11

Today, someone asked me, "What's the point of having a Bill of Rights if it just gets trampled on, ignored, and violated?" This was my response...

Posted by Maphesdus 11 years, 1 month ago to Philosophy
50 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

If we build a wall to protect ourselves from assailants, our enemies will bash and pound against it; they will punch the wall with their fists and kick it with their feet; they will smash rocks against it; they will whack at it with hammers, axes, and chisels; they will use shovels to dig holes under it, and ropes and ladders to climb over it; the wall may crack, and it may crumble, especially if it is built from weak material, or rests on an unsure foundation. But we build the wall anyway, for it is better to prepare for battle, than to sit defenseless against the inevitable onslaught of the enemy. Yet even if our wall is firmly built, wrought of steel and iron, and forged in the fires of adversity, it will still be utterly useless without guardians to stand watch over it, and protect it from our adversaries. Even the strongest wall can be easily toppled, if it is left undefended. Only by the vigilance of patriots, who are willing to stand guard and defend the wall at all costs, can we ever have any hope of security and freedom. Do not be the cold-hearted cynic who says the wall is useless because it cracks, but rather be the patriot who takes up arms, and drives the sword against those who do the cracking.


All Comments

  • Posted by lrbeggs 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Yep, the Kenneth Branagh version. Love it! Can easily roll it into how interesting and relatable romanticism can be.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ johnrobert2 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Do you show the Kenneth Branagh version of "Henry V"? Possibly the best. Also, Danny DeVito in "Renaissance Man".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 11 years, 1 month ago
    Well, if that isn't a wonderful prologue to a novel, what the hell is?!
    :)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by whiskysmuggler 11 years, 1 month ago
    Truth...Your point is well taken, but let us not forget how this all has been forming for years. Even in recent memory we have the destroyers in the form of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid,, Elijah Cummings and the rest of the patriot deficient politicians.
    United we Stand. Words to live by. One Nation Under God, Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All.
    May God bless us all.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Correct me if I'm wrong (as I'm sure the data on the subject is sketchy and unreliable), but I believe the monasteries, even though many produced some products, relied on money flowing in from the piety. As to the "voluntary" nature of the monasteries, that can be debated at another time. My point is that socialism is an oppressive, totalitarian system that is necessarily categorized by low production, high rhetoric and a constant search for enemies, internal and external (Marx's perversion of dielectic). It cannot peacefully coexist with anyone else.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    I cannot show you examples with a country, but monasteries have worked on socialist principles for a millennium or more. The clue, I hypothesize, is in that monasteries represent a voluntary, self-selecting population. I do not have any problem with the idea of sectarian 'monasteries' existing imbedded in a free-marked culture. You would treat the monastery as an 'entity' and expect it to be productive with respect to the larger culture.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Non_mooching_artist 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    It is powerful! Stirs the blood, charges the senses! That is wonderful that you show that to your classes. They have to take a lot away from that to ruminate on.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 11 years, 1 month ago
    Si vis pacem, para bellum.
    "If you want peace, prepare for war" - "Epitoma Rei Militaris," by Vegetius (Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by newtlove 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Obama and the Dems will soon (or eventually) be out of power. The conservatives, Libertarians, and Republicans will have a chance, and when they do, I hope they right many wrongs, and undo many of the Obama era Executive Orders, and institute reforms that most of us never dreamed would be necessary!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    As long as all the socialists respected the individual rights of others, I'm fine with that. I would also be fine with parasites that did not need any hosts to feed on.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Jan, your premise is unrealistic. Socialism, by it's nature, is an act of stealing from one and acquiring by another. Thus, socialism cannot exist within itself. It needs external sources of resources and, above all, enemies. Look at the last 100 years and show me a thriving socialist country that is not raping either another country or a class of slaves internally (if it has no access to external slaves). Your premise of coexistence can be boiled down to allow one (or many) to be a thieve from others and excusing it with "free choice."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    My answer may differ from the norm: There is nothing wrong with their wanting to be slaves. I think that there is a good chunk o'humankind that of their free and intelligent volition would choose a socialist lifestyle. No problem. But. In an objectivist, rational culture those people could be free to make that choice (eg communes) without encumbering people who wish to make other choices (freedom with its concomitant risk). In a socialist/communist culture, I do not see that the options are made available for individual freedom and excellence.

    So yes, it is as much their prerogative to choose to live in a commune as it is my prerogative to choose freedom. It is easier for me to imagine their system contained within my system than the other way around.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Kittyhawk 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Good point. The crash may be what's needed to change the systrem, but I still think when it comes to spreading truth, "The more, the merrier!"
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    It has been a long time since I have read that. Thank you for posting it.

    Jan
    (Point for good poetry!)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    That is precisely why the US Constitution was NOT set up as a democratic system, but a Republic that first and foremost had an obligation to protect any and all from the expected usurpations of power if they went against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The desires of the masses would only be allowed if they were not in conflict with the above. Those premises, unfortunately, are no longer true.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    There is philosophical point in the democratic process where if a majority of individuals demand others to be slaves, in one way another another, then government will morally “progress” to enforce this demand.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo