this assumption. The problem is that you can't really argue for rights with priori assumptions. That's weaksauce, and it's hard for anyone to take seriously. Anyone who does is just believing they are proving some sort of objective ethical standard by appealing to force.

Taken as a whole, your post appears rather fatalistic.

Recognizing the reality demands the rejection of false hope, but it does not require the adoption of nihilism. Not only is politics an unprincipled method to achieve liberty, it is also completely ineffective at doing so; in fact, it is counter-productive to that end. I choose to engage in debate and rational argumentation, as well as favor peaceful parenting with the evidence-backed knowledge that this will create less damaged and more rational people, who are better capable of understanding logic and who are less prone to provide rationalizations for abusers in authority -- be they in the home, on the streets, or in the White House.

I surmise that you would not have been voted most popular at the convention.

If my principles were to accompany me on my journey into the past, then I would not have been present at the convention. I would be engaged in an honorable, honest profession, and never seek public office. I would not wish to be a part of any government thievery, whether that government was foreign or closer to home. Forget taxation without representation; there is no such thing as representation. States by definition do not represent individuals; they either represent their own agendas or the mob. Once the US federal government was established, one of the very first things this band of toothless, old slavers did was grant themselves the power to rob the rest of the country -- based on their absurd claim to represent all of the inhabitants in the land.

However, in hopes that you would not have set fire to Independence Hall. . . .

As an anarcho-capitalist, I respect property rights, and even though the government's claim to monopolize this portion earth, even private property is wholly illegitimate, I would still not engage in violence -- firstly, because others were robbed to have that building erected, and secondly because engaging in evil to fight evil is hypocritical and immoral.

an set out for the frontier

If this was the only way I could preserve my life during the war, I would have done so. However, I would have probably written books and articles in the papers denouncing any form of coercive governance; I might have avoided speaking of god or religion to reach a wider audience -- but if Thomas Paine could do it, I guess I could too. I would have been against the king and the revolution, in the same sense Lysander Spooner was against slavery, the Civil War, and the governments that waged it.

[center][yt][/yt][/center]

[Furrowed Brow]

If we leave out the creator, how is it self evident that all are created equal?

Self evidence cannot be argued for. It is self evident or it is not self evident. but what is self evident for one is not self evident for another.

If there is no creator, what makes the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness unalienable?

The people who declare it so make it unalienable whilst they hold the greater power.

Is it indeed the purpose of governments to secure those rights and the right of the governed to overthrow any government that fails to do so?

It is when those with the greater power say it is.

"Overthrow"...maybe...depends if it is not possible to vote them out or persuade them to leave then "overthrow" is a possibility. But the problem here is that few people agree as to what "rights" ought to be secured. So we come back to what is self evident for one is different for someone else. And the truth is that the strong tend to have a different sense of what is self evidently right to the vulnerable. Those who find the neo liberal/libertarian narrative of deregulation, privatisation, dismantling of government welfare etc. self evidently correct see the world through their own prism. This group that give the idea of us all being created equal a different spin to those who see the world through a socialist prism.

[Nickman]

Well, you are correct in that it was a declaration to King George, but do you think the signers all thought it a thinly veiled declaration of war? Also, sense King George was ruling based on the devine right of kings, do you believe this was meant to be a sarcastic tweaking of that notion, or do you consider it to be sincere shifting of devine right from the king to the governed?

You can cloak it in divine rights, but who truly gave the Americans their freedom? Human beings did.