popeye1250
Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BitaTruble
quote:
ORIGINAL: cpK69
A recent thread caused me to consider this idea closer. I have abilities, and opportunities; but rights? I don’t think so.
Not to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.
None of these things have just been handed to me. If they were rights they should be, and without consequence.
I have to work for these things, and only get to keep them, if I am responsible toward them. Even then, there’s no guarantee.
Do you have rights?
I think you are looking at the Declaration from a 2008 perspective and perhaps, forgetting its primary purpose. It was the impassioned voice of a group of men who were moved to action but so noble of cause they put their lives in jeopardy by declaring to their King that they would not stand for tyrannical, unrepresented governing.
Look at it from a 1776 perspective and the person for whom it was written, why it was written and what it meant to those who penned it. 230 years later, we can analyze, admire, admonish, pick apart or embrace those words .. but we don't have the luxury of owning them.
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.
In other words, these are non-transferable gifts from God (to the authors). No man, peasant or King may take these things from us. No one need work for those ideas .. they just 'are'. You have the right to life, the freedom to choose your own actions, to pursue to your hearts content. You make the argument there should be no consequences for utilizing those rights as you see fit. It's my opinion, that's an argument born of ignorance and adults need not be told there are consequences for illicit behaviors and actions which intrude upon others. That was one of the problems at the time. King George was mentally unstable due to his medical issues. Perhaps, if he had been the Declaration would not have been needed because the authors would have had the luxury of engaging in negotiation with a competent adult. As it stands, they didn't have that luxury and thus, the Declaration was born.
— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —
"secure these rights" - that's the difference between your perspective and the authors. The authors were well aware that the things of God, throughout history, were often trampled by the feet of men. These ideas were viewed as precious, sacrosanct - these things should not be protected from tryanny, from discoloration, distortion, villany? What right thinking man of 1776 would not protect that which was most precious to him? Think about what is most precious to you. Your child? If you're not a parent the maybe your car? Do you not protect your child, lock your car or do you assume that everyone else is as concerned about your child or car as you are and would not seek to damage them or cause them injury?
Just a few things to think about.
BitaTruble, well said.
If you are a citizen of the U.S. and you live here you have a lot of rights.
People in many other countries don't have a lot of rights because they won't do what is neccessary to secure those rights.
And in most cases that's going to be armed surrection and violence.
"The tree of Liberty needs to be refreshed occaisionally with the blood of Patriots."
_____________________________
"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"
|
RE: The biggest human fallacy “I’ve got rights” - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread