"Thoughts on a Declaration" -- A NY Times opinion piece

Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
16,975
Likes
2,824
Feedback: 32 / 0 / 0
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/thoughts-on-a-declaration/

In advance of the July 4 holiday, the editors asked contributors to The Stone, “What is the philosophical theme, or themes, in the Declaration of Independence that should be recalled in today’s America?”: Responses from Arthur C. Danto, Todd May and J.M. Bernstein are below. A transcript of the Declaration of Independence, can be found here.

Hit the link above for the opinions... I won't spoil the fun and tell you what they say.
 
I thought that was a good read. Was there something in particular you took issue with?

Well, let's start with the question asked.

What is the philosophical theme, or themes, in the Declaration of Independence that should be recalled in today’s America?

Now, the equality submission didn't phase me on the core issue. We passed the 14th amendment in order to fix that. But the idea that our rights are tied to social construct means that, through democratic process, these can and should be easily removed.

Another states that liberty equals emptiness and that the inverse of freedom is fulfillment. Therefore, governments taking freedom from their subjects is good for the subjects souls.
 
I found it all very irritating, and predictable.

This morning, the CBS morning show, whatever they call it, had a Norman Rockwell retropective, in which they never discussed his many Boy Scout illustrations, followed by an interview with Norman Lear. This in honor of Independence Day.

Moonbats. They're everywhere.
 
May is just nuts. This crap is why when I saw Independence Day in the theatre in Washington, everyone cheered when New York was blown up by the aliens.
 
May is just nuts. This crap is why when I saw Independence Day in the theatre in Washington, everyone cheered when New York was blown up by the aliens.

Not nessecarily true: I liked ALL the explosions.....including, "Oh, boys......I'm BACK!"

Sometimes, an explosion is just an expolsion, and remember: The tall buildings were coverd with "welcome aliens" nutjobs! [smile]
 
Did you read the second one?

In response to this picture, legislation is being proposed that treats undocumented workers (and worse, their children) as beneath the reach of basic human rights. Denial of non-emergency public health care and education are either enacted or on the table in several state legislatures (not to mention the draconian laws recently passed in Arizona). There may be vigorous debate regarding the rights of undocumented workers to vote or run for office. But when we say that they cannot receive public health care or have their children educated in our schools because it is a waste of taxpayer money, it is hard to argue that we really believe that all people are created equal.

I would challenge this Clemson University Professor on the point that they are not treated as "beneath" but rather they are treated as criminals, since, they have chosen to subvert the laws governing immigration.
Also, he seems to claim by his posts that non-emergency public health care and free public education are "inalienable human rights"

All people ARE created equal, however what they do after they are created is what defines them. Illegal Aliens (let's not try to sugar coat it any more) were created equal, but they were hardly created as illegal aliens. No, they became illegal aliens when they chose to ignore the law because they were too impatient to proceed through the legal process.
 
... But the idea that our rights are tied to social construct means that, through democratic process, these can and should be easily removed.

A common misconceptions, often made both innocently and with intent, that the "social constructs" mentioned are somehow synonymous with government. (If the writer is poorly educated or new to the subject I tend to accept it as an innocent mistake; when so-called philosophers, academics and politicians make it, that's highly questionable.) If they were, (and if these social constructs were really the only basis for rights) then rights could be changed or eliminated by democratic process (again assuming that the government in question were actually democratic). However, social constructs are hardly the same as government. As Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense,
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise.

Ken
 
A common misconceptions, often made both innocently and with intent, that the "social constructs" mentioned are somehow synonymous with government. (If the writer is poorly educated or new to the subject I tend to accept it as an innocent mistake; when so-called philosophers, academics and politicians make it, that's highly questionable.) If they were, (and if these social constructs were really the only basis for rights) then rights could be changed or eliminated by democratic process (again assuming that the government in question were actually democratic). However, social constructs are hardly the same as government. As Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense, Ken
+ 1000000
This is why I could never live really long term in any other country in the world. Everywhere else rights are a matter of tradition and law, thus at the whim of the governments. The USA is the only place of which I'm aware that rights are considered absolutely inviolable absent an overwhelming overriding government interest. (yelling fire in a crowded theatre, etc).

As much as I adore the Netherlands and think the people are awesome, they have hate speech laws there. Something that goes so deeply against our American traditions it's unthinkable to most of us, left and right alike. There, it's a fairly popular law. No thank you.
 
I read an article last night that I thought would be apropos here:

By Morgan Meis
One of the most amazing thoughts in that most amazing of documents, the Declaration of Independence, comes in the second half of the second paragraph. The lines directly follow the more famous ones about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They address the question of (for lack of a better term) revolution. The case is stated thusly: "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to 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."

In essence, it argues that the American people have a right to make up a new form of government, of whatever sort they like, any time the old forms of government seem like they aren't working. Needless to say, this is an incredibly bold and incredibly dangerous proposition to put forth. Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the document, was — along with his colleagues — perfectly aware that he was opening a massive can of worms with this principle of revolution and self-rule.

That's why the next sentence in the Declaration comes right in to qualify the situation, to dampen down the radical impact of these thoughts. Jefferson writes, "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." We have a right to abolish any government and to establish a new one under any principles we fancy, but it is a right that only a fool would actually exercise.

It is an almost impossibly tricky line to establish, the one between revolution and prudence. In establishing it, Jefferson not only formulates a new approach to government, he inaugurates a new prose style, an American prose. Its central principle is the following: When addressing matters difficult and august, it is best to be chatty. There is a danger in this approach. It is the danger of shallowness. Many Americans since Jefferson have fallen victim to that danger. But in the hands of a master this style has the virtue of honesty and confidence in the face of the profound.

No manner of artful prose writing was going to obscure the central dilemma anyway. The fact is, it's a tricky business deciding when to call it quits with a government and set up something new. Sometimes, it has to be done. Most of the time, prudence would dictate sticking with what you've got instead of unleashing the chaos of revolution. Instead of twisting his rhetoric to untangle that Gordian knot, Jefferson simply states his case. We have certain rights and we expect government to respect those rights. We all have a limit as to how far any government can trample on those rights and we know, more or less and collectively, when that limit has been reached. When it has, we scrap the old system and start again. That's what Jefferson says and he says it outright in four sentences. Adjusting for age and historical style, he says it in plain English with no attempt to gloss over the hard problems. It is pragmatism and idealism perfectly blended and today, nearly 250 years later, it is still a pleasure to read. • 29 June 2010
 
Back
Top Bottom