The Secular Left Isn't Compatible with the Declaration of Independence

jdog said:

There is a law on the books which makes anything you do illegal.

Click to expand...

A link would be nice.

jdog said:

Actually, the liberals are just modern day Federalists. Authoritarian pricks who want to establish a new royalty of statists. The forefathers were mostly libertarians in every way.

Click to expand...

Now I know you are talking out of your ass. Half the forefathers were Federalists. So were they libertarian or authoritarian? :lamo

jdog said:

Liberals do not want the demilitarization of police. They need the police to enforce their authoritarian freedom robbing Bull Crap.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? It is consistently liberals and libertarians who call for the demilitarization of the police. Conservatives almost always demand more militarization and have a habit of defending an officer even if he/she was clearly in the wrong.

"Half the forefathers were Federalists." G #52

Click to expand...

Yet the government they Founded was federal.
So instead of ~50:50, wouldn't that more accurately be described as 100%?

"So were they libertarian or authoritarian?" G #52

Click to expand...

For politically conservative Libertarians like me this is a painfully familiar debate.

@LP.org the ongoing taunt from anarchists is:

You (Libertarians) say you're "the party of principle".
Well if you're against authoritarian government then you're "party of principle" violates its own principle to have government at all.

I'm not an anarchist.
But I don't mind leaning toward government minimalist, though the devil is in the details.

"libertarian or authoritarian?"

"A government exists when it has a reasonable monopoly on the legitimate use of violence." George Will

Click to expand...

Liberty means the right and power to think, act, and express ones self in the manner of ones own choosing, provided that Liberty does not infringe or usurp the Liberty of another or others.

I'm not sure it's way out of line to have a federal structure in place including a standing military to preserve our sovereignty.
Long gone are the days that the guy running the General Store could prop a musket up in the corner, and be available on a moment's notice to drop what he's doing, grab the musket, and battle back the invading hordes to preserve our nationhood.

The threats to our sovereignty vastly exceed hordes of musket-toting bad guys swarming over the hill.
Without a standing military, we would be as vulnerable to external aggression as a sugar-coated babe in the woods.

" Conservatives almost always demand more ..." G #53

Click to expand...

Pseudo-cons perhaps.

The root word of "conservative" is to conserve.
And yes. Pseudo-cons are known for clamoring for more; hypocritically demanding authoritarian government be the instrument of their social engineering.

True political conservatives don't think like that.

jdog said:

It is government which alienates the citizens rights. There is a law on the books which makes anything you do illegal. That is why cops can arrest you any time any where and there is nothing you can do about it.

Click to expand...

This is really confusing. I thought conservatives were on the side of the police against minorities these days.

Henrin said:

I can't figure out where they suggested to remove all government. You realize that protecting inalienable rights would call for a much smaller government than liberals want, right? Wanting less government than liberals doesn't mean you want no government.

Click to expand...

That sounds good, but the devil is in the details. How exactly would you make government smaller? Get rid of Medicare? Social Security, the police department, public schools?

If you think real Americans are oppressed by the socialist agenda, why don't you run on your political platform we will see what they really think about all that?

I have found that conservatives just like to speak in broad, abstract terms, because as soon as they start talking specifics, it becomes clear how unpopular and ridiculous their positions are.

fmw said:

I think it is probably more accurate to say that rights are recognized by government. Government doesn't create rights.

Click to expand...

You would have no rights without government enforcement of legal protection. Without a system of law and order and forced by government your inalienable rights would become alienable so fast your head would spin. And no one would care that you have a cute little shotgun.

ataraxia said:

That sounds good, but the devil is in the details. How exactly would you make government smaller? Get rid of Medicare? Social Security, the police department, public schools?

Click to expand...

In part, yes.

If you think real Americans are oppressed by the socialist agenda, why don't you run on your political platform we will see what they really think about all that?

Click to expand...

Why are you talking about popularity of ideas? At what point did I mention that any ideas were popular or not?

I have found that conservatives just like to speak in broad, abstract terms, because as soon as they start talking specifics, it becomes clear how unpopular and ridiculous their positions are.

Click to expand...

Is there a point to this popularity argument of yours?

LowDown said:

Calvin Coolidge wrote:



But if one does not believe that there is any superior authority to endow men with inalienable rights, then one believes that there is no such thing as an inalienable right. So therefore rights are not granted by God but by government, and they can therefore always be taken away by the government. Therefore the authority of the government does not rest on the consent of the government, but on who can get their boots on the people's necks.

The idea of the Declaration of Independence is that any government that tries to strip people of those rights is not legitimate, and the people have the right to overthrow it. The history of the left is clear -- they have never had any regard for civil rights because they hold nothing sacred. For them all that matters is who can gain and maintain power. They will preach civil rights until they have overwhelming power, then they cast concern for civil rights aside.

Click to expand...

Think about this LowDown. I don't believe in a god but I think humans should work towards a society where every person is guaranteed a set of rights like those guaranteed in the declaration of independence and our founding documents. You believe in those same ideals, but then say they are guaranteed by god.

Well if they are guaranteed you never need worry about them being taken away. Right? Oh, but they can be taken away? Then how is your philosophy any better? Either way we are stuck on this planet together and as a country we have to vote, fight etc to keep our rights intact. Whether you say god granted them or not makes no difference in terms of real life application.

ataraxia said:

You would have no rights without government enforcement of legal protection. Without a system of law and order and forced by government your inalienable rights would become alienable so fast your head would spin. And no one would care that you have a cute little shotgun.

Click to expand...

Fortunately, our government recognizes those natural rights. Nobody cares now about my cute little shotgun.

fmw said:

Fortunately, our government recognizes those natural rights. Nobody cares now about my cute little shotgun.

Click to expand...

So how are they natural if they can't exist without a system of law and government enforcement of them? I thought they were supposed to exist IN SPITE of government, not because of it. If they can't, how's that "natural"?

In nature, the weak and vulnerable have no natural rights at all and are killed and eaten for lunch, and the strong survive and thrive and impose their will on them, for as long as they stay strong. That's not such an attractive model for most people in modern civil societies. I am not sure why it appeals to you so much.

Henrin said:

Is there a point to this popularity argument of yours?

Click to expand...

Yeah. The libertarian argument is premised on the argument that if you just leave everyone free and unregulated, things would work out for the best, and we would maximize not just everyone's freedom, but also security, prosperity for all, health, education, scientific progress in society, etc... In this view, there are no difficult compromises and negotiation among such competing demands. They all come together as a bundled package- kinda like those deals from Verizon or something.

But it seems that you are conceding that this position would just hurt a lot of people. But that's OK, because we would all be more free. I suppose it would be a little like how things work in the jungle. So you are not just arguing that more freedom=more security/prosperity, you seem to be saying we should just leave everyone free, even if they are less secure/prosperous. Security/prosperity/social order/justice/other ideals, if they ever interfere with individual freedom, should always be sacrificed to freedom. Individual freedom is the one ideal which should never be negotiated or infringed, no matter what.

I suppose then even stop signs at intersections should be abandoned.

I think the libertarian position would be even less popular that it already is if that's the argument you want to make.

LowDown said:

Calvin Coolidge wrote:



But if one does not believe that there is any superior authority to endow men with inalienable rights, then one believes that there is no such thing as an inalienable right. So therefore rights are not granted by God but by government, and they can therefore always be taken away by the government. Therefore the authority of the government does not rest on the consent of the government, but on who can get their boots on the people's necks.

The idea of the Declaration of Independence is that any government that tries to strip people of those rights is not legitimate, and the people have the right to overthrow it. The history of the left is clear -- they have never had any regard for civil rights because they hold nothing sacred. For them all that matters is who can gain and maintain power. They will preach civil rights until they have overwhelming power, then they cast concern for civil rights aside.

Click to expand...

The idea of inalienable rights being granted by a god/s is a nice idea a great ideal but ultimately false.

Even in the founding of the US those inalienable rights as granted supposedly granted by god, were not granted by the document to significant numbers of people within the US. Women were excluded from many of those rights, Indian, and of course slaves. All had those rights restricted or removed from them. It was not god that eventually ensured those groups of people eventually were granted those rights, but the will of man, woman and child either through protest, or outright violence.

Let us not forget that the bible including the new testament have passages that support slavery. If the rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence were granted by god, they would have been granted in the New Testament, and not fought over to ensure they were in fact granted to all people. It is not god that gave those rights, but humanity, and it is humanity that can take them away

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery

n several Pauline epistles, and the First Epistle of Peter, slaves are admonished to obey their masters, "as to the Lord, and not to men".[88][89][90][91][92] However, masters were told to serve their slaves "in the same way"[93] and "even better" as "brothers",[94] to not threaten them as God is their Master as well.

The Epistle to Philemon has become an important text in regard to slavery; it was used by pro-slavery advocates as well as by abolitionists.[95][96] In the epistle, Paul writes that he is returning Onesimus, a fugitive slave, back to his master, Philemon; however, Paul also entreats Philemon to regard Onesimus, who he says he views as a son, not as a slave but as a beloved brother in Christ. Philemon is requested to treat Onesimus as he would treat Paul.[97]

Click to expand...

ataraxia said:

So how are they natural if they can't exist without a system of law and government enforcement of them? I thought they were supposed to exist IN SPITE of government, not because of it. If they can't, how's that "natural"?

In nature, the weak and vulnerable have no natural rights at all and are killed and eaten for lunch, and the strong survive and thrive and impose their will on them, for as long as they stay strong. That's not such an attractive model for most people in modern civil societies. I am not sure why it appeals to you so much.

Click to expand...

Kindly bother others with your desire to argue semantics.

LowDown said:

Calvin Coolidge wrote:



But if one does not believe that there is any superior authority to endow men with inalienable rights, then one believes that there is no such thing as an inalienable right. So therefore rights are not granted by God but by government, and they can therefore always be taken away by the government. Therefore the authority of the government does not rest on the consent of the government, but on who can get their boots on the people's necks.

The idea of the Declaration of Independence is that any government that tries to strip people of those rights is not legitimate, and the people have the right to overthrow it. The history of the left is clear -- they have never had any regard for civil rights because they hold nothing sacred. For them all that matters is who can gain and maintain power. They will preach civil rights until they have overwhelming power, then they cast concern for civil rights aside.

Click to expand...

Rights "granted by God" are meaningless. God has no power to grant anything. The world is full of despots who take away rights in the name of God.

ataraxia said:

Yeah. The libertarian argument is premised on the argument that if you just leave everyone free and unregulated, things would work out for the best, and we would maximize not just everyone's freedom, but also security, prosperity for all, health, education, scientific progress in society, etc... In this view, there are no difficult compromises and negotiation among such competing demands. They all come together as a bundled package- kinda like those deals from Verizon or something.

But it seems that you are conceding that this position would just hurt a lot of people. But that's OK, because we would all be more free. I suppose it would be a little like how things work in the jungle. So you are not just arguing that more freedom=more security/prosperity, you seem to be saying we should just leave everyone free, even if they are less secure/prosperous. Security/prosperity/social order/justice/other ideals, if they ever interfere with individual freedom, should always be sacrificed to freedom. Individual freedom is the one ideal which should never be negotiated or infringed, no matter what.

I suppose then even stop signs at intersections should be abandoned.

I think the libertarian position would be even less popular that it already is if that's the argument you want to make.

Click to expand...

How in the hell does that back up your popularity argument?

Henrin said:

How in the hell does that back up your popularity argument?

Click to expand...

Your position is an unpopular position, especially if people really knew what it's all about, that's all. And it hurts lots of people. And it's dysfunctional. And it's inhumane and unjust.

So I am not sure what you find so appealing about it. I guess the only argument would be that individual freedom is worth all that. Is that what your position?

fmw said:

Kindly bother others with your desire to argue semantics.

Click to expand...

I don't understand why it's semantics. You were telling us how government protects "natural rights". Looking at nature, I am not sure what those are. In nature, the strong can do what they want, and the weak have to take it. That's natural law. How are the rights in the DOI natural? This is not semantics. I want to know what you mean by "natural".

ataraxia said:

I don't understand why it's semantics. You were telling us how government protects "natural rights". Looking at nature, I am not sure what those are. In nature, the strong can do what they want, and the weak have to take it. That's natural law. How are the rights in the DOI natural? This is not semantics. I want to know what you mean by "natural".

Click to expand...

Natural rights are those that don't hurt anybody and cause nobody to give anything up for them to be exercised. They can be surpressed but not created.

fmw said:

Natural rights are those that don't hurt anybody and cause nobody to give anything up for them to be exercised. They can be surpressed but not created.

Click to expand...

Taxes hurt people. But we need them to pay for the military.

jdog said:

The stupidity of your post has to be read to be believed.

Click to expand...

Calling my post stupid and then writing what you did here is the superlative form of being nose-blind to your own stink. Your post is so full of contradictions and general ignorance that I don't know where to start dissecting this trash. I guess the beginning is as good as any.

Only an idiot would believe that mankind is not corrupted by power.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm no idiot and I don't disagree that power corrupts. However, to my point and not just to sling poo with you and George, there is NO such thing as a power vacuum. It is either filled by elected and, thus, impeachable public servants or it is filled by war lords and preachers who CAN'T be impeached except through violence. Therefore, power being power, I prefer it be wielded by someone who is not above the law. Therefore, your short-sighted, conservative, anti-government BS is, ultimately, a commercial for oppression by non-government entities. That, my friend, is why the righties are team oppression.

You can tell when you are in the 4th turning by the abundance of idiots who are incapable of understanding the obvious truth. Socialism is a step backward in evolution as it is simply a return to the tribal system. When mankind abandoned the tribal system and began the era of self dependency was the beginning of civilization.

Click to expand...

The evolution away from tribalism was NOT toward self-dependency. In fact, the very idea of self-dependency is such a favorite conservative lie that it borders on being a religion. There is no evidence that self-dependency has EVER been the way humans lived and the fact that you and others continue to bleat about it is evidence of the conservative allergy to actual facts. Humans are a social species who evolved from other social primates and that has always been our way. Tribalism IS civilization, albeit one that works with smaller groups, and that you think some other take on reality is "obvious truth" leads me to question whether you are awake or asleep. It is cooperation, not self-dependence that makes humans capable of so many great things. No man is an island and NONE have ever achieved great things alone.

Our so called Colleges are perfect examples of how far liberalism has caused our species to devolve.

Click to expand...

The devolution of mankind begins with anti-intellectualism. You do a good job of demonstrating it.

Once a bastion of free speech, our Colleges are now bastions of fascism and intolerance for any perspective that is not socialist. Hell you might as well be in a 1960's soviet College as a 2017 US college.

Click to expand...

Socialism and fascism are not the same thing and cannot coexist. Therefore, this gibberish is sadly ignorant of the facts of the world. I don't know what else to say but wow, what a load of meaningless drivel.

Lord Tammerlain said:

Let us not forget that the bible including the new testament have passages that support slavery. If the rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence were granted by god, they would have been granted in the New Testament, and not fought over to ensure they were in fact granted to all people. It is not god that gave those rights, but humanity, and it is humanity that can take them away.

Click to expand...

I scratch my head and wonder how people like LowDown can believe there are no rights without belief in a god when some of the most religious societies have also been some of the most oppressive.

Geoist said:

Now I know you are talking out of your ass. Half the forefathers were Federalists. So were they libertarian or authoritarian? :lamo

Click to expand...

Show your proof that half the forefathers were Federalists.

LowDown said:

Calvin Coolidge wrote:



But if one does not believe that there is any superior authority to endow men with inalienable rights, then one believes that there is no such thing as an inalienable right. So therefore rights are not granted by God but by government, and they can therefore always be taken away by the government. Therefore the authority of the government does not rest on the consent of the government, but on who can get their boots on the people's necks.

The idea of the Declaration of Independence is that any government that tries to strip people of those rights is not legitimate, and the people have the right to overthrow it. The history of the left is clear -- they have never had any regard for civil rights because they hold nothing sacred. For them all that matters is who can gain and maintain power. They will preach civil rights until they have overwhelming power, then they cast concern for civil rights aside.

Click to expand...

Of course, the Declaration 9f Independence is just anti-Trump BS.

deadspin-quote-carrot-aligned-w-bgr-2<\/title><path d="M10,3.5l3-3,3,3Z" style="fill:%23fff;stroke:%23fff"/><path d="M0,3.5H10l3-3,3,3H26" style="fill:none;stroke:%231b3a4d"/><\/svg>')}.f_branding_on.blog-group-deadspin .editor-inner.post-content .pu

"Show your proof that half the forefathers were Federalists." jd #73

Click to expand...

The nation the U.S. Founders founded is federal.

- If they're one of the nation's Founders, and

- if the nation they Founded is federal

by what dint of Promethean reasoning would we not consider EACH of them "federalists" to one degree or another?