|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto
I can't really comment too much on the appointment of Judge Chertoff, as I'm not familiar with all the facts, but I do disagree with the statement above.
I don't believe people "cede" anything to the government. I believe the individual owes the State certain obligations. Perhaps that's the difference between me and many (most?) Americans today.
Whatever happened to the concept pronounced by JFK, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country".
Why do so many Americans believe that they, individually, have some higher value or rights than the State. The State, as it exists within Western democracies, is more than an organ of tax collection, social welfare, organized military power and foreign policy, but is a construct to protect all its members; whether rich or poor, whether Christian or not, whether gay or straight, whether Democratic or Republican, whether a member of the Board of Halliburton or a factory worker for General Motors.
It pains me to hear so many intelligent people think that their individual rights, their selfish urges, are more important that the "good" of society, the rights of those who need protection, the promotion of a free and equitable society. Corny as it may sound, let me quote a line from Star Trek. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Or if that doesn't float your boat, how about Louis Blanc (famous French socialist)? "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs".
Why this obsession that you are more important than we?
Mr Mephisto
|
Mr Mephisto, in a more perfect world, I would argue forcefully for what you
are saying, especially the "corny" examples near the end of your post.
Unfortunately, Bush & Co. , by their actions and agenda, reinforce dramatically the arguments contained in the following essay. It still amazes
me that hypocrites like Bush, the man who told the American public when
Enron blew up, that he barely knew it's chairman Ken Lay, and later that he
never intimated that Saddam was an imminent threat to the U.S. or that
he was a co-conspirator in the 9/11 attacks, but still believes that we will
cede our bill of rights over to him, because he has integrity and he will protect us. Bush calls for less intrusive covernment, but only when it means
less taxes and oversight for his wealthy sponsors and the corporations that
they control. Our founding fathers distrusted any government for good reason.
Bush's legacy will result in weakening our federal government for
many years into the future, when we are finally rid of his deceit and the
criminality of his ministry.
Quote:
God, Man, and Government
by Steve Bonta
The Founders recognized that men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" and that "Governments are instituted" to secure those rights.
What is the proper amount of government? Not, as some might suppose, the complete elimination of government, for anarchy has inevitably proven fertile ground for despots. Nor, on the other hand, should governments be given unlimited authority to meddle in human affairs, for this inevitably leads to totalitarian abuses. Recognizing the need for government of some kind, human freedom is best protected by crafting a government somewhere between the extremes of totalitarianism and anarchy, strong enough to protect rights and freedoms but not strong enough to violate them.
Source of Rights
The Framers of the Constitution had a clear vision of what the powers and limitations of proper government should be, based on their understanding of where government derived its legitimacy in the first place. States 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. 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....
Jefferson and the rest of the Founders believed in the reality of natural law, the doctrine that the laws of nature and of human conduct were established by God. These are "the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God" mentioned in the opening paragraph of Jefferson’s timeless Declaration.
But if God is the Author of laws, He is also the source of all human rights derived from those laws, including, but not restricted to, the divine endowments of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Rights therefore cannot be conferred by a monarch, a government, the will of the majority, or any legal document, including a constitutional amendment; man-made institutions may only curtail or protect rights that God has already given to men. This notion, that the rights upon which freedom is predicated come ultimately from a higher authority than any that men may devise, is the true starting point of the philosophy of liberty, as Moses Mather, a prominent Connecticut preacher, explained in a 1775 sermon:
Free agency, or a rational existence, with its powers and faculties, and freedom of enjoying and exercising them, is the gift of God to man. The right of the donor, and the authenticity of the donation, are both incontestable; hence man hath an absolute property in, and right of dominion over himself, his powers and faculties; with self-love to stimulate, and reason to guide him, in the free use and exercise of them, independent of, and uncontrolable [sic] by any but him, who created and gave them. And whatever is acquired by the use, and application of a man’s faculties, is equally the property of that man, as the faculties by which the acquisitions are made; and that which is absolutely the property of a man, he cannot be divested of, but by his own voluntary act, or consent....
The legitimate powers of the state originate with these pre-existent, God-given rights and powers inherent in individuals, as the Declaration, referring to the "just powers" of government" derived from "the Consent of the Governed," reminds us. Alexander Hamilton, in The Federalist, No. 22, added: "The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of the consent of the people. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority." Moreover, since government is brought into being by the consent of the individuals in its constituency, it follows that individuals may only cede to government a portion of those rights and powers that they justly possess, and may exercise individually, in the first place.
|
Another good essay in the same publication:
Quote:
|
<a href="http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2003/05-05-2003/vo19no09_trading.htm">Trading Freedom for Security</a>
|
|