Self evident truths
Published Thu, Apr 10 2008 5:06 PM
In one of my more recent posts, I talked about the prevalence of deception and self deception in the world, especially the world of politics. I touched on how you can't trust politicians, using thinly veiled references to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. I touched on how you can't trust political operatives with a thinly veiled reference to the Joseph Plame/Valerie Wilson affair (and yes, the mixing of the names this time was intentional). I discussed how you can't trust the news media when they say that they have no bias, giving examples of agenda driven reporting and deliberate falsehoods in recent "reporting". I discussed how you can't trust government to give an uncensored view of history, and how you can't trust the new media (also referred to as bloggers) to present the truth either. Nor can you trust the purveyors of religion, atheists, or even scientists to give you a clear and complete picture of "the truth".
That doesn't mean that there isn't truth available for us all to know. That certainly wasn't the point of my post at all, and I think that the people that read and commented on the post understood that. No, the point was that man is a deceitful creature, and at the same time a limited one, and that we must all make our way through the world examining all that we hear and say and do critically. With our limited time and capacity for knowledge, with our limited understanding of ourselves let alone our neighbors, none of us has any business imposing our will and notion of truth upon anyone else. It's more than enough work to make ourselves the best that we can be without trying to dictate to others how they should live and think.
I recognize that my capacity and time are both limited. I recognize that there are truths that I have not yet been exposed to, and may never be exposed to, and that the same applies to everyone I meet or will ever know. Because of this, I know that I cannot judge another person based upon what I observe about them, and I cannot dictate what choices they should or must make. Instead, I must allow them the freedom to examine their own life and experiences and make their own choices, whether I agree with those choices or not. Of course, if I do not agree with the choices someone else makes, that doesn't mean that I must remain silent. If the choices I see someone making appear to me to be injurious to that person, I have a duty to at least explain that, but the choices, and their consequences, remain their own. Only when their actions infringe upon my own ability to freely examine and choose do I see a need for conflict. This is, to my mind, the foundation of tolerance.
In the later half of the eighteenth century, the conflict over this notion (among others) came to a head, resulting in revolution. Our founding fathers recognized that certain truths were self evident.
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, 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.
What were the self evident truths that the founders recognized in the Declaration of Independence?
- All men are created equal.
- All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.
- Governments are instituted among men to secure those rights.
- Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.
- The people have the right to a government that secures their rights in the way that seems best to them, even if it means changing the one that they have when it doesn't secure those rights.
The declaration enumerated three unalienable rights of man, the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to the pursuit of happiness. It didn't of course indicate that these were the only unalienable rights of man, merely that these were among them. The declaration also alluded to other rights as the argument for abolishing the current government over the colonies was put forth. It declared that it was self evident that the people have the right and duty to institute a government that secures those rights in the way that seems best to them. Another right explicitly mentioned was the right to representation in the legislature. This wasn't included as an unalienable right, but it was reckoned to be of inestimable value to the people, and only formidable to tyrants.
The purpose of government, of all government is to secure our unalienable rights. We grant our governments their powers to protect our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness from those who would seek to deprive us of them. For example, this is why we have laws against murder, the murderer deprives us of our right to Life. Protecting our Liberty would, it seems to me, involve keeping government out of the way of our right to think and to choose for ourselves that which is best for us, and keeping other governments from imposing their will upon us. This doesn't to me argue for "big government" with massive powers over our lives, but it does argue for a government able to defend us from tyrants and from one another.
Although it is often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, the quotation “That government is best which governs least.” seems to be of uncertain origin. It can certainly be found in Thoreau's Civil Disobedience. Thoreau saw government as the mechanism by which men contrive to leave each other alone, and an imperfect one at that. In any case, I agree that we can do with less government than we do, but not that we can do without it at all, primarily because in addition to being of limited capacity men are imperfect themselves. I don't believe that men will ever be ready for what Thoreau saw as the ideal state of man where “That government is best which governs not at all.” Still, I think that government should do as little as necessary to interfere with our liberty, and so did the founders.
Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.
— Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 15
It has been said that all Government is an evil. It would be more proper to say that the necessity of any Government is a misfortune. This necessity however exists; and the problem to be solved is, not what form of Government is perfect, but which of the forms is least imperfect.
— James Madison, 1833 - to an unidentified correspondent
The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.
— Thomas Jefferson, 1788 - letter to E. Carrington
The freedom and happiness of man...[are] the sole objects of all legitimate government.
— Thomas Jefferson, 1810 - letter to Thaddeus Kosciusko
Think about Thomas Jefferson's points and compare and contrast them with what we see in our government today, and what we are seeing our politicians offer to us. Based upon dubious science we're told in some locations what we must recycle, and how, what we can and cannot eat, what we can and cannot light our homes with, and what we can and cannot carry our groceries home in.
In New York, you cannot have trans-fats in your cooking oils. In Seattle paper or plastic isn't a choice, it's a surcharge. Compact fluorescent or incandescent? The government wants to choose for you. To smoke or not? Self-righteous people want to take the choice away from you, even though some people have lived a lifespan far above the average while doing it. One woman lived to 113 and attributed it to smoking once a day, every day, while the average lifespan is 77.7 years. Perhaps it wasn't smoking that lead to her ripe old age, but it certainly didn't shorten her span either. Why must the heavy hand of government make our decisions for us? Isn't government supposed to protect our liberty rather than take away our ability to make our own decisions?
The "nanny state" is a far cry from what the founders envisioned for us. The "center for science in the public interest" shouldn't be making my choices for me and they shouldn't choose for you either. They want to take away our freedoms and liberties, using the hand of government to decide for us what's good for us. That isn't liberty it's tyranny. Leftists want to make us choose their way "in the name of the environment" or "for the good of the children". I tell you, with so much misinformation masquerading as information I want to make my own choices, not have them taken away by someone who is more interested in their own self-righteous indignation over whether I'm eating meat or tofu. It's MY choice, keep your government out of it!
I don't need someone deciding what's best for me. I don't need them lying to me and telling me it's in my best interest to do things their way, and then using government to force me into their way of thinking. PETA, CSPI, and other nanny-state organizations can keep their damned hands out of my pockets! Let me make my own decisions, and let me face the consequences of those decisions myself. That's what liberty is.
What the self-righteous do-gooders on the left want isn't liberty. It's tyranny. And I'm having none of it!
Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=1154
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2008/4/10/1154.aspx
Subscribe to this entry's
comment feed. (Atom)
Angel responded with:
 | right in line with my post on lightbulbs eh?..:) |
Perri Nelson responded with:
 | Timing is everything isn't it? |
Angel responded with:
| indeed it is my friend!:) |
Aurelius responded with:
 | I frequently try to impress upon people that I am discussing things with, that they have a responsibility to learn something about the subjects they are talking about, rather than just regurgitating talking points.
The more people learn about what is going on, the more likely they are to realize the amount of misinformation that passes for "news", and what is left out is sometimes more important than what is left in. |