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


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by Eyecu2 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    That's why we must continue to scream the truth and hope to wake up enough to be able to ban together enough to force the needed changes.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnpe1 11 years, 1 month ago
    shouldn't we remember that the bill of rights was devised to protect the people from government? we would like to have it serve to protect us from all assailants, and tend to squeegee it in that direction. yet, in the process, we de-emphaze the primary purpose. then, the successful assailant becomes the government from which we would like to be protected! -- j
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    We now have an almost exactly the same system as the Soviet Union had in the 1980's. Sure, there are technology differences, which allow for plenty of food, and some other differences as well, but the basic socialist structure is the same. It is, predictably, leading to the same results. Only a complete crash of the system can possibly save the future of this country. Fighting piecemeal will only give ammunition to the regime, which must have enemies to justify it's actions and existence.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Kittyhawk 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    I think you're right. The problem is that with our structure of government, the slaves get a few crumbs from our masters/politicians for their support and compliance, and are content. Meanwhile the "powers that be" milk the producers for more than half their value, give a few crumbs to the slaves, and pocket the rest. If we don't wake up at least some of the slaves, I don't see how we'll ever change the system.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ johnrobert2 11 years, 1 month ago
    X L C OR. On a more somber note, we may all soon be quoting the speech from Henry V as a rallying cry, for we will be at the Rubicon.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Eyecu2 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Because if we allow those content to be slaves to be slaves then their children will be born into slavery and the sickness spreads.

    I myself have 3 children and my oldest is one of those content to be a slave. Yes I completely failed her to my regret. But this means that her children will be content to be slaves and that is a much worse travesty.

    We MUST stand to that metaphorical wall and defend it to the last!

    Sorry but I voted your down.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Maybe more that the wall that they've torn down and replaced with cotton candy is just as strong.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by edweaver 11 years, 1 month ago
    You nailed it! Way to put it in layman's terms. I had never considered it in this fashion and feel enlightened. Hope you don't mind if I use your words in the future.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 1 month ago
    The problem with your analogy is that those who should be standing watch with you are actively breaking down that wall, ushering in your enemies and have tied you up - and all the while telling you that your wall is just fine.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Hiraghm 11 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    o.O

    Mixed historical metaphor.
    The reference to the Rubicon is when Julius Caesar made the irrefutable decision to violate Roman law by bringing his army into Rome proper, by crossing the Rubicon.

    Do you refer to Henry V's speech at Halfleur, or Agincourt?

    I find this rather appropriate for today's circumstances....

    http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/horatius/...

    "But when the face of Sextus
    Was seen among the foes,
    A yell that rent the firmament
    From all the town arose.
    On the house-tops was no woman
    But spat towards him and hissed,
    No child but screamed out curses,
    And shook its little fist."

    (The modern English translation of the name "Sextus" is "Bill Clinton"; Sextus was the son of the king, and when he wanted to have an affair with a Roman matron, she refused. He had her murdered, and the Romans rose up and threw the kings out; they ran to their powerful relative, Lars Porsena, who raised an 80+ thousand man army to come chastise the Romans.)

    "XXVI

    But the Consul's brow was sad,
    And the Consul's speech was low,
    And darkly looked he at the wall,
    And darkly at the foe.
    'Their van will be upon us
    Before the bridge goes down;
    And if they once may win the bridge,
    What hope to save the town?'

    XXVII

    Then out spake brave Horatius,
    The Captain of the Gate:
    'To every man upon this earth
    Death cometh soon or late.
    And how can man die better
    Than facing fearful odds,
    For the ashes of his fathers,
    And the temples of his gods,

    XXVIII

    'And for the tender mother
    Who dandled him to rest,
    And for the wife who nurses
    His baby at her breast,
    And for the holy maidens
    Who feed the eternal flame,
    To save them from false Sextus
    That wrought the deed of shame?"

    (that's my favorite part. )

    "XXXI

    'Horatius,' quoth the Consul,
    'As thou sayest, so let it be.'
    And straight against that great array
    Forth went the dauntless Three.
    For Romans in Rome's quarrel
    Spared neither land nor gold,
    Nor son nor wife, nor limb nor life,
    In the brave days of old.

    XXXII

    Then none was for a party;
    Then all were for the state;
    Then the great man helped the poor,
    And the poor man loved the great:
    Then lands were fairly portioned;
    Then spoils were fairly sold:
    The Romans were like brothers
    In the brave days of old.

    XXXIII

    Now Roman is to Roman
    More hateful than a foe,
    And the Tribunes beard the high,
    And the Fathers grind the low.
    As we wax hot in faction,
    In battle we wax cold:
    Wherefore men fight not as they fought
    In the brave days of old."

    Note that this is not entirely incompatible with Objectivism. After all, what Objectivist is going to divide socially between "haves" and "have-not"s? (between the "do"s and the "do-not"s, yes...)

    The above is a fair metaphor for what happened to America in AS.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 11 years, 1 month ago
    We now have more than half the population that are perfectly happy being in a comfortable slavery (I would estimate as much more than half). Let them be slaves. If the slave doesn't want to be freed, why should others risk their lives freeing someone who does ask for it?
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo