• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you Believe?

Do you believe in these ideals and how highly do you hold them?


  • Total voters
    20
  • Poll closed .
Humans are equal, even if not treated as such; we all have the same base rights.

Do you think that humans are all equal? Even as talents, intelligence, cognition,...etc, are so different. I agree that there is no superior race, nor noble blood superior to others, but I am glad we have a meritocracy.
 
Do you think that humans are all equal? Even as talents, intelligence, cognition,...etc, are so different. I agree that there is no superior race, nor noble blood superior to others, but I am glad we have a meritocracy.

While we are not all equal in our abilities we are all equal in our natural rights of life liberty and pursuit of happieness. you are in fact entitled by your creator, whomever that may be, to these ideals and thuse are my equal in that regard.
 
Do you think that humans are all equal? Even as talents, intelligence, cognition,...etc, are so different. I agree that there is no superior race, nor noble blood superior to others, but I am glad we have a meritocracy.

By equal, I mean that we all have the same base rights. In exercise of what we do, people will individually excel at different tasks, but that is superficial. I'm a physcist, I do very well with science, electronics, machining, etc. But I can't paint to save my life. That doesn't mean I am not equal with an artist, we are in fact equals as human. All humans have the same base rights, that's how we are equal. Every person in every nation has the right to keep and bear arms for instance. Not every nation recognizes that right, not every people can accept and handle the responsibilities and consequences of that right; but we all possess it.
 
Salutations Korimyr

If you are familiar with the Fountainhead, is this not Gail Wynand, the ultimate second hander ?

If you are not famailiar with this book, can you take a peek at this and then contrast it with your first posting ? Gail Wynand, a character in Rand's novel, thought he had a lot power since he had wealth and a nationwide newspaper chain. When he tried to use the chain to say something that the people didn't like, he found out that they actually had the power over him.

The need to control others puts you in the power of others, I guess is my muddy ill-expressed point. Can ya hose it off and take a look at it ?
 
Ok so I am just wondering how many Americans hold these beliefs in the highest regard?

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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 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 passed on the 1 in four options / vote.
Get a grip...people are not equal, and they demand it stay thay way. Just ask a money whore, if he or she, deserves that much more money than you or me. The average special interest will be able to readily explain why they deserve.... The government will quickly explain why the new rules deprive.... Dig into a college text and you will begin to understand why a person who is less than you, drops out.

This whole load of stuff about "equal", is a figment of your governments imagination (have they told you yet, what to THINK today). GET REAL. :roll:
 
Last edited:
You consider the founding fathers "liberals"?

By the dictionary definition. For that matter, I consider practically the entirety of American mainstream politics to be "liberal", except for a handful of social conservatives and hardcore "national security" types like Vice President Cheney. Both "liberals" and "conservatives" today are born out of the American liberal tradition established by our Founding Fathers, differing only in interpretation of their writings and legal documents.

i actually agree with this. Violance is the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived. The has indeed been a shift in force from the people and states to the federal government.

Of course. Funny thing, everyone wants to blame Roosevelt for this, except some small number of people who go back to Lincoln. It started with Jefferson himself, with both the Louisiana Purchase and the Whiskey Rebellion.

Well in the true meaning of liberalism yes I agree, but these current so called liberalists are nothing more then progressives...

... but conservatives within the U.S. political scale wish to secure those political liberalism...

How do you square these two statements with the progressive position on civil liberties for women and homosexuals, and the conservative position on the enforcement of religious morality and teaching of religious moral values by the State? There's an authoritarian streak in both movements, but they're both fundamentally liberal.

For the record, I consider myself an authoritarian progressive, but I don't square with a lot of modern progressive ideals concerning identity politics and multiculturalism. I'm a staunch nationalist who believes that the ideal of the melting pot requires immigrants and minorities to assimilate into mainstream society and to consider themselves Americans first and foremost. The modern movement has lost sight of the ideals of President Theodore Roosevelt.

Gail Wynand, a character in Rand's novel, thought he had a lot power since he had wealth and a nationwide newspaper chain. When he tried to use the chain to say something that the people didn't like, he found out that they actually had the power over him.

That's a result of deriving all of his power from a single source, that was itself dependent upon public opinion-- and thinking that he was in control of the people who provided his wealth and power. If he'd maintained resources outside of his newspaper and approached his unpopular ideas more subtly, he would have retained and even expanded his power.

And the problem with Rand's fiction is that all of it is written in support of her intended moral, so of course the plot resolves in such fashion to "prove" it.

The need to control others puts you in the power of others, I guess is my muddy ill-expressed point. Can ya hose it off and take a look at it ?

Your existence puts you in the power of others. Unless you are entirely self-sufficient, you are under the power-- and under the mercy-- of other people... and one of the things that you require as a human being is the companionship and esteem of other people. At best, you can-- through exercise of power, mind you-- achieve near total self-sufficiency for your family group, but then you still require the cooperation of the outside world to obtain mates.

The moral of the Wynand story, as I understand it, is that failing to recognize the source and nature of your power means risking the misuse and sudden failure of that power. Everyone should know and understand the source of their power, and the limits of it, in order to exercise and develop it prudently. The fact that so many people fail at this is what provides opportunities for upstarts and rogues.

Moral authority is a very sticky source of power, because while it gives you tremendous influence over the thoughts and actions of others, that power is conditional upon their recognition of your moral authority-- which means that you cannot contradict the moral values they have imbued you with. Major changes in ideology or goals must be approached slowly and carefully.

On the other hand, moral authority is the best kind of power to wield... because if you are attacked, even people who do not accept your authority directly will spring to your defense. It is the safest and most enduring form of power that a human being can wield, as long as they acknowledge its limits.
 
Thanks much for your well considered response.

Your existence puts you in the power of others. Unless you are entirely self-sufficient, you are under the power-- and under the mercy-- of other people... and one of the things that you require as a human being is the companionship and esteem of other people. At best, you can-- through exercise of power, mind you-- achieve near total self-sufficiency for your family group, but then you still require the cooperation of the outside world to obtain mates.

I think the self-sufficiency you mention here, might be the kind freedom I was getting at, as I earlier contrasted against an idealistic pablum kind of notion.

I guess I am completely in agreement with the analysis that you gave when it comes to "don't tread on me", but the flavor of that analysis seemed to imply that I had to tread on others to get them not to tread on me. After I defend myself and my free will, I no longer seek power over others, but to maximize my voluntary interactions with them. What things can we do that we both enjoy and both profit by ? What can I learn from them, what can I enjoy teaching to them ? Once I have defended my self and my freedom, my "grail" is no longer power, but mutually voluntary interaction.

Again, thanks for your response and please consider this not an attempt at rebuttal but merely more exploratory commentary.

On the other hand, moral authority is the best kind of power to wield... because if you are attacked, even people who do not accept your authority directly will spring to your defense. It is the safest and most enduring form of power that a human being can wield, as long as they acknowledge its limits.

I agree here, and I think that voluntary interaction is in line with the same notion, and shooting for the same kind of moral authority as the golden rule.
 
Sure, I agree with the DoI, once the mystic "creator" stuff is explained away and the understanding of what was meant in that document by the word "equal".

What it ultimately boils down to is that men should not be forced into chains, that all men should be equal before the law, and that all men should be free to seek their own destinies, so long as their excercise of those freedoms does not infringe on the freedoms of others.

I'm also perfectly aware that the DoI was written when the colonies still practiced the peculiar institution, and I recognize the DoI for the spirit it was intended for, not the practical realities of the day.
 
I guess I am completely in agreement with the analysis that you gave when it comes to "don't tread on me", but the flavor of that analysis seemed to imply that I had to tread on others to get them not to tread on me.

It isn't so much that you have to tread on others to get them not to tread on you-- it's that you have to be able to, and other people have to recognize that you're able to. Whether or not you actually have to trample someone to demonstrate this is a matter of the individual situation.
 
It isn't so much that you have to tread on others to get them not to tread on you-- it's that you have to be able to, and other people have to recognize that you're able to. Whether or not you actually have to trample someone to demonstrate this is a matter of the individual situation.

Pretty nigh impossible in a police state that claims a monopoly on force.

It becomes a barking contest between toothless dogs.
 
When the police and the courts deprive you of your other weapons, the police and the courts themselves become your primary weapons.

You can kill a man with a gun. Attack him with the courts, you can destroy his fortune, his reputation, his family and eventually drive him to kill himself. And you don't need much more justification for it, either.

And, of course, don't forget just how much coercive power you can wield with your "voluntary interactions" when they involve necessary goods.
 
There are a couple of points that i think need to be made.

1. One our Declaration of Independance lead to the document that truly defines us, the Constitution with its amendments (Bill of Rights), that document is a living document. Though its core remains intact, it has clearly grown, and with abolition, clearly been side tracked. Because it is a living document, as are the people it represents, it will continually evolve with our society. It is our society and how we see ourselves, which is why, say, Gay marriage amendments are so contentious (one way or another). Our society is big enough to accomodate many view points, but it ratifies and reflects only those nations that truly define us as Americans.

Whether, to use the same example, you support Gay marriage, or not, you remain an American.

2. That all men are not created equally does not mean that we all aspire to the same dream. With all due respect to the Rat, not everybody aspires to be Alexander the Great. In fact, Krupp's big brain and the adaption of steel into modern artillery and machine guns pretty much ended the era in which an individual, on talent alone, could raise an Army and through strength and skill alone defeat his enemies.

That trend continues as for example, other bg brained people figured out how to strengthen steel, use lasers and other techniques to form titanium, that have made modern jets possible. Still other combined light weight compsites and additives to make stealth technology that have made conventional warfare in general the back yard of America.

There are examples across the board, as advances in genetics and chemistry have made for larger more productive crop yields. Someone had to market the results of that science, produce it in a comercially viable manner, and transport it to the customer. Shall we talk about advances in port technologies that have made globalozation and integration possible? Our health care systems allow us to live and remian productive longer, as does it, in a bone to the rat, make it easier to treat battlefield casualties.

We are not all created equally, but no opportunity is equal either, and our difference allow us to exploit those opportunities that are best suited to us. Quite frankly, Bill Gates would be a terrible infantryman. He can nevertheless hire a bunch of goons to keep him and his brain safe. It isn't all about power, and the power of strength is not the same as political power, commercial power, persuasive power, or informational power.

This forum sorta proves it: Alexander can swing a sword all he wants, and it would give him not a single advantage in this forum.
 
These ideals must be read in there entirety, it does not mearly stop at "all men are created equal" but goes into saying how they are created equal by being "endowd by there creator with certain unailianble rights that among these are life liberty and pursuit of happieness" (property)


I think what you say here is supportable simply because the inequality of intelligence and temperament must have been as obvious to the founders as it is to us. There is just no way that they meant that people are born equal in the sense of ability.
 
For the record, I consider myself an authoritarian progressive, but I don't square with a lot of modern progressive ideals concerning identity politics and multiculturalism. I'm a staunch nationalist who believes that the ideal of the melting pot requires immigrants and minorities to assimilate into mainstream society and to consider themselves Americans first and foremost.


"We are American. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance... is futile."
 
I agree with everything but the first sentence and part of the second:

"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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men"

All men are not created equal, however I do believe they need to be treated equally in the eyes of the law insomuch as race, religion, gender, personal preferences, etc should not be reasons for someone to be incarcerated or harassed by the government.

I don't not believe that men are endowed with "rights" just by way of being born, and certainly not endowed by any mythical "creator". Rights are granted by those who have power over you, and be easily removed by those who have power over you. Thus, I don't believe that man created government to secure any inalienable rights because I don't believe inalienable rights exist.

Now, none of this is to say that I disagree with the gist of they were saying. I am glad that MY government treats people equally. I am glad that MY government holds that we have the rights we have. I am glad that MY government is able to be changed by the governed. I agree that the government operates with the consent of the governed, and if and when that ever changes, we need to get rid of our government.
 
I tend to agree with Korymir here. Although my interpretation of the debate between rights and power would be summed up in the following...

..The rights of the weak are granted by the grace of the powerful.

You have to obtain power, in order to fight power. You cannot remain weak, and expect to gain any rights for yourself, unless you are willing to depend on the good graces of those with power.
 
... and you cannot logically claim that you are violating a right for the purpose of protecting it.

I wonder if the limiting of a right at times helps to preserve that right to the extent that it is not limited.

In a simple world, rights could be absolute, but in the real world, it could be the limiting that makes the retention of the right possible. In such a situation, it would certainly not be illogical to "claim that you are violating a right for the purpose of protecting it".

A concrete example would be taxation (abrogation of property rights) for the purpose of maintaining a military which then protects the property (enforcement of property rights) of those people who pay the tax. This would be the simplest dynamic. Another would be submitting one's will and personal power to a collective law enforcement for the purpose of preserving the greatest amount of self determination possible for each individual who so submits to such a paradigm. This is the dynamic of people forming a society which gives up some freedom precisely in order to preserve it.

There are more complex dynamics even than this which involve the interplay of multiple interests and power centers, collective and individual action, altruism and greed. All these factors could have a bearing on how limited a 'right' ought to be for the practical purpose of balancing the right partially for the purpose of its own preservation and partially because it conflicts with other rights.

The D o I seems to me an attempt to state what ought to be, rather than what was (or is). Some people believe there is a difference, and that might does not alter what ought to be. It also seems to be an immature attempt at that, and experience has revealed that things are not as simple as the founders perhaps thought or hoped they were.
 
It may be that the rights spoken of in the D o I cannot be inalienable, but that does not prevent a determination of what rights ought to be in a fair and just society. There may even yet be rights which are inalienable even if they are more nebulous, such as, perhaps, a right to a fair and just society.

In answer to the OP and the poll: None of them fits for me. I think that truth may yet be found to be absolute, but that its discovery is a thing which evolves. Including the truth about rights.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if the limiting of a right at times helps to preserve that right to the extent that it is not limited.

Certainly, and I can support such a thing. But for the person imprisoned or slain, their right to liberty and life is not limited, it is extinguished-- if a right can be completely terminated in one to protect that right for others, even with just cause, I do not believe that we can claim that such rights are inalienable.

And I do not believe in these rights as ideals, either, because I believe that rights should exist for a purpose, in service to higher goals. The right to criticize the government exists to encourage good government, the right to bear arms exists to defend the nation, and the right to due process exists to ensure thorough investigation by law enforcement.

A concrete example would be taxation (abrogation of property rights) for the purpose of maintaining a military which then protects the property (enforcement of property rights) of those people who pay the tax.

The problem is, when those taxes are also assumed to exist to protect life and liberty, they provide justification for taxation to provide any government service which can be argued to save lives or enhance freedom-- and any of these three rights can contradict the others.
 
I believe the "all men are created equal" refers to the fact that at birth we are all on equal ground. We know nothing, have nothing, and are helpless. We start on equal footing. No one person has any better chance of surviving than any other. From that point on things change. Parents, geographic regions, natural disasters, will all have an effect on what that person becomes, but at the point of birth we are all equal.
The mentioned rights are and have to be inalienable. If they were not then there would never be justice. They refer to law in the absence of government. Those things are the rights that nearly everyone considers just, naturally. Without being told people understand that the taking of life, stealing and imprisoning people are wrong and a violation of another's self worth. We see it throughout history. If one person takes another prisoner, has the prisoner's rights been alienated because they are locked up? No the prisoner's natural right to freedom has been unjustly violated. It is because of these unjust violations that the government was originally formed.
I do agree that people are far more likely to tolerate a familiar tyranny.
 
No, I do not believe in them.

1- I do not believe that all men are created equal. This is not only not self-evident, but all available evidence is quite clearly to the contrary. No two men are equal in their strengths, in their desires, or in their potential-- and this dissimilarity exists from the moment of their creation to the moment of their destruction.

Thus to claim that all men are equal in moral value is to say that moral value has no relationship with any other measure of value; in other words, it is to declare that moral value is utterly meaningless.

2- I do not believe that men are endowed with rights, by their Creator or otherwise. Men are endowed with power, and it is by their power that they may secure rights; the more power a man wields, the more rights he may secure for himself. A man's rights exist in proportion to his power, relative to other mens' desire to exercise their power against him.

3- I believe that government exists as an expression of power, and thus it is not instituted for any purpose save that which powerful men put it to. And, again, every man's right to alter or abolish the government he is subject to is strictly a function of his power to do so.

4- The only point that I will agree with. Men are far more inclined to tolerate familiar tyranny, so long as it is bearable, than they are to seek an unfamiliar freedom from it. People start or join in revolutions for one of two reasons: unbearable suffering or unrestrained ambition.

I make no moral distinction between the two.
Total and utter bull****.
 
Please, American, tell us how you really feel.
 
Ok so I am just wondering how many Americans hold these beliefs in the highest regard?

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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 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.


If you mean is this a good contractual basis for the relationship of the governed to the governers?
I say yes.
If this is not the question, then I find the statement a little silly. What is it talking about?
There is no universal morality and worth is subjective. If we are of equal worth in an objective sense, that worth is 'insignificance'.

Without a context, a discussion about morality, ethics and universal rights is just a piece of paper with scriblings on it in the universe.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom