January 13, Houston, TX
If you hope to maintain liberty, you have to support the right of people who’s lifestyle you don’t agree with to exercise their liberty.
Nancy Northrup: Ok, just for the sake of discussion, let’s examine this. Knowing that philosophies float through the air on aphorisms, like, uh, “perfume” in an elevator, until everyone smells the same, we should first consider the source and the outcome, before buying it ourselves. Everything we think, has been put there by someone else; we have no original thoughts. The only two original thoughts are: You shall not eat [something] or you will die, and You can be as God deciding for yourself what is good and evil. All philosophical conflicts today are traceable to that. The implication there is that everything has a root—a source, and everything has a fruit—a result.
Keep in mind that ALL law is someone’s morality that has been legislated [Note: The saying, “You cannot legislate morality” is a deception, a sleight of hand. Laws against theft and murder come from Judeo-Christian morality. It is not shared by Sharia law, or Communists/Socialists].
So, the first clause considers “hope to maintain liberty.” This was examined by our founding fathers, men who are more brilliant than most of our current collection of clowns.
Edmund Burke: As the bloody French Revolution progressed, Edmund Burke wrote in “A Letter to a Member of the National Assembly,” 1791:
“What is liberty without wisdom and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without restraint. Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in proportion as they are disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good in preference to the flattery of knaves.”
Edmund Burke continued: “Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”
On the eve of the French Revolution, the first U.S. minister to France, Gouverneur Morris, wrote April 29, 1789:
“The materials for a revolution in France are very indifferent. … There is an utter prostration of morals … depravity … extreme rottenness of every member. … The great masses of the common people have no religion …no law but their superiors [Nazis, “I killed millions of people because I was just obeying orders.”], no morals but their interest. … In the high road a la liberte … the first use they make of it is to form insurrections everywhere.”
So, if the goal is maintain liberty, godlessness should be anathema, and restraint on what other people do is imperative. Our founders learned through catastrophic, bloody, experience, at the expense of their lives and those of their loved ones that liberty without God is tyranny.
Does anyone have anything they want to add or argue with? Keeping in mind, those who don’t remember history are doomed to repeat it, and I am a living part of history. I don’t have to live with this much longer; I’ll be dead, but you all and your children will live with this. At this point, it is a battle for opinion, not for your life, yet…But you need to be clear.
Nancy Northrup Note: Edmund Burke to the last paragraph was quoted from http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/founders-learned-liberty-without-god-is-tyranny/#QTk0ehTsX8RGYtzK.01
Well, I appreciate the well thought out response. Obviously, law begins with morality. It is based off what is thought to be “right” and “wrong”, and what is acceptable in society. And I’m not arguing against that people need to be moral. And obviously, this leads to the question, “morality based off what?” But what I see that seems to drive a wedge between the average person who either sides with the Right or with the Left has to do with opinions based on how far the government should be involved in delegating the personal lives of the citizenry, what aspects of their personal lives that the government should be involved in, and even further, the relationship between a citizen and the government.
Conservatives and liberals will always fight on social issues. There will never be peace between them, because their social ideology are basically polar opposites. A liberal has no interest in living in a conservative society, and a conservative as no interest in living in a liberal society. They don’t match up. So each side will constantly vote for laws that support their own ideology at the expense of the other. And around, and around the fight goes. No one is satisfied. Everyone is upset.
So who wins? The politicians that represent the political parties! They both have their own agenda, and it’s not for the needs of their constituents. On the surface, the Democrats espouse the interests of one group of people, the Republicans another, yet there’s corruption in both. Both really cater to the interests of lobbyists who represent by big corporations, and pass laws that support the interest of those corporations. And I’m sure, most of these politicians are accepting some kind of bribe for doing so. If not in cash, at least in some other form of compensation. And they win by playing average people who are either conservative or liberal against each other and controlling their vote.
I am of the mind that the only reason why the U.S. is sovereign, is because it’s citizenry is sovereign. And being sovereign citizens, we each have sovereign rights. i.e., the right to speak one’s mind without being silenced because you disagree with my opinion, the right to enjoy the fruit of one’s own labor without it being forcibly taken by someone else (theft, income taxes, social programs that redistribute wealth, same difference), the right to freely travel about without being harassed by authorities and having to produce papers (DUI checkpoints, etc), the right to freely assemble with whomever you want without having to have a permit or some other type of official permission, the right to conduct business, the right to love whomever you want, worship whomever you want, the right to pursue YOUR own happiness.
We have all these laws, governmental departments, regulations, enforcers, taxes… for what? Most of which are used to control behavior, most of which the government has no business controlling. And why? Because there are voters on both side of the spectrum that vote for laws (or support politicians who draft laws) that attempt to control the behavior of a group of people who want to enjoy a lifestyle that they don’t agree with. And again, who wins? Not us, but big government.
With whatever measure we use to control the other group of people, will also be used against us. So my political stance is to get out of other people’s business. Natural Rights need to be protected, and no law should infringe on Natural Rights. On a personal and social level though, feel free to spread your opinion and try to sway the opinions of others on personal, social, and moral (spiritual) issues, because that’s your Natural Right.