A while back I expressed an opinion that the rights that I enjoy were my responsibility to maintain and that the maintenance of those rights comes through force. My words implied that the reason for the second amendment was to provide a force with which I could protect my rights. Some contended that if each of us enforced our own vision of our rights, chaos would ensue. Who could agree? How can the conflicts which inevitably arise be resolved peacefully? How can I defend my rights and at the same time allow others to defend their rights?
This is a very important point which I am in no way qualified to offer an opinion. I haven’t read Freud. I haven’t read Piaget. But some people have and I would like to suggest that perhaps there is some very powerful truth in what this man is saying. Listen very carefully and you might just find a way to resolve this conundrum. Perhaps it is through personal responsibility that true freedom can be exercised by all.
In school, I was taught that a society’s beliefs and morals are codified in its laws. The beliefs and dreams of our Founding Fathers were first codified in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, the latter setting the framework for the former. This is what we, as a nation, believed until the dawn of the industrial revolution. We have been devolving from those original beliefs ever since. I too wrestle with my beliefs, based on the original intent of this country, and how best to defend them. Sadly, I see that as a society we have changed. I probably have another thirty years to live, and will continue to mourn the loss of our original beliefs. As for me, I will prepare and protect my family as best as I can from the ongoing decay of our liberties and freedoms.
That, sir, is what you would call a ‘conundrum”. In theory, yes the 2nd Amendment was supposed to be a final backstop for the individual to push back on transgressions of their government. Unfortunately, by definition governments have a monopoly on force. While I believe that the Constitution has slowed the progression of those transgressions, especially the 2nd Amendment, it’s been a slow creeping towards a police state. The two-party system in the United States, along with state run schools is a recipe for disaster, I’ve yet to find an “undo” button for GovCo overreach.
The only human or earthly rights we have are those that we can take through force or persuasion period, no more no less.
The only God given right we have is the right to serve and worship God. Nothing else. He didn’t grant us the right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness. Look at Job. God can kill me right now and I can’t do a thing about it. He doesn’t need my permission to be God.
“Rights” come though a process that creates mutual respect. Sometimes that respect is fostered from fear, sometimes through open and honest discourse. Unfortunately humans have, since the early 20th century at least, resorted to much more of the former than the latter. We have a distinct distaste for honest discourse lately, which leaves only one alternative, unfortunately.
God also gave us the freedom to choose whether we will worship him or not. Of course there are consequences if we choose not to. There are responsibilities if we choose to worship him.
The only rights you have are those they say you have, OR whatever rights you can secure and defend for yourself.
I thought I just said that.
It seems to me, Freud’s trinity of Super Ego, Ego, and Id is somewhat reminiscent of spirit (conscious /law), mind/soul, and body (impulse).
Regarding Piaget’s “society as children playing”, it’s a nice dream and likely based on honest observation – but it doesn’t account for the kid’s whose alcoholic father’s extinguished cigarette’s on. All it takes is one psycho or narcissist to wreck the playground; and that is something I doubt even a Statue of Responsibility on the San Diego skyline would fix.
Enjoyed the video. Thanks, Rob
The word “unalienable” becomes the central keystone to this discussion. Why did the founding fathers of this nation put such a word in front of everything that describes an individual and their rights? It has the clear intent to codify that a person’s rights are not derived from the consent of government or others, but by the Creator himself. Rights that are dependent upon the ascent of your neighbor, community or government are privileges which can be amended and withdrawn.
To protect our Natural rights, James Madison helped include the “Bill of Rights” in the U.S. Constitution with the intent to remove them (our rights) from government’s reach. The threat of force is intended to keep the government and your neighbors at bay and quash the possibility of tyranny from any and all sources. The TPTB try to obfuscate this core concept with endless scenarios and possibilities all with the intent to erode and suppress their growing control. The tirade of minutia allows for the ever expanding concept that rights need to be converted to privileges that only exist by their decree, so be wary of the David Hoggs’ of the world. The insanity of others is not a gateway to obliterate the 99.9%, but it seems less and less likely this concept will prevail going forward into the future.