Slashdot Mirror

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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. 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. -- Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms

Who defines "legitimate"?

Start here.

The government decides what objectives your "forced labor" will be used for. Luckily, we live in a representative democracy. If a majority of the people decide that "forced labor" will be used for health insurance, then that's what it will be used for.

So slavery is legitimate if a majority of the voters agree?

The point is that this stuff is wrong even if it does make people safer.

From Common Sense by Tom Paine:

Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz. Freedom and security.

Thus, you have a good point. Putting security before freedom in the form of a warrant-less wiretap is Anti-American.

Of the Origin and Design of Government in General, with Concise Remarks on the English Constitution

Although the prose is a bit dated, this is some remarkably "back to basics" thinking that could do some people a lot of good. I quote:

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer

Someone who says the Constitution grants them the unlimited right to shoot people in the face without consequences has a bit less reason to be heard

I don't know of anyone who has said that. More importantly, if you don't respect the rights of others (such as the right to *life*, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), then the courts will remove your right to own a gun. If you shoot someone in the face, you don't get a gun anymore.

How do you explain the fact that Tea Parties have existed for a bit, but only the last one was a HUGE media event, even though there has been no real increases in taxes for some bit

You're right--taxes didn't go up. But spending did. The government spent nearly 1 trillion dollars in the last few months of the Bush presidency--then Obama nearly tripled it in the first few months of his.

One possible outcome of this is taxes going up, another is insane inflation like we saw during the great depression.

, and the previous canidate was also a big spender (larger than Obama so far).

I'd like to see those figures.
The Iraq war has an estimated cost of just under $1 trillion dollars over 8 years. Approximately $125bn per year. In the first few months of Obama's presidency, he signed bills and spend just under two trillion dollars.

Just to recap--Bush: Just under $1 trillion for the war in 8 years. Obama: Just under $2 trillion for the bailout in a few months.

That's what I objected to. That's why most people were out on the 4th protesting.

Most Republicans voted for Bush,

My only defense is that I was 20 and stupid when he was elected. At 24 I was just starting to catch on. ;)

conservatism just because they don't like Obama over-spending in ways they personally don't like, not because of government over spending in general.

It's picking the lesser of two evils. McCain is a douche, but I voted for him because he was *slightly* better than Obama. Other people are voting Democrat because they are pissed at the Republicans for putting McCain up. Others are voting for Obama because he promised to bring the troops home--and deep down, the Iraq war is unconstitutional.

Neither would I. I would if you wouldn't have included the second part of that, though. Good government is based on ideological fist fights, the second someone wished to remove that, then they veer on evil.

The government is based on a legal contract that specifically says what the government can't do to it's citizens, and specifically says what actions it is allowed to take. When they violate that contract, they are dishonest. When people try or succeed in taking office with promises that they will violate that contract and the rights of the citizens, that is evil.

Here I disagree. We have nothing against roads and other public works, nor do we have much against the police and fire departments. Most of us are even for government spent research (such as ARPA's internet, NASA, etc...). You might be against these, I don't know.

I am against those. :)
I can sort of see the *federal* government providing the interstate system under the constitution (Article 1, Section 8) where it discusses post roads.

And there's nothing wrong with your individual state voting on, taxing, and providing highways, bridges, etc..

Back in the Good 'Ol Days, fire departments were simply groups of able-bodied men who would drop whatever they were doing and rush to try and put a fire out. (here)

(And note that I'm not saying it's the best or correct solution. Your town/city/whatever can vote to have a fire department or not.)

The Declaration of Independence warned us about this. Specifically:

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

You should read the rest of the document too, you might be startled to realize just how many of the reasons our country separated from its original government (the british) are presently true and in force. Frankly, secret treaties, secret courts, secret laws, and everything behind the veil of National Security... has now descended to matters as trivial as copyright. I think it's time to reconsider our perogative as Americans.

Unfortunately, the Bill of Rights doesn't apply in civil cases.

You couldn't have said it better! http://www.ushistory.org/documents/amendments.htm#amend07

Really. You couldn't.

A simple google search for second amendment slaves

But I guess you can't be bothered to show evidence to support your argument?
You're arugment really does not make since anyway. Why would "we the people" require weapons to put down a slave revolt? Couldn't the police, army or state militia put down a slave revolt? Just the same way the Army put down a city wide riot in the New York Draft Riots. And mind you thoes were not slaves, but full citizens that have a right to bear arms.

Seems to me you're in dire need of reading, in full, The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Just a single sentence from the Declaration of Independence refutes slavery.

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.

Also note that the U.S.A. was the first country in the world to abolish slavery, before France, before England. In fact some African, European, and Asian countries still support slavery today!

Perhaps you should read a bit of history about Abolitionism before you start throwing blame around. Realize the conservitive Republicans' were responsible for abolishing slavery. It's also interesting to note that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex was passed down party lines after Republicans overcame a 54 day filibuster by southern Democrats!

A lot of people don't know this, but Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president, he was the first abolitionist president, he fought a bitter civil war to end slavery with Republicans in the north calling themselves The Union and Democrats in the south calling themselves Confederates attempting to cede from the union. Also, there is no refuting the huge role that the Christian Quakers played in the abolition of slavery.

Again, if you can provide me with some solid evidence to back up your claim I'm happy to read it, you claim it's "simple" to find, I did the search and just found a bunch of conspiracy theorist web sites and nothing that actually backs up your claim in the least bit. Our country was founeded on Stoic Natural Law. Stoics emphasized the universal ideas of individual worth, moral duty, and universal brotherhood. The idea of slavery is against Stoic Natural Law.

If I've failed to sway your opinion perhaps our friend Thomas Paine can. Just read the first few pages of this book and then tell me what you think of the 2nd amendment.

Need help understanding? Apply some Common Sense.

Unfortunately the thing history shows the most is how little the human race learns from history.

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
...
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

The Declaration of Independence disagrees with you.

...read this document that grants you your freedoms

It does no such thing. It acknowledges a subset of the "unalienable Rights" with which they were "endowed by their Creator".

The difference is huge. If the constitution "grants" me rights, then the states can change it to revoke those rights. However, if those rights are "unalienable" because they were granted by someone above the state's pay grade (to coin a phrase), then the states lack the authority to revoke them.

This was precisely the argument laid out in the Declaration of Independence to justify the American Revolution.

Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now...

Ben Franklin ran a group dedicated to meeting regularly and talking about what they could do to further their careers. http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/philadelphia/aps.htm

Please don't cite private letters, but actual documents with legal standing; thank you.

Private correspondence says what they meant, as do public writings such as the Federalist Papers and various tracts and books such as Thomas Paine's "The Crisis", which he wrote while he served under George Washington's command. Unfortunately too many people twist what the Constitution means so it says what they want it to say, the only way to know what the Founding Fathers meant by something is by reading their writings, pub;ic and private.

I am not American

I apologize then. It's still a good idea to read what the Founding Fathers wrote though to get an idea of what they meant. I don't think you are but if you're French I'd suggest Thomas Paine, in "The Rights Of Man" he passionately defends the French Revolution. Unfortunately people like Teddy Roosevelt called Paine an atheist though he, like Thomas Jefferson and other Founding Fathers, was a Deist.

Falcon

Please don't cite private letters, but actual documents with legal standing; thank you.

Private correspondence says what they meant, as do public writings such as the Federalist Papers and various tracts and books such as Thomas Paine's "The Crisis", which he wrote while he served under George Washington's command. Unfortunately too many people twist what the Constitution means so it says what they want it to say, the only way to know what the Founding Fathers meant by something is by reading their writings, pub;ic and private.

I am not American

I apologize then. It's still a good idea to read what the Founding Fathers wrote though to get an idea of what they meant. I don't think you are but if you're French I'd suggest Thomas Paine, in "The Rights Of Man" he passionately defends the French Revolution. Unfortunately people like Teddy Roosevelt called Paine an atheist though he, like Thomas Jefferson and other Founding Fathers, was a Deist.

Falcon

"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..."

How, exactly, are we to interpret this sentence if not that terrorism is a fundamental human right?

Perhaps everyone should reread the Declaration of Independence http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm A group of very smart fellows wrote it! .... Way smarter and more egalitarian than any of our present day politicians!

Really? Thomas Jefferson, who was not just a slave-owner but a slave-rapist, and who believed that black people were inferior to white people "in the endowments both of body and mind", was more egalitarian than any of our present day politicians?

That's setting the bar low.

Then again, given the praise that the late Jeese Helms garnered from fellow politicians, you may be sadly right.

The Constitution is very plain on our rights and who exactly is the boss in this country. The trumped up (or even real issues) that members of the government are using to generate fear and exceptions to our true law will come home to roost. They do us all harm in that they are succeeding in taking freedoms that Bin-Laden could not. Our current misadventure in Iraq, although certainly driven more by pandering to corporate greed, is being justified by hyping fear with religious overtones that to outsider smack of 'Crusade'. We as a people must learn to rise above such manufactured motivations and transparent pettiness and remain true to our core beliefs as stated in our Declaration of Independence. Our government should be run using the spirit of the Declaration as a guide, provable facts as motivation, and the strict process and rules laid down for governance in the Constitution to guarantee us each the opportunity for life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Elected officials and career bureaucrats should especially keep in mind that in addition to the rights and protections specifically granted the people in the Bill of Rights, the 10th Amendment grants a very few powers to the federal government, a few more to the states, and by default, the remainder to the individual. Usurping our constitutional rights is not appreciated and will eventually lead to dire consequences...

Perhaps everyone should reread the Declaration of Independence http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm A group of very smart fellows wrote it! .... Way smarter and more egalitarian than any of our present day politicians!

What we need is a true Patriot (and by patriot, I mean someone like George Washington .... not the Orwellian, doublespeak, PC corruption of the term 'patriot' foist upon us by Bush, Clinton, Nixon and others who have clearly sullied their offices). These guys richly deserve the full measure of constitutional means of trial for high crimes and treason for their transgressions against "We the People".

... A public gallows for some of these miscreants would go very far in raising the opinion of the world of what true American Patriots stand for and will put up with. Such action would most assuredly make clear the expected duty to public office seekers. "Don't Tread on Me" was a common slogan on flags in 1775-1776! ___ Perhaps we should start waving these flags at all campaign speeches and demonstrations in great enough numbers so it starts to sink in...

"... Hey, you a**holes belong to "We the People" ... we pay you, we have set up the rules... follow them!

_ denial of Habeas Corpus

_ unwarranted search and seizure

_ use of federal troops against the citizens

...please! ... or does your neck need stretching?"

We expect and deserve true patriots in all our government offices!

The supreme court got the 2nd amendment thing right... perhaps they will get this one right too.

Declaration of Independence ???

When was the last time you read it?

You may intrinsically try to do these things; keep at it and you will lose you life for it. What's your point? that rights are nothing without enforcement? I ask you again, What makes you think that good men will not enforce their rights? Your point appears to be pure mental masturbation. Perhaps, you just don't like people asserting that they have their rights. A civilized person will assert they have a right before they enforce it. E.g., see Declaration of Independence.

Ideas are valuable all of a sudden? Then why is "Imaginary Property" always decried? No... the real value is in the implementation, and that began with Stallman's Compiler [gcc] and has grown from it. So yes, the tools are important. If there had been nobody capable or willing to write GCC or Apache for free, the technological world would not be what it is today.

That being said... the idea of Freedom is still king. And there is this quote from one of America's founding documents that brings that home better than anything else.

The scary part is that we need to fight so hard against corporations and governments to maintain the freedom and security that they are there to protect.

If you only had to screw in one screw, you might use a manual screwdriver. If you had to screw in hundreds of screws, you might use an electric screwdriver. That would not make you inconsistent.

Oh, so now you want to argue by analogy. But you are using a wrong one. The number of racist households is, if anything, larger than the number of racist business-owners. In fact, the numbers are of the same magnitude, which alone makes your analogy (of one scree vs. hundreds) invalid.

You better stick to the position, that there is nothing wrong with inconsistency... At least, that would be consistent :)

I agree that the federal government overstepped its bounds with its interpretation of the interstate commerce clause.

My stance has little to do with the American Constitution. I quoted (vis. "pursuit of happiness") not from the legal document, but from the preceding political one. It proclaimed the rights of all people, rather than those of US-citizens. These are: "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

Of all of these rights, the right to discriminate based on skin-color is one I'm willing to sacrifice, especially when it comes into conflict with the more fundamental human right not to be discriminated on based on skin-color.

Although we agree, that the first right — to treat others as one sees fit (subject to their own above-listed rights, of course), including the right to be a bigot — exists, I must point out, that the second one — the right to be treated nicely by others — does not... Simply because it would be akin to guaranteeing the "right to Happiness" rather than only to pursuit thereof.

If you really got that [that the success of the non-discrimination laws is limited -mi] from what I said, then that partly explains your world-view.

Well, yes, I got it from what you said. Tell me, how the following could be interpreted any different by anyone — even with a world-view you find agreeable. You wrote:

The vicious cycles still exist, but they have been mitigated somewhat.

Not that an objective person needs your agreement to see the truth of the statement. While immigrants of all races do rather well upon coming here, the Blacks born-and-raised in this country lag severely behind.

A real right was sacrificed in the (vain) hope of achieving racial harmony... What was it about "losing both and deserving neither"?..

If we ever do achieve the racial harmony (a laudable goal, indeed), it will not be thanks to those non-discrimination laws.

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others. Thomas Paine Common Sense

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others. Thomas Paine Common Sense

It is naive to think that society will implement Asimov's ideas

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others. Common Sense Thomas Paine

The Chinese people will have to begin any kind of revolution from within, just as the American colonies did.

That's a wrong view. Excusable, but wrong. American colonies faced a fairly benign oppressors (the King and the Parliament), who would shy away from mass-murder — the list of greivances, while exposing the rule as ineffectual, mentions little bodily harm.

Cuban and North Korean governments, on contrast, are determined to apply whatever violence may be necessary to stay in power, which makes them stable in their rut. External agitation may or may not be enough kick them out of that stability, but it is certainly not wrong to try.

And yes, at some point, more tangible help may be needed. It was not just French King's money, mind you, but also French naval force and artillery that helped American colonies win their independence. And that would not be automatically wrong either.

I thought your constitution said something about all people being equal?

Thats the Declaration of Independence. It isn't law.

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

"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."

Rights are protected by the state, not granted by it.

Any of these guys..

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 ...

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

My question for the people that dont like this idea is, WHAT are you downloading or looking up that is so bad that the FBI will look at your case and not the person they are mainly looking for?

The Federal law doesn't technically force states to implement the ID stuff, it just says that if they don't, they won't get their federal highway money.

"Nice little road system you got here -- be a shame to see it deteriorate!" is functionally equivalent to "Nice little candy store you got here -- be a shame to see something bad happen to it!" Which one is the Mafia, and which is the government?

Old protection racket scheme, you pay for protection or you will need it. The US tested this and found it to work "nicely" for the IRS. If you don't pay them what they decide you owe they will come take it from you. Where did the Mafia get it? Probably from some government or another, perhaps the Vatican. Plenty enough documentation in history that the church sold you salvation, from them. Interestingly enough governmental oppression via taxation and/or church control is what brought most of our predecessors to the US. UK tried to control and milk the colonies via taxation etc..

Originally the federal government was supposed to be funded only by the graces of the states and tariffs and the states' governments controlled who went to the senate and thus their senators would protect the sovereignity of the states from popular demands and federal power seizures. Changing senators to popular elections shifted the balance of power, unfortunately it has taken power not just from the states but from the people. Of course you can also argue that the people have abdicated their power and/or that corporations have bought it away from them. Both in many ways are all too true, just like the public school system was set up to train you to accept and tolerate this kind of behaviour from the government and from corporations. I for one am convinced the major reason entrepreneurship is more prevalent among people who move into the US then those who grew up in within the public school system.

Only way I can see this changing is for those who are able to re-educate themselves to do so and try to influence others to do the same. We need to establish more entrepreneurship, including the family farms and we could use some truth in the newspapers etc too. We need to either retake our political parties or form new ones, from the grass roots level up. Got an elected official on the take? Vote him/her out irregardless if its legal contributions to them or not if they selling their vote they are selling their vote and they need to be voted down. Above all else we need to remind people that we should not rely on the government for everything. The more we ask of government the more power we have to give them to do it and eventually they start to claim they already have the power to add more on.

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.

Common Sense Thomas Paine

I would suggest everyone re-read Common S

ArcherB, I salute your dogged pursuit of this discussion. I see you are not satisfied by the rebuttals that have been offered you, but I think my fellow /.-ers have covered the main points. If you don't find their arguments compelling, then I don't think you are going to be persuaded. But I'm glad you have posted all the replies that you did.

There were a number of good points people made, and I think they are pretty weighty. But security is sexy these days and Common Sense isn't. The arguments articulated here are more important than most people appreciate. First, national ID looks unconstitutional, and I think it is always a good idea to stop unconstitutional Federal behavior, even if well intentioned. If constitutional limits are regularly trampled even for good intentions, they will become irrelevant on the day that we really need to say, "No, they can't do that." The government needs limits. This idea is very old and well established. Second, and related to this, is the idea of a healthy skepticism of government trustworthiness. Globally, government affronts to liberty and justice are common -- and the USA has dirty hands too, e.g., what allegedly has been done to Jose Padilla. Third, it is naive to think that the document would be unforgeable. Fourth, even terrorists get legitimate documents; making people have a valid ID card won't stop terrorism, as 9/11 proved. Fifth, consolidating all this identity data would make citizens more vulnerable to identity theft, not less. If the government has no the right to establish a national ID scheme, and if such a scheme would greatly erode privacy, and consolidate powers in the Federal that the framers of the constitution never dreamed of; if the scheme is going to be fantastically expensive ($9 to $12 billion according to the ACLU), if it won't stop terrorism (and how could it?) -- then let's not do it.

You might not agree with those who invoke Orwellian visions, but they might be more right than you realize. In this and the previous century, there have been plenty of "civilized" nation-states that have made their citizens' lives hell. The Soviets are just one example. Don't think it couldn't happen here. Don't make it easy for it to happen here. Stand up for the constitution; write your state legislators to reject Real ID -- or move to Maine.

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/imag e.htm
they haven't done the rewrite on this yet, have they?

> They even advocate violent overthrow of the government

I don't suppose you've read the Declaration of Independence lately? "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."

If the government won't behave properly then it must go. If it won't go peacefully then, by all means, it is the People's right to remove it by force.

Maybe its time we read the Declaration of Independence once again http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/inde x.htm. This was real life and why our forefathers separated from the established societies of Europe. They handed us a frame of the ideal society and we are currently letting that frame be dismantled by some self-righteous pricks that believe this is their world to do with as they please. People believe that the rights they have are granted and theirs. In fact, they are not. They must be fought for on a daily basis. We as a society have gotten spoiled and lazy with a sense of entitlement. Guess what? When you allow it to happen, it will first your privacy then your basic human rights will come to a halt all in the name of the new Terrorism. There is nothing new about terrorism Hitting the Dusk of my life I can only look at the youngsters coming along and wonder why they are not as pissed off as their music makes them sound? Moreover, feel sorry for the generations that follow this for sure cannot be a good thing that is happening

Before the evening a mob burned Oliver's property on Kilby street, then moved on to his house. There they beheaded the effigy and stoned the house as its occupants looked out in horror. They then moved to nearby Fort Hill were they built a large fire and burned what was left of the effigy. Most of the crowd dissipated at that point, however McIntosh and crew, then under cover of darkness, ransacked Oliver's abandoned home until midnight. On that evening it became very clear who ruled Boston. The British Militia, the Sheriffs and Justices, kept a low profile. No one dared respond to such violent force.

By the end of that year the Sons of Liberty existed in every colony. Their most popular objective was to force Stamp Distributors throughout the colonies to resign.

The problem is that too many people have come to accept that the government is just this entity, and that everyone serves it. They have forgotten that the radical idea behind this Great Experiment called the United States is that people can and should be self-governing. That the government is "instituted among Men, deriving [its] just powers from the consent of the governed" in order to ""secure these [inalienable] rights". And, that our federal government was established by "We, the people".

The problem is that too many people have come to accept that the government is just this entity, and that everyone serves it. They have forgotten that the radical idea behind this Great Experiment called the United States is that people can and should be self-governing. That the government is "instituted among Men, deriving [its] just powers from the consent of the governed" in order to ""secure these [inalienable] rights". And, that our federal government was established by "We, the people".

So what happens when your government is out of control ? Do we as citizens have a moral responsibility to stop this/them ?

Find ye your answers in the wisest of texts:

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. 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.

one of the original patriots

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/henry .htm

Has the memory of 9/11 faded that much?

Facism was born of Germany's humiliation in WWI, weak democractic institutions, and a widespread, simmering hatred of Jews, not of government "inefficiency".

Prior to 9/11 the cockroaches to plotted to attack the US did so in the kind of open environment you seem to want to restore.

Are you implying that society dictates morality?

So the founding fathers were immoral by your logic and should have left England alone?

Do you imagine that the Founders just woke up one day and said, "Fuck this British Empire shit, let's start our own country!" If they had, then yeah, they'd be pretty immoral. Worse, they'd be stupid.

But that's not the way it happened at all. Read the Declaration of Independence some time. It's mostly about a long list of grievances that the Americans had been trying to get addressed for decades. And it talks about how it's wrong to overthrow established authority for "light and transient cause". Far from considering revolution their fundamental right, the founders considered it to be a nasty last resort, justified only by the extreme abuses of the British crown.

Nevertheless, your point about Prohibition is interesting.

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.

But the Declaration of Independence isn't in the body of Law, it's just a pretty sentiment.

Franklin also said "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

Benjamin Franklin must be spinning in his grave...