I was drafting my response before I noticed your latest post. Your position is clearer to me now. Thank you for the clarification.
Long live the republic!
I would guess that there are many different forms of instability in government. Is a stable yet corrupt government better than an unstable government? Is Afghanistan worse then Nazi Germany was? Was not Nazi Germany more stable than before when Germany was so poor that it was cheaper to burn money for warmth than to buy firewood with it? I think the user of which you are calling a moron might be a bit confused when they stated :
"The fact is, stability in our governmental system was never the plan. Jefferson was right on this count - we got the stability, and Liberty died."
I think that the "plan" WAS to establish a stable system of government. Why create a plan for such a system if you do not wish it to survive in its established form? Indeed (at least in my opinion) it was the desire of the founding members of this country to establish a form of government to allow for the best probability that all the rights of men, women and children thrive, among them Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. And that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Yes, the user should value what he has, but we should not be so blind and comfortable with our fortunes and standards of living that we forget a major part of our Declaration of Independence: "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.
- or -
"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."
We said that to the powerful, stable and very well established British system of government. 'Twas no Somalia my friend.
Some people forget that this country was founded more on dissent than blind allegiance to their government. (not saying this of you)
So, do I disagree with some of what the user said? To some extent yes... but you, sir, do your argument no favors through the use of petty insults/name calling.
So, 20 years before he held the office of president and the power that went along with it, he expressed to us the need to keep the spirit of resistance and revolution alive, to remind those in government that they ought not to get too comfortable with their power. Because governments through out history tend to become power hungry and corrupt, so they must be kept in check.
Then when Jefferson gains such power, you mention that he was not a fan of revolution? And for what purpose are you stating this? Are you stating this to invalidate the quote that you replied to? If so, I dont think you have done a good job of this. If anything... what you stated just proved the young Jefferson's point. People are susceptible to becoming corrupt when given power... if in fact Jefferson wasn't a fan of rebellion when he held the power, it may be that he wasn't a fan because he was a little susceptible to corruption himself. He didn't contradict himself later..he validated himself.
I am of the opinion that if we had asked the young Jefferson : "And how should we respond if you yourself are taken by such influences?" that he would (hopefully) respond in a manner as to suggest that we should treat him like any other who is a danger to our liberty.
Slashdot Mirror
I was drafting my response before I noticed your latest post. Your position is clearer to me now. Thank you for the clarification. Long live the republic!
My apologies for calling you a sir if you are not such.
I would guess that there are many different forms of instability in government. Is a stable yet corrupt government better than an unstable government? Is Afghanistan worse then Nazi Germany was? Was not Nazi Germany more stable than before when Germany was so poor that it was cheaper to burn money for warmth than to buy firewood with it? I think the user of which you are calling a moron might be a bit confused when they stated :
"The fact is, stability in our governmental system was never the plan. Jefferson was right on this count - we got the stability, and Liberty died."
I think that the "plan" WAS to establish a stable system of government. Why create a plan for such a system if you do not wish it to survive in its established form? Indeed (at least in my opinion) it was the desire of the founding members of this country to establish a form of government to allow for the best probability that all the rights of men, women and children thrive, among them Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. And that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Yes, the user should value what he has, but we should not be so blind and comfortable with our fortunes and standards of living that we forget a major part of our Declaration of Independence: "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.
- or -
"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."
We said that to the powerful, stable and very well established British system of government. 'Twas no Somalia my friend.
Some people forget that this country was founded more on dissent than blind allegiance to their government. (not saying this of you)
So, do I disagree with some of what the user said? To some extent yes... but you, sir, do your argument no favors through the use of petty insults/name calling.
So, 20 years before he held the office of president and the power that went along with it, he expressed to us the need to keep the spirit of resistance and revolution alive, to remind those in government that they ought not to get too comfortable with their power. Because governments through out history tend to become power hungry and corrupt, so they must be kept in check.
Then when Jefferson gains such power, you mention that he was not a fan of revolution? And for what purpose are you stating this? Are you stating this to invalidate the quote that you replied to? If so, I dont think you have done a good job of this. If anything... what you stated just proved the young Jefferson's point. People are susceptible to becoming corrupt when given power... if in fact Jefferson wasn't a fan of rebellion when he held the power, it may be that he wasn't a fan because he was a little susceptible to corruption himself. He didn't contradict himself later..he validated himself.
I am of the opinion that if we had asked the young Jefferson : "And how should we respond if you yourself are taken by such influences?" that he would (hopefully) respond in a manner as to suggest that we should treat him like any other who is a danger to our liberty.