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/...
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
"My mother says that violence never settles anything."
"So?" Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. "I’m sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that. Why doesn’t your mother tell them so? Or why don’t you? "
They had tangled before — since you couldn’t flunk the course, it wasn’t necessary to keep Mr. Dubois buttered up. She said shrilly, "You’re making fun of me! Everybody knows that Carthage was destroyed!"
"You seemed to be unaware of it," he said grimly. "Since you do know it, wouldn’t you say that violence had settled their destinies rather thoroughly? However, I was not making fun of you personally; I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea — a practice I shall always follow. Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and thoroughly immoral — doctrine that ‘violence never settles anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms." "
- Robert A. Heinlein, "Starship Troopers"
I repeat, it makes no difference to me if I have to fight Iranian terrorists or American soldiers; my liberty is not for sale, not for prosperity, not for comfort and not for convenience... and not to pay a phantasmic "debt". And the American soldier who thinks to make of himself a Praetorian best think twice, because there's a lot of rednecks like me out there. And we know how to shoot.
(for clarity; I specify "American soldier" because I'm American).
Understand this very, very carefully. I don't need you or any <expletive> soldier. My freedom is not a currency to be traded between tyrants, whether they wear Mullah's robes or olive drab uniforms.
If I have to <expletive> fight you instead of fighting Islamic terrorists or communist dictators, I've gained nothing. In point of fact, I've lost ground because the terrorists and dictators start out overseas, not in my neighborhood.
If you donned the uniform, you did so voluntarily. You were *paid* for whatever you did, both in coin and in whatever squishy orgasmic feelings you got from being military.
I am not helpless, and if the price of defense is surrendering khalling's 1st Amendment rights... bring it, <expletive>. A Navy Seal with a hundred years service and 12 C.M.H.s is no different to me than an Iranian mullah, if either demands surrendering of fundamental liberties, either out of religious subjugation or indebtedness.
I happen to agree with your premise, but will violently oppose anyone who attempts to diminish my liberty by imposing a debt that does not exist; because while you were out there defending the helpless instead of enforcing your nation's will (on our dime), you were also defending your *own* rights. I'm willing to offer respect in appreciation for your efforts, but you get nothing more.
The nonviolence of Europe's last 50 years was a result of American hegemony. The violence in the 3rd world is a result, ironically, of American beneficence, and European political correctness on steroids. After the marine barracks bombing under Reagan's watch, it should have become a death-penalty offense for any middle-eastern moslem to look sideways at an American, but we didn't do that. Had the Europeans not surrendered their colonies in the name of a flawed-but-noble-sounding political system (democracy), it's extremely unlikely much of the violence in the former colonies would have taken place, from the Rawandan slaughters to the Nigerian kidnappings.
I'll conclude my tirade in another message.
There has only been one significant and prolonged counter to force and subjugation, and even that has had its significant failings.
Look at even the smallest form of community, the family. Whose family isn't ruled by some level of force and subjugation? If you say that yours isn't, then I think you are fooling yourself.
Certainly at the time, and arguably today, Texas had (has?) the right to secede. Wanderer and I just got into an interesting discussion of that.
What we all must do, if we are hoping to expect that we can live in a society larger than the Gulch, is realize that there are those who agree with Wanderer and Robbie on "I'm not sure that what Wanderer has been saying is that the use of power is "right," merely that there are those who will do so. That is reality. That is also my point about human nature and why the fundamental basis for Objectivism, in my humble opinion, is fallacious." They are both right on this point. They view themselves as being non-contradictory but do not accept the non-aggression principle (premise) as being "the only rational way for all of us to live together."
This entire thread illustrates why Objectivism can never be expected to work in a large, open borders society. It could well work for a country the size of Liechtenstein. The closest anyone will ever come to an acceptable society for Objectivism happened already in this country from the Revolutionary War to 1900. Given the mobility of humanity now, it could never once again be re-established on a large scale.
Rand's solution was to offer a culture of reason. The culture of reason begins with individuals who accept the primacy of existence. It may not sound as thrilling as bugle calls and barricade, but it the only thing that will actually work to bring about a better future.
On the matter of revolution, see Ayn Rand on gun control in _Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A" edited by Robert Mayhew.
"Q: What is your opinion of gun control laws?
A: I do not know enough about it to have an opinion, except to say that it is not of primary importance. Forbidding guns or registering them is not going to stop criminals from having them; nor is it a great threat to the private, non-criminal citizen if he has to register the fact that he has a gun. It is not an important issue, unless you're ready to begin a private uprising right now, which isn't very practical. [Ford Hall Forum, 1971]"
Look at the discussions we have here on building a real Gulch or a real Atlantis. Unless you have a shield against nuclear weapons, going to war against the United States is not practical. Saddam Hussein had the fifth largest army in the world. His air force was a little smaller. I have never heard a Gulcher say that they have an old F-111 up and running on the weekends... No satellites... Basically, the gun-totin' Gulchers are mini-Saddams with mini-armies of mini-weapons.
See also the discussion on a gold-based federal currency, where Rand cautioned against it as some kind of stop-gap. These changes must come from the ground upwards, from within individuals who are committed to reason. Start there and the rest follows.
As I've said before, I'm no student of Objectivism, as what I did learn seemed to be contrary to fundamental human nature, and so if it violates that, I didn't deem it worth much more effort to learn (although I can always be persuaded - but it takes more and more evidence to do so as time goes by, guess I'm getting set in my ways).
As Wanderer correctly points out, all through human history we see one human looking to dominate other humans, generally through the use of force. Occasionally we see people subject themselves to servitude willingly (Jonestown comes to mind), but generally it comes at the use of force or the threat of force. That is reality.
Objectivism is based on some notion that 1) I own myself, 2) because I own myself and others own themselves I should treat them with the same respect and autonomy as I would expect them to treat me as persons who own themselves, and 3) (the failing in my view) Others must also see that this is the only rational way for all of us to live together. If that were true, then the anarcho-capitalists might be on to something, as we would have little need for government. But, this is not in keeping with human nature, and thus, if it is not true, then the rest of Objectivism is built on a dream.
If we accept that the nature of humanity is that one man will seek to subjugate his fellow man, then we have a basis for the need of government at the very least - but governments are made of men and men are corruptible and are subject to the same desire to subjugate their fellow man, so even government is not sufficient.
No constitutional provision allowed a state to leave the union. It would have taken a kind of reverse convention. How would anyone know what was a valid process? It is easy to argue that the southern states were seized by coteries, cabals, cliques, and juntos who declared themselves the true governments, which they were not. In truth, I accept the historical record: most (white) people in south wanted to leave the union (maybe). That being as it may, it was not clear that war was the only way out. They never tried anything else. And they fired the first shot.
You might start here: The Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England; May 19 1643. The American experience took root and flourished over about five generations before the present Constitution.
We say that the invalid presidential powers are "unconstitutional." The language is different. The inTENTion is the same.
Furthermore, your claim that might makes right is internally inconsistent. If the claim were true, no one would pursue robbers. Rob a bank, walk away, might makes right. But we deny that. In fact, pretty much, most human societies reject that. Even in the USSR the KGB had lawyers. You can get away with might over right it, but do not allow the fallacy of the stolen concept. If might really made right, the word "right" would not be needed.
In order to understand the American Revolution, you must know about the Glorious Revolution.
The clause
"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;"
appears in The Articles of Confederation as
"Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress, and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendence on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace."
and in the Constitution as
"They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place."
What you have here are a bunch of high school debaters who like the same extremely poorly scripted and produced film versions of their favorite author's most famous novel.
What you don't have here is anything for me.
Goodbye.
I find your statement disingenuous. No sane, intelligent person could find in any of my statements a moral endorsement of violence. I am simply telling you, as I have tried telling hundreds of sheltered Americans, the world is ruled by violence. You can philosophize and moralize all you want but, violence rules the human and animal worlds. If Ayn Rand contradicts that statement then, I'm sorry, but she was a fool. The US Constitution was birthed in blood and has been saved through innumerable acts of violence. Most Americans are insulated, as I've said, by two oceans and the Gulf, the nation's former wealth, her strong military, and their chosen cultural isolation. Spend some time in the third world and violence will swat you in the face and those most masterful in the violent arts will be in control. The nonviolence of Europe's last 50 years have been an anomaly that is coming to an end. Soon European events will again be controlled by those most willing and able to use violence.
Telling the truth is not an indication of advocacy. If you've taken up arms to defend the helpless I'll listen. If not shut the fuck up and listen to someone who has.
I've been condemned roundly by friends and family for saying these same things. I guess my question is: Why am I immoral for telling Americans that other people live with violence, slavery and depredations on a daily basis, and that these things are coming to visit them?
Please tell me Ayn Rand never said the world can be ruled with polite discussion. If so, she's an OK novelist, but a terrible historian and philosopher.
Load more comments...