The Challenge in Regard to our Current Paroxysm of Affairs
Original Post April 2, 2010 at Tea
Party Nation Site.
It would seem many if not most Americans
whom have witnessed recent events involving the citizen’s government are
resolved to abandon its authority over its own Union. Was government not
instituted to restrain
the passions of men who refuse to conform to the dictates of reason and justice? History and experience would say yes, and to the informed observer it would seem the spirit of factions have poisoned the well of our legislation halls and judiciary. Bodies on men have failed to act unselfishly and righteously in order to protect their own individual self-interest and reputations from the consequences of a bad decision, which would surely ruin that of a one single man. Quietly we a majority sit feeling powerless watching as our freedoms and individual rights evaporate into nothingness (seemingly never to have existed) while at the same time we witness the blood of our sons and daughters being spilled in faraway lands in order to protect those very same
freedoms and individual liberties we claim to hold so dear. Is this madness or ignorance? Only madness would tell a parent in the name of liberty concern yourself not with your child (when it comes to a decision of life or death) involving the life or death of the unborn child of your child. One must further conclude lunacy when considering immigration and our nation’s security. During the early 19th century when legal immigration into this country peaked children born to foreign mothers was at an all-time high. Current day, birth of children
in this country to foreign mothers again is at an all-time high. What kind of America do we expect these children to believe they live in? What values and or morals will they hold dear? Will they believe that the American dream exists, when that very same America tells them you are citizen but your mother and father are illegal immigrants? What if any of our American laws will they feel compelled to obey (considering their very existence in this country came about due to the breaking of an American law)? Insanity one could say to use the very due process established to protect the property rights of an individual, only to deprive that same individual of his right to his property. Dare not to deceive yourself with the notion we are bewitched with madness but conclude ignorance the cause. Yes ignorance, for one would have to be ignorant to such a degree, he would be unaware of his ignorance and care not for wisdom or long for its understanding. We continue to marvel at man’s technological advancements (intended to make life easier and better for everyone) but forget or take for granted the knowledge gained by our own existence and human collective experiences (learned by others centuries earlier). What could one mean by such words, you may possibly ask? One would only need to consider the
meaning of man’s liberties; each man willing himself, under his own power, for the preservation of his life and nature, based on his own judgment and reason to do what reason dictates to him, he placing no limits upon himself or his actions believing or (depending upon one’s perspective) forgetting what is just to one man is unjust to another.
the passions of men who refuse to conform to the dictates of reason and justice? History and experience would say yes, and to the informed observer it would seem the spirit of factions have poisoned the well of our legislation halls and judiciary. Bodies on men have failed to act unselfishly and righteously in order to protect their own individual self-interest and reputations from the consequences of a bad decision, which would surely ruin that of a one single man. Quietly we a majority sit feeling powerless watching as our freedoms and individual rights evaporate into nothingness (seemingly never to have existed) while at the same time we witness the blood of our sons and daughters being spilled in faraway lands in order to protect those very same
freedoms and individual liberties we claim to hold so dear. Is this madness or ignorance? Only madness would tell a parent in the name of liberty concern yourself not with your child (when it comes to a decision of life or death) involving the life or death of the unborn child of your child. One must further conclude lunacy when considering immigration and our nation’s security. During the early 19th century when legal immigration into this country peaked children born to foreign mothers was at an all-time high. Current day, birth of children
in this country to foreign mothers again is at an all-time high. What kind of America do we expect these children to believe they live in? What values and or morals will they hold dear? Will they believe that the American dream exists, when that very same America tells them you are citizen but your mother and father are illegal immigrants? What if any of our American laws will they feel compelled to obey (considering their very existence in this country came about due to the breaking of an American law)? Insanity one could say to use the very due process established to protect the property rights of an individual, only to deprive that same individual of his right to his property. Dare not to deceive yourself with the notion we are bewitched with madness but conclude ignorance the cause. Yes ignorance, for one would have to be ignorant to such a degree, he would be unaware of his ignorance and care not for wisdom or long for its understanding. We continue to marvel at man’s technological advancements (intended to make life easier and better for everyone) but forget or take for granted the knowledge gained by our own existence and human collective experiences (learned by others centuries earlier). What could one mean by such words, you may possibly ask? One would only need to consider the
meaning of man’s liberties; each man willing himself, under his own power, for the preservation of his life and nature, based on his own judgment and reason to do what reason dictates to him, he placing no limits upon himself or his actions believing or (depending upon one’s perspective) forgetting what is just to one man is unjust to another.
Freedom of liberty
A curse for purity
Unbridled free will
Surely will kill
Where is the fence
That rein’s arrogance
Over ran by zealousness
Evil and greed
Here is a lasso
Let justice fly
Here is a fence
It’s righteousness, I cry
A curse for purity
Unbridled free will
Surely will kill
Where is the fence
That rein’s arrogance
Over ran by zealousness
Evil and greed
Here is a lasso
Let justice fly
Here is a fence
It’s righteousness, I cry
Reason itself would conclude, as a
general rule man would forbid himself from doing what is destructive in his own
life nor would he allow himself to take away another man’s ability to maintain
his own life and/or deny
him absolute liberty to do what he perceives best in preserving his own life. Nature affords a man so much time and liberty to do or forbid himself from doing that in which he has every right to do according to Law of Nature. So, man in obligation to himself places laws upon himself in order to control himself and his life. Otherwise imagine every man governed by his own reason to do whatever necessary in claiming victory over his enemies. Go on imagine every single man against every single man, in a continuous war against each other and
himself. Disallowing almost every man the ability to live out his entire minuscule time, in which nature so graciously affords to him. The endeavor for peace is the only logical course of action reason would dictate man take to ensure his survival. Being not a fool man also understands he must do or use whatever means necessary to defend himself. So, man in order to protect his liberties may decide war a necessary condition and right, in order that he may defend himself (in the name of peace) he may do battle with another man and limit his
liberties (no more or less) as he would his own. And since no man is bound to another, each man has the right to lay down his right to another or stand at the side of another in defense of his liberties and rights. We all (Americans) have and come to understand what true freedom grants and realize freedom often requires a generation to pay a cost.
him absolute liberty to do what he perceives best in preserving his own life. Nature affords a man so much time and liberty to do or forbid himself from doing that in which he has every right to do according to Law of Nature. So, man in obligation to himself places laws upon himself in order to control himself and his life. Otherwise imagine every man governed by his own reason to do whatever necessary in claiming victory over his enemies. Go on imagine every single man against every single man, in a continuous war against each other and
himself. Disallowing almost every man the ability to live out his entire minuscule time, in which nature so graciously affords to him. The endeavor for peace is the only logical course of action reason would dictate man take to ensure his survival. Being not a fool man also understands he must do or use whatever means necessary to defend himself. So, man in order to protect his liberties may decide war a necessary condition and right, in order that he may defend himself (in the name of peace) he may do battle with another man and limit his
liberties (no more or less) as he would his own. And since no man is bound to another, each man has the right to lay down his right to another or stand at the side of another in defense of his liberties and rights. We all (Americans) have and come to understand what true freedom grants and realize freedom often requires a generation to pay a cost.
Incorporating to ideological
assumptions, the U.S. Constitution it truly a remarkably document and a
testament to man’s commitment to rise above his own personal self-interest, in
order to ensure every man was allowed to pursue happiness for himself suitable
to his own fashion with agreed upon limits to his liberties. However
further examination of these two different ideologies becomes necessary in continuing our discussion in regards to the U. S. Constitution. One ideological theory is that of a republic model of government the other was the ideological theory of a democratic model of government. Madison, who is considered the father (?) of the constitution, believed a republic “is a government in which the scheme of representation takes place”. He further believed in part a republic “is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or
during good behavior.” A democracy according to Madison is “a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person.” Surely we in this age and current do not seriously believe we have a democratic model of government, based on current population this would be impossible even more so now then during Madison’s time. One would only have to look at the U.S. Constitution to reason these words to be true.
further examination of these two different ideologies becomes necessary in continuing our discussion in regards to the U. S. Constitution. One ideological theory is that of a republic model of government the other was the ideological theory of a democratic model of government. Madison, who is considered the father (?) of the constitution, believed a republic “is a government in which the scheme of representation takes place”. He further believed in part a republic “is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or
during good behavior.” A democracy according to Madison is “a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person.” Surely we in this age and current do not seriously believe we have a democratic model of government, based on current population this would be impossible even more so now then during Madison’s time. One would only have to look at the U.S. Constitution to reason these words to be true.
Steven Willis Henderson
Comments
Post a Comment