Major Difference: Freedom, and the duty of the government...
I noticed today that during inaugural address, Obama said something along the lines that it was the government's duty to help all everybody have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A defining line suddenly appears from this idea. The founding fathers set this government up so that people would have the freedom of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; but it was never in any way a task that was entrusted to the government... The founding fathers gave their lives to the pursuit of an ideal: 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.
Nowhere in there is the phrase, "it is the right of the government; indeed, its duty to perform these actions for the individual citizen". Never did the founding fathers create a large and overpowering government that would be able to help out all of its citizens. Actually, if you read the personal writings of many of the fathers, you will find that they were actually hesitant to create such a powerful government. State sovereignty was a really big deal at the time, and was one of the reasons that the Constitution took so long to write.
I know it doesn't seem like a big deal, but indeed, it is. This way of reading the Declaration of Independence stems from the idea that the meanings of the DI and the Constitution are relative to the time period and circumstances in which they are read. It is the idea that these two foundations for our government are actually evolving over time. This is the view that has raped the 1st amendment to insert the "separation of church and state" and the 14th amendment to insert "the woman's right to choose". Indeed friends, this is a big issue, and one that needs to be dealt with.
If you read on in the Declaration: 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.
In America, we have a different way of throwing off government and providing new guards for ourselves. Indeed, it is not the government itself, but rather the men who are running it that is causing such harm to the freedoms of this nation. Many will claim that the system is inherently flawed, and that no good can come of it; however, Winston Churchill, being the genius that he was, said this about democracy:Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
I think he's dead on. We can either choose to complain about the election of Barack Obama to the presidency of the United States. Or, we can look forward to the future and provide for ourselves the guards that are needed for our security. Assuredly, it is not the government's job to create the lives of its citizens; it is all those who created the government in the first place, namely the people of this nation. It is we who need to straighten ourselves out to live another day. Freedom still rings, friends. Let us not forget the sacrifices that have been made to allow it to be so. Rather, let us build upon those who came before us so that we might take this country to new heights. Let it be said of this nation,
"One Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
-Cheers
January 21, 2009 10:16 AM
From what I can tell, you are both inconsistent in your argument and twisting the words of Barak Obama. I'm not a tremendous fan (registered Republican) myself, but I can smell rant when I see it. You begin your blog by stating that Barak champions the "duty of the government" to aid people in their right to life, liberty, etc. You go on to suggest that "oppressive" government is the result of such a statement, and end the blog by suggesting Barak wants the government to "create" the lives of its citizens. I agree with you that government should neither be oppressive nor "create" the lives of its citizens, but you show in no way how Obama meant those two things. What Obama seems to be saying is that the government should be mindful of citizens' right to life, liberty, etc, which, contrary to your reading, is supported by your passage from the DI. Lets take a look:
"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."
In order to secure the rights (i.e. life, liberty, etc) men institute governments. That's what sentence two says. The purpose, therefore, the very foundation of "democratic government" is that the government be mindful of its citizens' possession of these rights because that is how the government came into existence in the first place. The final sentence says this: "organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." the purpose of reorganizing tyrannical government is to "organize it's powers" - give it such governmental power - as will "most likely" "effect" - i.e. to bring about - their safety and happiness. You and I would both agree that a government not mindful of these three rights is out of the question. What Obama is say is just what the DI said, it is the duty of the government to be mindful (and by extension, helping would be a good idea) of these rights in its citizens.
Peace,
Silas
January 21, 2009 11:37 AM
If this is what you read, I am indeed at fault. During his speech, Obama specifically said that it was the government's duty to give everybody the "chance of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". That, and some other things that he has said and done lead me to the conclusion that this is what he actually believes.
We are endowed by our CREATOR with certain unalienable rights, not by the government. The government is only here to keep those rights safe. They do not have the responsibility to make them accessible to the minority at the cost of the majority. This is socialism.
I agree with a "safety-net" to a limited degree. However, whenever the government starts spending its money to give a "chance" to everybody. This is wrong. First, it means taxing the majority out the wazoo in order to obtain the money. Second, it's not within their power, and it restricts the freedom of the people.
Thank you for your rational comment,
Connor
January 21, 2009 3:19 PM
Well lets just hope that it isn't actually what he believes. The last thing I want is a government acting like a rich father spoiling its kids, especially when they take advantage of him. Well said.
Silas
January 21, 2009 3:21 PM
using that metaphor, I think it stems from FDR's "sugar daddy" regime...
Post a Comment