- This all prove to us that nothing is new in the attempts by man to rule man by any means possible since recorded time. I assume that it was that way in the caves. Man is mans only prey for we are the top of all other food chains. There is nothing good in evil men and history has proved that well, there is nothing good in being complacent and weak history has proven that - So. in hard time my friends we must unite under a common goal and push until the goal is crossed and then we must secure that by restoring the original Constitution and the limits of power on governments. They must be kept small and weak for other wise we will just repeat history.Lock John Piatt 2011
- Permalink Reply by on
- A brilliant passage describing the essential difference between philosophy of Locke and william Penn:“Locke, like William Penn, was tolerant; both loved freedom, both cherished truth in sincerity. But Locke kindled the torch of liberty at the fires of tradition; Penn at the living light in the soul. Locke sought truth through the senses and the outward world; Penn looked inward to the divine revelations in every mind. Locke compared the soul to a sheet of white paper, just as Hobbes had compared it to a slate on which time and chance might scrawl their experience. To Penn the soul was an organ which of itself instinctively breathes divine harmonies, like those musical instruments which are so curiously and perfectly formed, that when once set in motion, they of themselves give forth all the melodies designed by the artist that made them. To Locke, conscience is nothing else than our own opinion of our own actions; to Penn, it is the image of God and his oracle in the soul. . . . In studying the understanding Locke begins with the sources of knowledge; Penn with an inventory of our intellectual treasures. . . . The system of Locke lends itself to contending factions of the most opposite interests and purposes; the doctrine of Fox and Penn, being but the common creed of humanity, forbids division and insures the highest moral unity. To Locke, happiness is pleasure, and things are good and evil only in reference to pleasure and pain; and to ‘inquire after the highest good is as absurd as to dispute whether the best relish be in apples, plums or nuts.’ Penn esteemed happiness to lie in the subjection of the baser instincts to the instinct of Deity in the breast; good and evil to be eternally and always as unlike as truth and falsehood; and the inquiry after the highest good to involve the purpose of existence. Locke says plainly that, but for rewards and punishments beyond the grave, ‘it is certainly right to eat and drink, and enjoy what we delight in.’ Penn, like Plato and Fenelon, maintained the doctrine so terrible to despots, that God is to be loved for His own sake, and virtue to be practised for its intrinsic loveliness. Locke derives the idea of infinity from the senses, describes it as purely negative, and attributes it to nothing but space, duration and number; Penn derived the idea from the soul, and ascribed it to truth and virtue and God. Locke declares immortality a matter with which reason has nothing to do; and that revealed truth must be sustained by outward signs and visible acts of power; Penn saw truth by its own light and summoned the soul to bear witness to its own glory.”George Bancroft, 1800–1891
- Permalink Reply by on
- Interesting comparison no doubt JDRI'm not sure where the 'Locke derives the idea of infinity from the senses, describes it as purely negative'.... comes from - but then I don't claim expertise on the subject.my overall take on the post is Penn had some points I would agree to, maybe leaning more towards those points than Locke's for some individual considerations. But in the context of restoring our founding principles it is Locke's writings and concepts that I believe are more applicable. Especially his political philosphy, that is rooted in Natural Law and by my reading of :The Second Treatise of Civil Government
1690I get the impression that our governmental design has/had his ideas incorporated pretty thoroughly.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Hey TJE, I've been working on a side by side comparison, not finished yet but here it is.The Declaration of IndependenceLocke on Government, Book II“When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another…”“…the legislative being only a fiduciary power to act for certain ends, there remains still in the people a supreme power to remove or alter the legislative, when they find the legislative act contrary to the trust reposed in them. For all power given with trust for the attaining an end being limited by that end, whenever that end is manifestly neglected or opposed, the trust must necessarily be forfeited, and the power devolve into the hands of those that gave it, who may place it anew where they shall think best for their safety and security. And thus the community perpetually retains a supreme power of saving themselves from the attempts and designs of anybody, even of their legislators…”“…and to assume among the powers of the earth…”“…And this puts men out of a state of nature into that of a commonwealth, by setting up a judge on earth, with authority to determine all the controversies, and redress the injuries that may happen to any member of the commonwealth”“…the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them…”“…To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature…”“…mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”“…the people, who are more disposed to suffer than right themselves by resistance, are not apt to stir.”“…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…”“…But if a long train of abuses, prevarications and artifices, all tending the same way, make the design visible to the people, and they cannot but feel what they lie under, and see whither they are going; it is not to be wondered, that they should then rouse themselves, and endeavour to put the rule into such hands which may secure to them the ends for which government was at first erected…”“We hold these truths to be self-evident...”“…there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection…”“…all men are created equal…”Though I have said… That all men by nature are equal, I cannot be supposed to understand all sorts of equality… all men are… in respect of jurisdiction or dominion one over another; which was the equality I there spoke of… being that equal right, that every man hath, to his natural freedom, without being subjected to the will or authority of any other man.”
- Permalink Reply by on
- I have posted some items from the Greeks and now here are some from the Romans.According to the law of nature it is only fair that no one should become richer through damages and injuries suffered by another.
Marcus Tullius Cicero
Freedom is a man's natural power of doing what he pleases, so far as he is not prevented by force or law.
Marcus Tullius Cicero
- Permalink Reply by on
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. - Letter to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts (11 October 1798)
- Permalink Reply by on
- They say history repeats itself, consider:“May it please your Excellency - We, his majesty's loyal subjects, the representatives of the people of this colony, in congress assembled, beg leave to disclose to your Excellency, the true cause of our present proceedings… It is unnecessary to enumerate the grievances of America; they have been so often represented, that your Excellency cannot be a stranger to them.— Let it, therefore, suffice to say, that the hands of his majesty's ministers, having long lain heavy, now press with intolerable weight. …solely for the preservation and defense of our lives, liberties, and properties, we have been impelled to associate and to take up arms.”“…we only desire the secure enjoyment of our invaluable rights, and we wish for nothing more ardently, than a speedy reconciliation with our mother country, upon constitutional principles.”“Conscious of the justice of our cause, and the integrity of our views, we readily profess our loyal attachment to our sovereign, his crown, and dignity; and, trusting the event to Providence, we prefer death to slavery. These things, we have thought it our duty to declare, that your Excellency, and through you, our august sovereign—our fellow subjects—and the whole world—may clearly understand, that our taking up arms, is the result of dire necessity, and in compliance with the first law of nature [self defense, my emphasis].”By order of the Provincial Congress, at Charles Town, June 20, 1775.They taught us the American Revolution about taxation without representation. It was fought for independence and liberties sake. I’m beginning to think it was none of these. I see it as a case of self defense against a government aiming to achieve complete submission.Does history repeat itself?
- Permalink Reply by on
- Troy is there no importance to any principle in the world that is not involved with the evil money lender - I know you were not fairly treated but if you do not use a bank then they have no influence on you at all. Money is neither the root of all evil nor the most important ingredient of happiness.Money is simply a medium of exchange that allows me not to trade for a whole cow when I just want the steaks. It is a very useful item in commerce and that is why it exists in any form. It is the product of the extension of Natural Law for it is just common need and use that allows it to exist.All things have changed nothing remains still for the universe and Natural Law state that movement and change is the normal state.it does not bother me at all it is just not that important to me. For it only has power over you if you let it = kind of like the Devil IMO.Yes - I recall the statement - NOT WORTH A CONTINENTAL - the first fiat failure so see we can over come a currency failure. Just not that big a deal if we use our natural resources.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I believe this is the complete transcript of Mr. Franklin's 'examination':
http://www.founding.com/founders_library/pageID.2331/defa
- Permalink Reply by on
- Our Constitution basically recognizes that there exist unalienable rights, following from common law which is the how society has come to interpret through reason and logic the basic ‘laws of nature’. Natural Law is mostly a philosophy that there exist objective laws which can be found through reason and logic. Common Law is the process which takes these ‘unknown’ natural laws and through logic reaches an understanding of its meanings Natural Law, unlike Common Law, remains mostly unwritten. Transcendental consciousness is the unified field of all the Laws of Nature. Its source is experience. Its discovery is through study, thought, deliberation, and debate, it is the home of all creativity and intelligence within you, and all your thoughts arise from here.Romanticism dismisses logic and reason and cultivates a greater sensitivity to feelings, metaphysics and mysticism. Its source is emotions, and spiritualism. Its discovery is intangible feelings. The cultivation of empathy for the sufferings of others is the vehicle for social change. Negative responsibility … is the notion that we are as responsible for events that occur as a result of our omissions (whether or not intended) as we are for events that occur as a result of our deliberate acts." Or so the government wants us to believe. What we have discovered is that the government is inept at resolving the nation’s problems, it is incapable of creating jobs, it has failed to curb inflation, it has not ended poverty, and it can not control the actions of other countries. It has responded to the vocal minority’s cry for the government to do something, but what that minority wants is to be relived from its own responsibility to take charge of their own lives to lead their own families search for the American dream. The government cannot and should not be all things to all people.The Problems that we face is the need to deal with the reality. To correct many of our nations problems require positive action we live in mistaken notion that government is the solution to all problems and that we are helpless to act without the force of government to institute positive change. We have been brainwashed to believe that anarchy is the death of democracy. If we are to have an intellectual identity of our own, we must make the effort to distinguish ourselves from those who preceded us, and perhaps pre-eminently from those to whom we once had the greatest indebtedness. We must find solutions of our own, to the complex problems we face. We must use reason and logic to find strategies to propel us into the next century.Ludwig von Mises taught that people will always act in their own best interest if they have to. This includes reaching into the public purse. It has been far too easy for people to act in this way. I am not talking about the poor but contractors, employees, foundations, charities, schools, and environmentalist, all acting, all believing that they are acting in and for the public interest, but in reality they are acting in their own best interest they seek solutions from the government because it is easy, they use the force of government to loot the property of others because it is easy. They do not seek answers from the privet sector because it requires work, intelligence, and innovation.If we are guilty of anything we are guilty of allowing federal government to become involved in any of these things.
- Permalink Reply by on
- What did the founders mean “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…”. Surely these were not idle words. My understanding of the equality spoken of was “…in respect of jurisdiction or dominion one over another”.“To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature; without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man. Though I have said above, chap. ii. “That all men by nature are equal,” I cannot be supposed to understand all sorts of equality: age or virtue may give men a just precedency: excellency of parts and merit may place others above the common level: birth may subject some, and alliance or benefits others, to pay an observance to those whom nature, gratitude, or other respects, may have made it due: and yet all thisconsists with the equality, which all men are in, in respect of jurisdiction or dominion one over another; which was the equality I there spoke of, as proper to the business in hand, being that equal right, that every man hath, to his natural freedom, without being subjected to the will or authority of any other man.”I am not superior to, nor can I claim any special power over other men. No one is “created” with jurisdiction or dominion over others.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de TocquevillThere is no Constitutional right, Natural law right, to equality of results. IMO this is the error that all make in reading the Constitution. In fact much was written on this subject by the Founders and they were very concerned about creating a caste system. They were abhorred about the monarchy and class system of England - they went the extra mile to make sure that did not happen in the Republic. That is why they designed it to protect the smallest minority from the majority and that minority was the individual. IMO Like de Tocquevill we are anal about individual freedoms.
No comments:
Post a Comment