-2 votes

Thomas Jefferson was wrong: 1) we are NOT equal. 2)

I love Thomas Jefferson and I want to put a point on two of his found in the declaration of independence and then offer up an additional set of self evident truths.

1) We are NOT equal, but he was referring to the right to rule, where the king proclaimed he was blessed by god with the power to rule the land. So as long as the context is taken into account (which it rarely is) jefferson was correct.

2) Governmental power is NOT derived from the consent of the governed. It comes from the power of the ruling body to make violence on the opposition.

Read the following and see if these are worthy of being added to a list of self evident truths we hold in common.
----------------------------------------
When wishing to reform an oppressive legal system, a good faith explanation to the community is due:

After a detailed study of society's history with government, each one of us find the following to be true:
- Initiating nonconsensual harm, regardless of intention, is the primary source of human suffering.
- No individual or group is inherently superior to another;
- No individual or group has the rightful authority to rule another, such authority is derived from brute force, and is hereby rejected;
- Each individual is utterly unique, irreplaceable, and sacred;
- The creator bestows upon each individual the right to behave anyway one wishes that does not directly and proximately harm another, and to guaranty that right with legal impunity is mandatory;
- One is responsible for one's own actions both in success, failure, and harm;
- One's sole (legal) obligation to others is to do no harm;
- The only rightful use of nonconsensual harm is to defend against those who initiate harm;
- Villains do not telegraph their felonious actions and as such, one may be armed as one pleases, when one pleases, where one pleases;

As such we commit to harming no one and letting no one harm us.
(Buy and Read Liberty Street)
---------------------------------------
"SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins."- Thomas Paine

I want to make the difference between society and government crystal clear so that liberty lovers are confounded less often...

The value of the individual: Irreplaceable and utterly unique.
• Thought, inspiration and innovations come only to the individual.
• The individual is the only nexus by which hidden potential can be made real; by which the unmanifest is made manifest.
• Totally unique in one’s ability to take in, prioritize and process information, each individual is irreplaceable.
• The individual is responsible for his actions because it is the individual's will alone that animates him.
• The individual is able to evaluate the affects his behavior will have on his interests faster and with greater accuracy than any outside entity.

While the individual has this critical importance, he is only one, making him easy prey for institutionalized robbers and slavers that possess superior violence making capabilities to steal his essence.

Society and its law: Do not harm another...and let no one harm you.
- Groups are composed of individuals in communication with one another, each building upon one another’s individual attainments.
• Society is composed of individuals exchanging or combining one’s resources with another in order to fulfill each one’s desires.
- A voluntary society is one where every association and exchange occurs on a voluntary basis according to the will of the individuals involved.
• All behavior that does not directly and proximately harm another is naturally permitted by others in society.
• All behavior that does directly and proximately harm another may naturally be forbidden by others in society.
• The only moral use of non consensual harm is to defend against those who initiate harm against another.
- Once an individual is stolen from, killed, repressed or otherwise silenced, his contribution through exchange and charity is lost, and a precedent is set for other individuals to be likewise harmed.

Therefore, rightful individual liberty is having the freedom to behave any way one wishes that does not directly and proximately harm another.

Government: The Apex Predator
Government is a distinct militant entity that is separate from society. The one attribute which distinguishes government from any individual or organization found in society is that it claims the power to harm others with legal impunity. It is sustained by individual's belief that this power is beneficial.
- Government is composed of the legislature and the people it employs to impose it's will.
- The individual must obey government, while government has no obligation to obey the individual or even the whole of society.
- Government has no obligation to provide anything to the individual and can take EVERYTHING from the individual-including one's life.
• Governmental power is the undelegated power to harm others with legal impunity, and is derived by its ability to make violence.
• Government is not exercising delegated authority when it moves against individuals who are not harming others, because no individual which composes society or government possesses such authority.
• Governmental power is not derived from consent because any power derived from consent is extinguished when consent is withdrawn.
• Government is the prevailing militant entity that occupies society.
• Government confiscates property from unwilling individuals and is not obligated to provide any services in return.
• Government is not law, services, or infrastructure. Government merely pays for these with confiscated wealth in order to garner dependence, obedience, and loyalty.
• Governments compete and cooperate with each other for resources, and they consider societies to be resources.

This immense power is irresistible bait for the those who crave dominance. Once in control, they lay hands directly upon the individual, direct how the individual may use his property, dictate the terms of transactions one engages in, and grant privileges to those they prefer.

Fascism/Corporatism/Socialism vs The Free Individual:
• Governments charter corporations and clothe them with limited liability protection (which is a degree of the government’s ability to harm with impunity.)
• Governments argue the free market is too strict and therefor it must shield companies from loss and liability by subsidizing and legalizing degrees of harm so the economy can operate smoothly and innovations can be brought to society.
- A Free Society has the strictest regulations because all who initiate harm are fully liable to those they harm. And those who aren't able to produce valued work product at a sustainable rate fail.
• Licensing and regulations are designed to increase the market share for those who can/will comply by harming/criminalizing those who are unable or unwilling to comply (both buyer and seller).
• When a capitalist uses government power he ceases to be a capitalist and becomes either a fascist or a communist.

Free individuals do not have rulers with the power to micromanage their daily affairs. They have a judicial system each may use to settle disputes in an orderly and civilized manner and an infrastructure each may use to organize themselves into a defensive force against would be conquerors.

Each individual, has an interest in forever limiting the harm all organizations may cause.

The most practical solution is to end the demand for governmental power by innovating real-world alternatives.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It's all semantics in the end.

Actions speak louder than words.

23

Thanks everyone for participating

I appreciate every-one's feedback, including the highly disagreeable ones.

The plain truth is:
If government loses its power to initiate nonconsensual harm, then it loses its power to govern and ceases to be government.

I consider you all part of my team and any back and forth is meant to be positive and constructive.

Thanks for reading, and thanks for thinking. At least I know I'm not alone in the quest for individual liberty

he didnt say we are equal

he said we are created equal.

Then we make decision and choose paths that make us less equal to others as adults.

A drug addict is not equal to hard working parent trying to raise kids in a house built on love.

this is sticking point I have with HR I will NEVER treat my employees equally. I will treat similar employees similarly, but not all the same.

I got stuck at Jefferson quote now I will go read the rest of what looks to be a very interesting post.

peAce

Liberty = Responsibility

spurs and saddles.

In criticizing the English class system, Thomas Paine, if I remember correctly, wrote that men were not born with saddles on their backs so they may be ridden nor spurs on their heels so they may ride on the backs of others. Some men are not born to rule while others to be ruled.

You are correct. The DoI does say "created equal."

It also says governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Any other powers are derived from coercion and are therefore not just. There is no justice in them. Sex becomes rape without consent.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

i love that quote

its great

Thanx for sharing Paine. All

Thanx for sharing Paine. All your points stated well.

peAce

Liberty = Responsibility

Hi AR...

Good luck getting any rationality in response to your challenge of "consent of the governed." But you are correct. It is utter nonsense to say:

"I hereby give my permission to be forced to do that which I think it is wrong to do."

That is, of course, what it means to "give your consent to be governed."

Examples are easy as well: I give my permission for you to steal my labor (through taxation) and use it to fight wars which I think are wrong.

NO. I do not consent. It's that simple. If slavery is a choice, I choose not to be a slave.

My we live in a world with an ever growing number of "outlaws" (the good kind).

Now, I have a different question for you.

You assert:

"Each individual is utterly unique, irreplaceable, and sacred."

Does that derive from any rational foundation? Or is is possible that certain individuals are "psychopaths" and far from sacred, but worthy of destruction?

Yep

Yes, my experience demonstrates that even a sociopath is sacred and can only be "dealt with" once he makes a move to harm another, until then, he's a man with a severe personality disorder.

This is part of my analysis:
The value of the individual: Irreplaceable and utterly unique.
• Thought, inspiration and innovations come only to the individual.
• The individual is the only nexus by which hidden potential can be made real; by which the unmanifest is made manifest.
• Totally unique in one’s ability to take in, prioritize and process information, each individual is irreplaceable.
• The individual is responsible for his actions because it is the individual's will alone that animates him.
• The individual is able to evaluate the affects his behavior will have on his interests faster and with greater accuracy than any outside entity.

individual psychopaths?

I didn't say a sociopath. I said a psychopath. By this I meant a person who *has* made a move to harm others---in fact, one who has built his life around harming others---like a politician for example.

Having made a move to harm others does not negate the fact that a person is an individual. Are *all* individuals sacred?

I've

got sociopath on the brain. Sloppy of me.

Yes, defend against initiated nonconsensual harm, regardless of the label applied to the individual, sociopath, psychopath, politician...
:)

Correct, my position is that initiating nonconsensual harm does not negate the fact that one is intrinsically unique, irreplaceable, and sacred.

What are your thoughts on the subject? Does someone lose their intrinsic value by initiating nonconsensual harm? If so, at what degree?

Thanks for reading and the discussion. I'm interested to hear what you have to say.

You totally nailed your comment about getting rational responses. Read the goofball exchange I had with stm for a good laugh.

Also, I didn't realize I had uploaded a months old rough draft. I uploaded the final here if you care to read it:http://www.dailypaul.com/298184/logical-proof-for-individual-liberty

words

I was mostly interested in your meaning. To me, the word "sacred" suggests something which cannot be harmed or "touched" in the sense of violated. In my way of thinking "defending against initiated harm" can mean that the individual initiating that harm may need to be harmed. That individual may need to be killed. If an individual initiates harm, then in my way of thinking, that individual may still certainly be considered unique and irreplaceable, but not sacred.

I think, at the point of initiating harm, a person loses any claim to being sacred and any expectation of being left alone.

It's an interesting subject you've brought up, and I'm sure you don't want to hear all my thoughts on it. Using the depth of this textbox as a guide, I'll simply say that I think humans are distinct from animals, intrinsically. On the other hand, most embrace the role of forced servitude and are treated as beasts of burden. Others embrace the role of predator. In my mind, such individuals are not sacred. My space is up.

Got it

and your definition explains your thoughts perfectly.

When I wrote the treatise, i used "sacred" in this sense:
"connected with God"-google & "Deserving great respect"-webster.
More specifically I meant: deserving of great respect ellicited by its qualities bestowed by the divine.

Please share any word that also coveys these concepts. I am always refining as better language comes to me.

Yes, I do agree with you that there are times when harm is absolutely necessary:
"The only rightful use of nonconsensual harm is to defend against those who initiate nonconsensual harm" ...
I also beleive, and it was my more fully fleshed out final:
"and to restore victims of such harm by holding the initiators responsible; And only with the least amount of harm necessary to defend or restore."

Absolutely, when someone decides to reach out and harm someone else, then they forfeit their safety and their property.

If you have time to read more dry writing, I would love to hear your thoughts on my more fully fleshed out piece.

It's tough to keep the language precise and make it easy to read. I really struggle with it. For example, I didn't use "we" often because I want to make it clear that I am referring to each individual, and I didn't use he or she, because I wanted it to be applicable to each individual regardless of sex. And on, and on.

Any feedback would be great:)

You mention powers that have been usurped

I don't have as much as a problem with the idea of government. I can't do it all; I know my limitations. But I have the right to live as independently and self-sufficiently as possible. I believe the Constitution was written with that in mind and when TJ wrote the DoI that was what he had in mind.
The DoI outlines the ideal. That the reality doesn't reflect the ideal is not the fault of the DoI and we should be thankful that we have these ideals enshrined in our founding document. It's what will, when the time comes, be our saving grace.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

I assume

You meant "I don't have as much *of* a problem with the idea of government. I can't do it all; I know my limitations."---speaking of yourself.

When you say you "can't do it all," what do you have in mind?

It seems to me, that when you say you don't have a problem with "government," you are probably thinking that "government" provides something you would like to do.

What you need to understand is that "government" or "the idea of government" is simply the idea that certain designated people (the "governing") have the right to do things that would be considered evil if ordinary people did them.

That idea is nonsense. If something is wrong for an ordinary person to do, then there is no magic called "government" which makes it OK for you are any other person to do. You're right. I have a big problem with that idea.

So, what evil things do you want to do? Do you want to make me a slave---steal my labor? Your right, you (as an ordinary person) can't do that. So you want to farm out your evil plan through "government?" You go through some ludicris rituals (voting) and call the enslavement "taxation." And that's what the Constitution is about. OK, so you did some crazy rituals and changed "exthortion," "stealing," "enslavement" to "taxation." It's still evil. Why do you want to do evil things? Or worse, why do you want evil things done, but are too much of a coward to do them yourself?

Oh, I know. You can't do it all yourself.

I assume

You meant "*You're* right, you (as an ordinary person) can't do that." - instead of the possessive pronoun 'your' that you used.

See, I can play that game, too. Where did it get you, playing language police? I know it got me nowhere. What was your point? To make me look stupid because you are so much better than I am because you're an anarchist?

lol

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

he made a valid point

i didnt read it as wanting to make you look stupid but to highlight an idea that you may not have considered.

What i got from reading your premise is that you could be confusing government with the services governments pay for.

Government is only the legislature and the army of people they employ to enforce their will and they claim the power to harm with legal impunity.
-It is this power my piece is attempting to unravel.

They provide these services to buy obedience, loyalty, and dependence and they pay for them with confiscated wealth.

His point is simple

If you as an individual would not steal from another individual, how could you endorse an entity to do so?

"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good."
Thomas Paine

You both be right!

On my language error, you're right stm. I, however, did not mention your typo simply to point out your typo, but to put up the specific quote to which I was referring, so that you could reference it and correct me if I was misunderstanding it.

But mingeem is also right. My point was simply that you are adhering to and advocating evil (an evil idea).

The only thing I can think about now is:

"God created men, Colt made them equal."

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

TJ was NOT wrong

You have changed the words of the DoI and think you came up with something that should ring true. Bastardizing Jefferson's words to suit your purpose doesn't cut it, not with me anyway.
Do you really beleieve we were not all created with the equal right to speak our mind, think and do as we choose, defend ourselves, etc? Hogwash!
As for your 'governmental power' bit, the actual words Jefferson wrote are these:
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
Your #2 is what happens when governments usurp power and has nothing to do with the people conferring just powers upon a government system.
If you cannot be honest about the DoI and what those 3 great minds wrote - remember, Franklin and Adams had a hand in writing it, too - I can't take the rest of your post seriously, either. Please study the DoI better, ruminate over it, then post again, please.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

maybe I didn't phrase my position in a way that suits you

but I did say that he was right so long as his words taken in the original context. Unfortunately, many do not even understand what that context is and as a result draw all kinds of errant conclusions.

I could study that document a thousand more times and learn something new from each reading. As it happens, I have studied it plenty to arrive at my conclusions, and you have not overcome them with evidence or logic.

"Do you really beleieve we were not all created with the equal right to speak our mind, think and do as we choose, defend ourselves, etc? Hogwash!"
This statement demonstrates that you did NOT read (or comprehend) my article. It must be my fault for not being a good author, i am working on it.

"Your #2 is what happens when governments usurp power and has nothing to do with the people conferring just powers upon a government system."
Good, a point of contention, but you don't offer any evidence or logic to substantiate your point. I'm up for the discussion, but you've got to bring something more to the table than: "your wrong and I'm leaving".
(A snarky attitude alone will not win the day in this conversation)

Consider this:
-No one has the power to harm with legal impunity, therefor no one can confer that power to another.
-So if you aren't conferring this power, and I'm not conferring this power then what what creates and sustains this power?
Naked, open, brute force.
Don't believe me???
Ask the founders what happened when they withdrew their consent, ask the south what happened to them when they withdrew their consent, ask the natives what happened to them when they withdrew their consent, or try it yourself...withdraw your consent of just powers from the government and see what happens.

You are attempting to impose your programming onto an unaccommodating legal system. And they don't reconcile.
Your turn...

You deliberately changed the wording of the DoI

How can you deny that?
TJ wrote: "All men are CREATED equal." I'll cap the word again - CREATED.
You want to see differences where there are none. You want to make out as if some people are just 'born' great while others are born 'less than' human.
You are also dismissing the part where he states that we are 'endowed by our Creator', meaning everyone gets the same advantages of the certain, meaning 'ensured' natural rights all human beings are endowed with. You cherry pick without consuming the entire thought process. TJ acknowledges a Higher Power has created us. You can dismiss that all you want, but it is the fact of the document. By acknowledging a Creator, he acknowledges and incorporates a higher mindset within the doc, includes spiritual implications, which is why he can state that we are all created equal. All are equal in His eyes and we should adopt that same view.
TJ never wrote about what we did with those freedoms once we 'came of age' because he wanted to convey that everyone starts at the same gate when we come into being and no one should forget that. How we finish the race is decided by our own self-determination and physical abilities. Have you never watched Gattaca? Free-will is just another way of saying self-determination.
* * *
"but you don't offer any evidence or logic to substantiate your point."
I don't even know how to address this accusation. To me it's self-evident.
I live in a village where all do as they please as long as no one harms another. We all have our waste ditches around our houses. Everyone's waste ditch is starting to stink. We get together and decide we need to ditch the ditch and get a dump far away from the village. Some don't have the means or will to go to the dump so the village decides to give the job to Harry, who says he doesn't mind doing that for a reasonable fee. Some people say that's fine, others say they'll go to the dump themselves. No problem. A just power has been conferred onto another. But then Harry starts to up the fee and people don't like that. So Al steps in to compete with Harry. The problem that could arise is that Harry and his minions like this monopoly a bit too much and try to force Al out of business or harrasses those who switch to Al's service. That the scheme started out fair and just according to those who agreed to the proposal does not change because Harry became a thug. What something becomes has nothing to do with how something begins.
And that's your problem. You want to equate 'now' with 'then'. The dump plan was a great solution until somebody took advantage of the situtation. Harry lost his virtue.
Your post isn't about Constitutions so crying about how corrupt all govts have become doesn't fit. You chose the DoI which laid out founding principles of "we are all created equal", "we all have natural and unalienable rights endowed by a higher power", "governments are created by us because we know we can't do it all so we confer certain powers to the govt but if that govt becomes corrupt we have the right to abolish it."
In my opinion, you picked the wrong document to disparage. The principles laid out in the DoI are as near to perfection as is humanly possible.
Look up Claim of Right. That's all the DoI is, a Claim of Right, albeit a CoR of a group and not an individual. I think you don't understand the reason for the doc or what it represents. The DoI was not meant to create a new govt, just lay out Americans' principles and make the case as to why we were abolishing our ties with England. I do appreciate the time you took in writing your thoughts out, but you chose the wrong document to pick apart.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

You're obviously passionate-you gotta read before you critque

For us to have an honest discussion about what I wrote, you've got to read before you critique.
You did not substantiate your onslaught because my treatise plainly contradicts your nonsensical attacks.

Observe...which one of my points do you object to?
"- No individual or group is inherently superior to another;
- No individual or group has the rightful authority to rule another, such authority is derived from brute force, and is hereby rejected;
- Each individual is utterly unique, irreplaceable, and sacred;
- The creator bestows upon each individual the right to behave anyway one wishes that does not directly and proximately harm another, and to guaranty that right with legal impunity is mandatory;

The value of the individual: Irreplaceable and utterly unique.
• Thought, inspiration and innovations come only to the individual.
• The individual is the only nexus by which hidden potential can be made real; by which the unmanifest is made manifest.
• Totally unique in one’s ability to take in, prioritize and process information, each individual is irreplaceable.
• The individual is responsible for his actions because it is the individual's will alone that animates him.
• The individual is able to evaluate the affects his behavior will have on his interests faster and with greater accuracy than any outside entity.

While the individual has this critical importance, he is only one, making him easy prey for institutionalized robbers and slavers that possess superior violence making capabilities to steal his essence."

These are all quotes. READ then critique.
------------------------------------
Now to break down your attacks:
YOU SAID
"You deliberately changed the wording of the DOI. How can you deny that?"
MY REPLY
You still haven't read the piece. However, I can quote it and my points remain valid observe...
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal..."
This is a statement aimed at squarely at England's legal concept of the king's divine right to rule with the intention of dismantling it.
"...he was referring to the right to rule, where the king proclaimed he was blessed by god with the power to rule the land. So as long as the context is taken into account (which it rarely is) jefferson was correct."
------------------
YOU SAID
"You want to make out as if some people are just 'born' great while others are born 'less than' human":
MY REPLY
So you are saying I meant that when I wrote this?
"- No individual or group is inherently superior to another;
- No individual or group has the rightful authority to rule another, such authority is derived from brute force, and is hereby rejected;
- Each individual is utterly unique, irreplaceable, and sacred;
- The creator bestows upon each individual the right to behave anyway one wishes that does not directly and proximately harm another, and to guaranty that right with legal impunity is mandatory"
------------------
YOU SAID
"You are also dismissing the part where he states that we are 'endowed by our Creator', meaning everyone gets the same advantages of the certain, meaning 'ensured' natural rights all human beings are endowed with."
MY REPLY
Read the piece and then critique me.

YOU SAID
"You cherry pick without consuming the entire thought process. TJ acknowledges a Higher Power has created us. You can dismiss that all you want, but it is the fact of the document."
MY REPLY
Read this until your eyes bleed.
"- No individual or group is inherently superior to another;
- No individual or group has the rightful authority to rule another, such authority is derived from brute force, and is hereby rejected;
- Each individual is utterly unique, irreplaceable, and sacred;
- The creator bestows upon each individual the right to behave anyway one wishes that does not directly and proximately harm another, and to guaranty that right with legal impunity is mandatory"
See the part where I say the creator and sacred?

YOU SAID
By acknowledging a Creator, he acknowledges and incorporates a higher mindset within the doc, includes spiritual implications, which is why he can state that we are all created equal. All are equal in His eyes and we should adopt that same view.
MY REPLY
I agree. which is why I wrote what I wrote and you demonstrate again that you didn't read the piece.

YOU SAID
"TJ never wrote about what we did with those freedoms once we 'came of age' because he wanted to convey that everyone starts at the same gate when we come into being and no one should forget that.
MY REPLY
Okay.

YOU SAID
How we finish the race is decided by our own self-determination and physical abilities. Have you never watched Gattaca? Free-will is just another way of saying self-determination."
MY REPLY
Agreed. Read the piece.

YOU SAID
"but you don't offer any evidence or logic to substantiate your point."
I don't even know how to address this accusation. To me it's self-evident.
MY REPLY
Put in quotes something I said that validates your attack. I'm open to the critique. But you gotta read the piece and quote what I said so we can have a meaningful discussion. As it is, you are all over the place.

YOU SAID
I live in a village where all do as they please as long as no one harms another. We all have our waste ditches around our houses. Everyone's waste ditch is starting to stink. We get together and decide we need to ditch the ditch and get a dump far away from the village. Some don't have the means or will to go to the dump so the village decides to give the job to Harry, who says he doesn't mind doing that for a reasonable fee. Some people say that's fine, others say they'll go to the dump themselves. No problem. A just power has been conferred onto another.
My REPLY
Yep. You described a totally transferable power which is totally NOT government. Unless Harry can harm others with legal impunity to achieve his desires. Can one of Harry's victims sue Harry?

YOU SAID
But then Harry starts to up the fee and people don't like that. So Al steps in to compete with Harry. The problem that could arise is that Harry and his minions like this monopoly a bit too much and try to force Al out of business or harrasses those who switch to Al's service.
MY REPLY
If, in your village, Harry could commit these atrocities with legal impunity then he didn't have a conferred power. He seizes control by his ability to make violence. This is the essence of governmental power. GET THE DIFFERENCE?

YOU SAID
That the scheme started out fair and just according to those who agreed to the proposal does not change because Harry became a thug. What something becomes has nothing to do with how something begins.
MY REPLY
It depends on whether or not Harry was able to commit his crimes with legal impunity.
If he was not able to commit his crimes with legal impunity, then he was not government, and legal action could be taken against him.
If he was able to commit his crimes with legal impunity, then he was government, and legal action could not be taken against him.
If the council that appointed harry could authorize harry to commit those crimes with legal impunity, then that makes the council government.
If the council that appointed harry could NOT authorize harry to commit those crimes with legal impunity, then the council is not government.

Governmental power is the claimed right to initiate harm against another with legal impunity.

If government loses the power to initiate harm against another, then it loses its power to govern, and ceases to be government.

YOU SAID
"And that's your problem. You want to equate 'now' with 'then'."
MY REPLY
Show me where-quote me.

YOU SAID
Your post isn't about Constitutions so crying about how corrupt all govts have become doesn't fit.
MY REPLY
Read the piece.

YOU SAID
You chose the DoI which laid out founding principles of "we are all created equal", "we all have natural and unalienable rights endowed by a higher power", "governments are created by us because we know we can't do it all so we confer certain powers to the govt but if that govt becomes corrupt we have the right to abolish it."
MY REPLY
Read and read and read the piece, then critique me.

YOU SAID
In my opinion, you picked the wrong document to disparage. The principles laid out in the DoI are as near to perfection as is humanly possible.
MY REPLY
Yawn...read then critique.

YOU SAID
Look up Claim of Right. That's all the DoI is, a Claim of Right, albeit a CoR of a group and not an individual. I think you don't understand the reason for the doc or what it represents.
MY REPLY
I understand (as best as anyone studying history can) the reason for the doc and I know precisely what it represents.

YOU SAID
The DoI was not meant to create a new govt, just lay out Americans' principles and make the case as to why we were abolishing our ties with England. I do appreciate the time you took in writing your thoughts out, but you chose the wrong document to pick apart.
MY REPLY
Fine. But you wouldn't know because you haven't read my piece.
------------------------------

now you are accusing me of being dishonest

I don't have to discuss/comment on anything you wrote except for the parts I want to discuss. You had the choice to respond to my comments or not. You have decided to ignore the same points I and others raised and now accuse me of not reading your screed, call my viewpoint 'nonsensical' and you are trying to force me to critique the points you want me to focus on. I will not be forced or bullied into doing that.
For all your writing about 'do no harm', you really are quite aggressive.
It's not me who hasn't read what you wrote, it is you who refuse to understand what I, RxN and Weirami wrote.
I maintain that your screed has nothing to do with the DoI and that Jefferson was right.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Yes nonsensical and now hypocritical

NONSENSE ATTACK #1:
"You want to make out as if some people are just 'born' great while others are born 'less than' human":
WHEN I WROTE:
"- No individual or group is inherently superior to another;
- No individual or group has the rightful authority to rule another, such authority is derived from brute force, and is hereby rejected;
- Each individual is utterly unique, irreplaceable, and sacred;
- The creator bestows upon each individual the right to behave anyway one wishes that does not directly and proximately harm another, and to guaranty that right with legal impunity is mandatory"

NONSENSE ATTACK #2
"You are also dismissing the part where he states that we are 'endowed by our Creator', meaning everyone gets the same advantages of the certain, meaning 'ensured' natural rights all human beings are endowed with."
WHEN I WROTE
"- No individual or group is inherently superior to another;
- No individual or group has the rightful authority to rule another, such authority is derived from brute force, and is hereby rejected;
- Each individual is utterly unique, irreplaceable, and sacred;
- The creator bestows upon each individual the right to behave anyway one wishes that does not directly and proximately harm another, and to guaranty that right with legal impunity is mandatory"

NONSENSICAL ATTACK #3
"TJ acknowledges a Higher Power has created us. You can dismiss that all you want, but it is the fact of the document.""
WHEN I WROTE
- No individual or group is inherently superior to another;
- No individual or group has the rightful authority to rule another, such authority is derived from brute force, and is hereby rejected;
- Each individual is utterly unique, irreplaceable, and sacred;
- The creator bestows upon each individual the right to behave anyway one wishes that does not directly and proximately harm another, and to guaranty that right with legal impunity is mandatory"

NONSENSICAL ATTACK #4
"You have decided to ignore the same points..."
MY REPLY
Anyone can see that I took great pains to address every single point you raised.

HYPOCRITICAL ATTACK
"You cherry pick without consuming the entire thought process."
THEN YOU SAID THIS
"I don't have to discuss/comment on anything you wrote except for the parts I want to discuss."
MY REPLY
LOL. Talk about cherry picking...not only are you openly being a hypocrite, you don't want to use the parts of my "screet" that contradict your nonsensical attacks.
Now it's clear to me that you are not interested in having a productive discussion and are clearly looking for some kind of fight. I am sorry I have indulged you so far.

CONFUSED ATTACK
"...you are trying to force me to critique the points you want me to focus on. I will not be forced or bullied into doing that."
MY REPLY
I encourage you to critique ANY point I made.
As it stands, you've levied a bunch of nonsensical attacks on points I didn't make. Reply if it makes you feel good. don't if it doesn't. If you are not getting anything out of this, then don't reply.

Good luck

.

.

You speak like an ambulance chaser lawyer.

Instead you should teach intended legal meaning instead of assuming what others may think. You know the same ignorant people thought the world was flat. No offense just saying.

thanks for that critique

can you quote any part of my logical proof that sounds the way you say.
It's challenging for me to be precise while keeping the tone easy to read. Thanks.

i liked what you wrote, great mind thought process.

i am just a little blunt by nature :)

You're right

and I'm going to continue working on the this until it's EASY to read.
Thanks for the compliment too.