Assault on Declaration of Independence

Originally posted by no1marauder
How would Ghandi and MLK have fared in Germany 1933-45?

The situation in 1945 was very different to the situation in 1933 and the immediately preceding years. If you read the novels of Hans Fallada, which were popular before and after the war in Germany and are now being translated into English with great success, you would not find your question as rhetorical as perhaps you did when writing it. The fact was the Germany was crying out for direction and leadership and could very well have benefited from such outstanding figures to provide a viable vision for their future. There was nothing historically inevitable about Hitler and the Nazis. In any case, the real barrier to progressive politics in Germany was not the Nazis but the wealthy who sponsored them and opened a path to power for them.

Originally posted by finnegan
The situation in 1945 was very different to the situation in 1933 and the immediately preceding years. If you read the novels of Hans Fallada, which were popular before and after the war in Germany and are now being translated into English with great success, you would not find your question as rhetorical as perhaps you did when writing it. The fact was the ...[text shortened]... ermany was not the Nazis but the wealthy who sponsored them and opened a path to power for them.

Naturally I was referring to the time when the Nazis were in power. Obviously my point is that non-violent resistance would not have worked very well in changing that society.

Do you dispute that point?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Naturally I was referring to the time when the Nazis were in power. Obviously my point is that non-violent resistance would not have worked very well in changing that society.

Do you dispute that point?

I agree and Hans Fallada wrote a powerful book to describe what happens to a German trying to protest within a totalitarian regime. It is one of my all time favourite novels. It is called Alone in Berlin here, but I think "Every Man Dies Alone" is the American title.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2009/mar/07/alone-in-berlin-hans-fallada

Originally posted by no1marauder
A non sequitur from start to finish. No Natural Rights proponent claims that they are derivedfrom the State. Even someone as mentally careless as you surely knows that.

Of course, the writers of the DOI replaced "Property" in Locke's formulations with "Pursuit of Happiness". Surely that reinforces the argument that they were using the latter term cons ...[text shortened]... of liberty.

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/46460

The article is quite interesting.

I find it interesting that you seemingly ignore the passage immediately following "pursuit of happiness".

"That to secure those rights, governments are instituted among men, ......" That seems to clear up the difficulty we've had in the past, where I contend that "natural rights" are only enforceable under governments, and are worthless if governments deny them.

I also note the first paragraph of the Declaration, which seems ignored in the discussion of God. That paragraph uses the expression, "the laws of nature, and nature's God".. Was this wording Jefferson's or that of the consensus?

Just as a curiosity, I'll add that Mises adds another phraseology to the property, and pursuit of happiness stew. He calls it seeking satisfaction of some discomfort, in basics hunger, cold, exposure, but later on leisure or sense of accomplishment. All of those expressions imply the acquisition of private property at least a precursor to capitalism.

Originally posted by normbenign
I find it interesting that you seemingly ignore the passage immediately following "pursuit of happiness".

"That to secure those rights, governments are instituted among men, ......" That seems to clear up the difficulty we've had in the past, where I contend that "natural rights" are only enforceable under governments, and are worthless if governments ...[text shortened]... those expressions imply the acquisition of private property at least a precursor to capitalism.

It's tiresome dealing with your constant misunderstandings of what Lockean Natural Rights theory says.

Neither Locke nor the Framers would have ever considered declaring that Natural Rights are "worthless" without government. A virtuous government will help protect them and tyranny will try to suppress them. But they exist without either type of government and can be enforced in the Natural State (if somewhat unsatisfactorily). Even the most basic and cursory reading of Locke would rid someone less stubborn and fond of their preconceived opinion of this most obvious misinterpretation of the political philosophy that the country was founded on.

I don't know who arrived at all the particular wording but it's broad enough to encompass the Calvinism of a Sherman and the Deism of a Jefferson or any number of religious and philosophical traditions.

The Lockean proviso puts a limit on the acquisition of private property that is incompatible with the unbridled, ill-conceived economic dogma of a lesser thinker like Von Mises.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Naturally I was referring to the time when the Nazis were in power. Obviously my point is that non-violent resistance would not have worked very well in changing that society.

Do you dispute that point?

All societies change, all empires fall.

It's only a matter of time and time is a tick'in!

Originally posted by no1marauder
A non sequitur from start to finish. No Natural Rights proponent claims that they are derivedfrom the State. Even someone as mentally careless as you surely knows that.

Whoever runs the state determines of you have "rights". Therefore, they end up deciding what those rights are.

No one ever agrees as to what rights we are entitled to have.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It's tiresome dealing with your constant misunderstandings of what Lockean Natural Rights theory says.

Neither Locke nor the Framers would have ever considered declaring that Natural Rights are "worthless" without government. A virtuous government will help protect them and tyranny will try to suppress them. But they exist without either type of gover ...[text shortened]... ncompatible with the unbridled, ill-conceived economic dogma of a lesser thinker like Von Mises.

The reason it is tiresome is that your "dealing" is unconvincing. I'm not dealing with Lockean Natural Rights theory here, but your description of it. I don't know if worthless is the proper description. But I do know that rights, not protected by a government and body of laws have never amounted to much. And your attack on my points did not include any explanation of the passage in the Declaration as to why "governments are formed".

Many, if not most governments are not virtuous, and have made a practice of genocidal wars and killing of their own populations for the sake of control. Forming a government based on so called Natural Laws, may be well meaning, but if those NLs don't suit those in power, they tend to be ignored, or abused.

Originally posted by whodey
Whoever runs the state determines of you have "rights". Therefore, they end up deciding what those rights are.

No one ever agrees as to what rights we are entitled to have.

Their decisions are not binding on individuals. If their decisions are contrary to the innate sense of justice that we all possess, they will not be followed. People will resist and the tyranny will fall.

Originally posted by normbenign
The reason it is tiresome is that your "dealing" is unconvincing. I'm not dealing with Lockean Natural Rights theory here, but your description of it. I don't know if worthless is the proper description. But I do know that rights, not protected by a government and body of laws have never amounted to much. And your attack on my points did not include a ...[text shortened]... be well meaning, but if those NLs don't suit those in power, they tend to be ignored, or abused.

The explanation in the DOI is sufficient. You will note that it explains why governments are formed, it does not suggest or imply that Rights do not exist prior to their formation. In fact, it says exactly the opposite.

Tyrannies fall. This is inevitable due to our Nature and it does not matter what those in power think.

Originally posted by normbenign
The reason it is tiresome is that your "dealing" is unconvincing. I'm not dealing with Lockean Natural Rights theory here, but your description of it. I don't know if worthless is the proper description. But I do know that rights, not protected by a government and body of laws have never amounted to much. And your attack on my points did not include a ...[text shortened]... be well meaning, but if those NLs don't suit those in power, they tend to be ignored, or abused.

From Tom Paine:

Great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It has its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has upon man, and all the parts of civilised community upon each other, create that great chain of connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation, prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their law; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost everything which is ascribed to government.

To understand the nature and quantity of government proper for man, it is necessary to attend to his character. As Nature created him for social life, she fitted him for the station she intended. In all cases she made his natural wants greater than his individual powers. No one man is capable, without the aid of society, of supplying his own wants, and those wants, acting upon every individual, impel the whole of them into society, as naturally as gravitation acts to a centre.

But she has gone further. She has not only forced man into society by a diversity of wants which the reciprocal aid of each other can supply, but she has implanted in him a system of social affections, which, though not necessary to his existence, are essential to his happiness. There is no period in life when this love for society ceases to act. It begins and ends with our being.

If we examine with attention into the composition and constitution of man, the diversity of his wants, and the diversity of talents in different men for reciprocally accommodating the wants of each other, his propensity to society, and consequently to preserve the advantages resulting from it, we shall easily discover, that a great part of what is called government is mere imposition.

Government is no farther necessary than to supply the few cases to which society and civilisation are not conveniently competent; and instances are not wanting to show, that everything which government can usefully add thereto, has been performed by the common consent of society, without government.

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/c2-01.htm

Originally posted by normbenign
The reason it is tiresome is that your "dealing" is unconvincing. I'm not dealing with Lockean Natural Rights theory here, but your description of it. I don't know if worthless is the proper description. But I do know that rights, not protected by a government and body of laws have never amounted to much. And your attack on my points did not include a ...[text shortened]... be well meaning, but if those NLs don't suit those in power, they tend to be ignored, or abused.

Locke's explanation is better than mine:

Sect. 128. For in the state of nature, to omit the liberty he has of innocent delights, a man has two powers.
The first is to do whatsoever he thinks fit for the preservation of himself, and others within the permission of the law of nature: by which law, common to them all, he and all the rest of mankind are one community, make up one society, distinct from all other creatures. And were it not for the corruption and vitiousness of degenerate men, there would be no need of any other; no necessity that men should separate from this great and natural community, and by positive agreements combine into smaller and divided associations.
The other power a man has in the state of nature, is the power to punish the crimes committed against that law. Both these he gives up, when he joins in a private, if I may so call it, or particular politic society, and incorporates int o any common-wealth, separate from the rest of mankind.

Sect. 129. The first power, viz. of doing whatsoever he thought for the preservation of himself, and the rest of mankind, he gives up to be regulated by laws made by the society, so far forth as the preservation of himself, and the rest of that society shall require; which laws of the society in many things confine the liberty he had by the law of nature.

Sect. 130. Secondly, The power of punishing he wholly gives up, and engages his natural force, (which he might before employ in the execution of the law of nature, by his own single authority, as he thought fit) to assist the executive power of the society, as the law thereof shall require: for being now in a new state, wherein he is to enjoy many conveniencies, from the labour, assistance, and society of others in the same community, as well as protection from its whole strength; he is to part also with as much of his natural liberty, in providing for himself, as the good, prosperity, and safety of the society shall require; which is not only necessary, but just, since the other members of the society do the like.

Sect. 131. But though men, when they enter into society, give up the equality, liberty, and executive power they had in the state of nature, into the hands of the society, to be so far disposed of by the legislative, as the good of the society shall require; yet it being only with an intention in every one the better to preserve himself, his liberty and property; (for no rational creature can be supposed to change his condition with an intention to be worse) the power of the society, or legislative constituted by them, can never be supposed to extend farther, than the common good; but is obliged to secure every one's property, by providing against those three defects above mentioned, that made the state of nature so unsafe and uneasy. And so whoever has the legislative or supreme power of any common-wealth, is bound to govern by established standing laws, promulgated and known to the people, and not by extemporary decrees; by indifferent and upright judges, who are to decide controversies by those laws; and to employ the force of the community at home, only in the execution of such laws, or abroad to prevent or redress foreign injuries, and secure the community from inroads and invasion. And all this to be directed to no other end, but the peace, safety, and public good of the people.

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke2/locke2nd-c.html

Originally posted by no1marauder
Their decisions are not binding on individuals. If their decisions are contrary to the innate sense of justice that we all possess, they will not be followed. People will resist and the tyranny will fall.

Tyranny does fall, only to raise its head under a different name.

Originally posted by whodey
Tyranny does fall, only to raise its head under a different name.

No one man is capable, without the aid of society, of supplying his own wants, and those wants, acting upon every individual, impel the whole of them into society

Tom Paine above.

Originally posted by finnegan

No one man is capable, without the aid of society, of supplying his own wants, and those wants, acting upon every individual, impel the whole of them into society

Tom Paine above.

Yep, one day its slavery and then its not. One day its abortion and then its not. It's all a matter of which way the wind is blowing I guess.