Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Thirty-six words that lie at the foundation of American life.
This is a dream. It’s a great dream.
“The first saying we notice in this dream is an amazing universalism. It doesn’t say, ‘some men’; it says ‘all men.’ It doesn’t say ‘all white men’; it says ‘all men,’ which includes black men. It does not say ‘all Gentiles’; it says ‘all men,’ which includes Jews. It doesn’t say ‘all Protestants’; it says ‘all men,’ which includes Catholics. It doesn’t even say ‘all theists and believers’; it says ‘all men,’ which includes humanists and agnostics.”
“Never before in the history of the world has a sociopolitical document expressed in such profound, eloquent and unequivocal language the dignity and the worth of human personality. The American dream reminds us—and we should think about it anew on this Independence Day—that every man is an heir of the legacy of dignity and worth.”
The quote above is by Martin Luther King, delivered in a sermon on July 4, 1965, at the Ebenezer Baptist Church. The words of the Declaration are a dream. Reality intrudes and, short of G-d’s justice, there is no assured equality of life, liberty, and happiness. It is only a statement of why our government was “constituted amongst men” in the form it was, with the limits expressed. Individual and personal freedom, liberty, and independence are the touchstones of the American dream. With it, everything else is possible. Without it, nothing is possible.
It is a dream that has animated America and called forth self-sacrifice for its preservation. But a new dream intrudes: That all men are either oppressors or oppressed; that there are privileges, not rights; that there is license, and not liberty; that there is identity, not individuality. Self-sacrifice is not called upon to support this dream. Instead, it is supported by assigned sacrifice — the selection by the State of whose sacrifice is to be demanded.
It has ever been the conception of Progressives that a society be perfected, and not individuals; that individuals be pruned or weeded to promote the perfection of that society. In that conception individuals must be subservient to society, not merely included or excluded based on personal conduct. Such conception is of necessity hierarchical, externally organized, and controlled. It is not organic; it must be molded, pounded, sanded, and buffed.
Thirty-six words, and a resolute commitment thereto, are all that stands between you and slavery. Hold fast to these words.
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members.
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community
of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.
There are 38 comments.
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
Mark Camp (View Comment): Does Franklin believe in the right of all men to their rightful property, with the understanding that not every claim to property is rightful?
I don’t know, but I would guess that Franklin would be thinking about real property, personal property, and intellectual property.
Is it “self evident” that Roe’s “right to privacy” is or is not an unalienable right? It’s certainly not to me.
“right to privacy” The right to “be left alone,” or to be free of government scrutiny into one’s private beliefs and behavior. Abortion is harmful to another life. Is there a question regarding the validity of this assertion?
The “right to privacy” is just an alternate way to express guaranteed individual liberty but that does not include a right for an individual to harm another innocent party.
I’ve always said that I have no problem with the Court finding a right to privacy. It may be “among” the unlisted rights. I just don’t think it gives one the right to kill someone else.
Yes. I agreed too quickly when someone said my “right to privacy” example was inapt. For years, I’ve heard conservative-types argue that the Supreme Court “magically found a right to privacy” in the Constitution. I’ve never felt comfortable with this line, as I believe we do have an unalienable right to privacy. The problem is not that SCOTUS invented a right to privacy; the issue is whether a fetus is a person. So I stand by my example.
Is it “self evident” that Roe’s “right to privacy” is or is not an unalienable right? It’s certainly not to me.
“right to privacy” The right to “be left alone,” or to be free of government scrutiny into one’s private beliefs and behavior. Abortion is harmful to another life. Is there a question regarding the validity of this assertion?
The “right to privacy” is just an alternate way to express guaranteed individual liberty but that does not include a right for an individual to harm another innocent party.
I’ve always said that I have no problem with the Court finding a right to privacy. It may be “among” the unlisted rights. I just don’t think it gives one the right to kill someone else.
Yes. I agreed too quickly when someone said my “right to privacy” example was inapt. For years, I’ve heard conservative-types argue that the Supreme Court “magically found a right to privacy” in the Constitution. I’ve never felt comfortable with this line, as I believe we do have an unalienable right to privacy. The problem is not that SCOTUS invented a right to privacy; the issue is whether a fetus is a person. So I stand by my example.
But the so-called right to privacy was betrayed by government intrusion between the patient and his doctor by mandating electronic records, and then passing legislation to cripple heath insurance and replace it with state paid medical care which will require the government to see the medical chart in order to know what they’re paying for.
Either privacy is a right or is not, but it seems to be an all-purpose excuse to know and to legalize whatever they want.
Is it “self evident” that Roe’s “right to privacy” is or is not an unalienable right? It’s certainly not to me.
“right to privacy” The right to “be left alone,” or to be free of government scrutiny into one’s private beliefs and behavior. Abortion is harmful to another life. Is there a question regarding the validity of this assertion?
The “right to privacy” is just an alternate way to express guaranteed individual liberty but that does not include a right for an individual to harm another innocent party.
I’ve always said that I have no problem with the Court finding a right to privacy. It may be “among” the unlisted rights. I just don’t think it gives one the right to kill someone else.
Yes. I agreed too quickly when someone said my “right to privacy” example was inapt. For years, I’ve heard conservative-types argue that the Supreme Court “magically found a right to privacy” in the Constitution. I’ve never felt comfortable with this line, as I believe we do have an unalienable right to privacy. The problem is not that SCOTUS invented a right to privacy; the issue is whether a fetus is a person. So I stand by my example.
But the so-called right to privacy was betrayed by government intrusion between the patient and his doctor by mandating electronic records, and then passing legislation to cripple heath insurance and replace it with state paid medical care which will require the government to see the medical chart in order to know what they’re paying for.
Either privacy is a right or is not, but it seems to be an all-purpose excuse to know and to legalize whatever they want.
Yes, and that’s what I was getting at with my first comment on the thread. Referencing unenumerated inalienable rights (“among these are”) creates a situation where parties can assert or deny rights ad hoc, and use those ostensible rights to justify all manner of things, as you describe above.
Is it “self evident” that Roe’s “right to privacy” is or is not an unalienable right? It’s certainly not to me.
“right to privacy” The right to “be left alone,” or to be free of government scrutiny into one’s private beliefs and behavior. Abortion is harmful to another life. Is there a question regarding the validity of this assertion?
The “right to privacy” is just an alternate way to express guaranteed individual liberty but that does not include a right for an individual to harm another innocent party.
I’ve always said that I have no problem with the Court finding a right to privacy. It may be “among” the unlisted rights. I just don’t think it gives one the right to kill someone else.
Yes. I agreed too quickly when someone said my “right to privacy” example was inapt. For years, I’ve heard conservative-types argue that the Supreme Court “magically found a right to privacy” in the Constitution. I’ve never felt comfortable with this line, as I believe we do have an unalienable right to privacy. The problem is not that SCOTUS invented a right to privacy; the issue is whether a fetus is a person. So I stand by my example.
But the so-called right to privacy was betrayed by government intrusion between the patient and his doctor by mandating electronic records, and then passing legislation to cripple heath insurance and replace it with state paid medical care which will require the government to see the medical chart in order to know what they’re paying for.
Either privacy is a right or is not, but it seems to be an all-purpose excuse to know and to legalize whatever they want.
Yes, and that’s what I was getting at with my first comment on the thread. Referencing unenumerated inalienable rights (“among these are”) creates a situation where parties can assert or deny rights ad hoc, and use those ostensible rights to justify all manner of things, as you describe above.
Yes, I now see more what you meant. However this doesn’t seem like a failing of the Declaration so much as of those who are charged with acting in accordance with its spirit and the Constitution.
Is it “self evident” that Roe’s “right to privacy” is or is not an unalienable right? It’s certainly not to me.
“right to privacy” The right to “be left alone,” or to be free of government scrutiny into one’s private beliefs and behavior. Abortion is harmful to another life. Is there a question regarding the validity of this assertion?
The “right to privacy” is just an alternate way to express guaranteed individual liberty but that does not include a right for an individual to harm another innocent party.
I’ve always said that I have no problem with the Court finding a right to privacy. It may be “among” the unlisted rights. I just don’t think it gives one the right to kill someone else.
Yes. I agreed too quickly when someone said my “right to privacy” example was inapt. For years, I’ve heard conservative-types argue that the Supreme Court “magically found a right to privacy” in the Constitution. I’ve never felt comfortable with this line, as I believe we do have an unalienable right to privacy. The problem is not that SCOTUS invented a right to privacy; the issue is whether a fetus is a person. So I stand by my example.
But the so-called right to privacy was betrayed by government intrusion between the patient and his doctor by mandating electronic records, and then passing legislation to cripple heath insurance and replace it with state paid medical care which will require the government to see the medical chart in order to know what they’re paying for.
Either privacy is a right or is not, but it seems to be an all-purpose excuse to know and to legalize whatever they want.
Yes, and that’s what I was getting at with my first comment on the thread. Referencing unenumerated inalienable rights (“among these are”) creates a situation where parties can assert or deny rights ad hoc, and use those ostensible rights to justify all manner of things, as you describe above.
Yes, I now see more what you meant. However this doesn’t seem like a failing of the Declaration so much as of those who are charged with acting in accordance with its spirit and the Constitution.
I wish we could know the Justices had/have discussions like this that can lead to a more complete understanding.
“Pursuit”. Not a right to happiness or property, just the pursuit.
The subtext is “Good Luck, boy.”
That’s why equity is important. Eliminate “pursuit of,” and you’ve got the Right to Happiness. To secure this right, you need permanently expanding government. MMT helps, too.
Is it “self evident” that Roe’s “right to privacy” is or is not an unalienable right? It’s certainly not to me.
“right to privacy” The right to “be left alone,” or to be free of government scrutiny into one’s private beliefs and behavior. Abortion is harmful to another life. Is there a question regarding the validity of this assertion?
The “right to privacy” is just an alternate way to express guaranteed individual liberty but that does not include a right for an individual to harm another innocent party.
I’ve always said that I have no problem with the Court finding a right to privacy. It may be “among” the unlisted rights. I just don’t think it gives one the right to kill someone else.
Yes. I agreed too quickly when someone said my “right to privacy” example was inapt. For years, I’ve heard conservative-types argue that the Supreme Court “magically found a right to privacy” in the Constitution. I’ve never felt comfortable with this line, as I believe we do have an unalienable right to privacy. The problem is not that SCOTUS invented a right to privacy; the issue is whether a fetus is a person. So I stand by my example.
But the so-called right to privacy was betrayed by government intrusion between the patient and his doctor by mandating electronic records, and then passing legislation to cripple heath insurance and replace it with state paid medical care which will require the government to see the medical chart in order to know what they’re paying for.
Either privacy is a right or is not, but it seems to be an all-purpose excuse to know and to legalize whatever they want.
Yes, and that’s what I was getting at with my first comment on the thread. Referencing unenumerated inalienable rights (“among these are”) creates a situation where parties can assert or deny rights ad hoc, and use those ostensible rights to justify all manner of things, as you describe above.
Yes, I now see more what you meant. However this doesn’t seem like a failing of the Declaration so much as of those who are charged with acting in accordance with its spirit and the Constitution.
Yep, exactly. The Founders did their best to keep human nature in check, but it wasn’t enough. And they knew that, which is why so many of them noted that only a religious/moral people could hold the thing together. We’re seeing that play out.
Hold Fast to 36 Words
I don’t know, but I would guess that Franklin would be thinking about real property, personal property, and intellectual property.
Yes. I agreed too quickly when someone said my “right to privacy” example was inapt. For years, I’ve heard conservative-types argue that the Supreme Court “magically found a right to privacy” in the Constitution. I’ve never felt comfortable with this line, as I believe we do have an unalienable right to privacy. The problem is not that SCOTUS invented a right to privacy; the issue is whether a fetus is a person. So I stand by my example.
But the so-called right to privacy was betrayed by government intrusion between the patient and his doctor by mandating electronic records, and then passing legislation to cripple heath insurance and replace it with state paid medical care which will require the government to see the medical chart in order to know what they’re paying for.
Either privacy is a right or is not, but it seems to be an all-purpose excuse to know and to legalize whatever they want.
Yes, and that’s what I was getting at with my first comment on the thread. Referencing unenumerated inalienable rights (“among these are”) creates a situation where parties can assert or deny rights ad hoc, and use those ostensible rights to justify all manner of things, as you describe above.
Yes, I now see more what you meant. However this doesn’t seem like a failing of the Declaration so much as of those who are charged with acting in accordance with its spirit and the Constitution.
I wish we could know the Justices had/have discussions like this that can lead to a more complete understanding.
That’s why equity is important. Eliminate “pursuit of,” and you’ve got the Right to Happiness. To secure this right, you need permanently expanding government. MMT helps, too.
Yep, exactly. The Founders did their best to keep human nature in check, but it wasn’t enough. And they knew that, which is why so many of them noted that only a religious/moral people could hold the thing together. We’re seeing that play out.