The English Bill of Rights 1689
In order to understand the American Revolution, and the American Bill of Rights , it helps to know the Bill of Rights of 1689. The American colonists only wanted their rights as English subjects. Following the Glorious Revolution of 1688, these were among the new guarantees:
That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;
* That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;
* That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
* That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;
* That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;
* That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;
* The Avalon Project of Yale Law school provides a rich treasury of original documents.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/...
That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;
* That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;
* That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
* That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;
* That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;
* That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;
* The Avalon Project of Yale Law school provides a rich treasury of original documents.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/...
If the Constitution put into place had been based on natural rights(it wasn't) and the people agreed protecting natural rights were important to the future of their nation, people would begin to focus on building lives and investing in property instead of fighting against one another or fighting against other nations under their insane religion of jihad. The guns are there regardless, but chaos is there the minute the gun is put down. The ideas must come first and the guns are the means of self defense. The resulting prosperity is a powerful motivator to focus on property and away from death and destruction of property
Oh, btw, here you are on your own thread (purportedly all about the English Bill of Rights of 1689) and you're discussing gun control, gun registration, nuclear weapons, jet airplanes, and gold-based currency. I'm sorry, but I must have missed those in the embodiment of the original post. Talk about hypocritical.
You seem to think that this board is a playground for those who only think exactly as do you. I admire much of what AR had to say in describing how the downfall comes about, but not necessarily in how she felt that there would be a solution. Why do you seek to deny me the ability to value what I choose and reject what I choose? That seems to be a subtle form of power/control on your part.
Kudos also for the observation that the Constitution was the culmination of thousands of years of effort by tens of thousands of men who were both thinkers and doers. It is amazing how often this has to be repeated here and everywhere.
(My own personal theory of relativity...)
"We can evade bathing, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading bathing"?
Modern revision:
"A=A, for various values of 'A'..."
I have suggested before that the skilled interrogator allows the subject to speak about "other" people knowing that it is projection from within. I expect that your family of origin was ruled by force. You accept that as a premise.
John Galt and Dagny Taggart, whose names you invoke, had a different view because Ayn Rand wrote them into life.
As khalling has pointed out, the success of capitalism, enterprise, and invention - ultimately, of America - depended on reason and agreement. It was not perfect. It was never complete, either socially or even (largely) within any one individual. However, overall, generally, it was individuals who accepted the primacy of existence and who applied reason to their perceptions who came to offer value for value to others.
Not only is it moral, it works. It must work because it is moral. A is A.
In fact, that is why the English Bill of Rights was created, to provide a moral basis for that government.
As for the reasons why so much of the world starves, I couldn't agree with you more. The ideas come first.
1. Rand would never have advocated for the non-aggression principle.
2.When Locke was formulating his philosophy based on natural rights, his country was a monarchy. When the Constitution of The United States was drawn up, it was based in no small part on natural rights. I am sure the rest of the world was certain our new nation would fail under a system of capitalism. More important than where a nation's borders are is the idea that men agree on a system based in logic and reason. Rand argued that capitalism was that system-if kept pure. The cooperation will necessarily follow. BUt the foundations of the system rest in man's right to himself and the products(property) of his mind.
Often, you'll hear someone say about the state of constant wars and fuedalism in African nations-people are starving-that's why there's so much chaos. We have to feed people first, then figure out their governments. In the History of the World, the ideas have always come first to pull people out of a Malthusian Trap. This is why we are seeing the disaster of an Egypt, Lebanon, Afganistan, Iraq, etc. Our own nation did not set up governments based on our system of Capitalism and natural rights.-which are nothing more than ideas, concepts put into action- no matter how large the physical landscape. This is not an argument of point of a gun vs. non-aggression. Under a natural rights system of capitalism people will voluntarily cooperate-value for value. But those rights are protected and enforced and we agree to that. When the government goes beyond their instituted purpose-we are right back to the drawing board on ideas. If we don't agree on certain foundations we will rule and be ruled as thugs.
But, to ignore that force is used, is foolish, naïve, and dangerous.
No, the Am Rev did not begin because we had a bigger army. Nor was it won because we had better ideas. It was a combination of both.
If the Confederate generals had been a bit less "honorable", and more despicable like their Union counterparts, they might have won their independence. Why they put Old Granny in charge I will *never* understand.
No Constitutional provision, or other provision of English law, allowed the colonies to secede from the crown, either.
But in the DoI, the Founding Fathers make it clear that people DO have a right to separate from a body politic which is inimical to their well-being... as they, and they alone, judge it.
I further point to both the 9th and 10th Amendments to refute your assertion. Each State is not a province of a central government, but a sovereign republic unto itself; in fact, a State cannot join the Union until it has provided its people with a republican form of government.
A State is not a province.
While most (white) people in the South wanted to leave the Union, the opinion of most (black) people was irrelevant, they not being citizens either of their States (the path through which most U.S. citizens get their U.S. citizenship), or of the Union.
While it might not have been clear that war was the only way out, the U.S. didn't try anything else, either. They sent forces to seize a military post on foreign soil, a key post. The U.S. interest in keeping Southern States in the Union wasn't some kind of paternalism, but greed for the monies generated by Southern trade.
You are not being practical, you are being anti-conceptual.
Load more comments...