Posted on 07/02/2009 8:45:00 AM PDT by stuartcr
The upcoming 4th of July celebration made me start thinking about the Declaration of Independence. It seems nowadays, that people are getting more and more upset with the way others behave, especially when this behavior is considered offensive or out of the norm. I’m wondering how that first line of the 2nd para…” 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.” , is to be interpreted? Where is the line drawn, and by whom, that over rules someone’s pursuit of happiness?
Secondly - your question. The line is drawn at the point where an individual’s pursuit of happiness interferes with another’s pursuit of happiness. It's where an individual’s pursuit becomes uncivil or inherently selfish. This runs from the extreme of breaking criminal law to simple breach of the peace. The line is drawn at the point called lack of civility.
Good thing you caught the spelling error, thanks.
Who determines whether one persons’ point of interference interferes with anothers? How are unreasonable points of interference determined?
Yes
That’s why we have a judicial branch, but common sense usulally works pretty well.
It would appear that the spelling police, are in your pocket...
Common sense usually works? What about the happiness derived from one’s particular religion or sexual proclivity? Common sense doesn’t always seem to work well, especially when peoples common sense differs radically. When the judicial branch makes a decision, why then, would anyone question that decision?
I think you’re over-complicating the issues. The use of judges is milleniums old and their determination becomes the final conclusion, when and where “wise judgement” is required and the agrieved parties have agreed to or are required to abide by the courts’ decree.
Laws are never perfect. Neither are people. I still stand behind the concepts of “civility” and “common sense” as fundamental to your question.
OK
The easy answer is no force or fraud perpetrated against another. It’s fundamental (or should be) to all other laws.
It is rooted in Natural Law, which is derived from the Law of our Creator. Our Constitution put their Natural Law philosophy into action.
A long line of smart guys from Aristotle, Cicero, St. Thomas Aquinas and John Locke developed the ideas of our founders. My interest in Natural Law began recently with Levin's Liberty & Tyranny where he writes, "The abandonment of Natural Law is the adoption of tyranny in one form or another because there is no humane or benevolent alternative to Natural Law. It is Natural Law divined by God and discoverable by reason, that prescribes the inalienability of the most fundamental and eternal human rights. Rights that are not conferred on man by man and therefore cannot legitimately be denied to man by man."
These concepts are unknown because if they were more fully known by the populace, they would form a philosophical basis of opposition to what the democrat party stands for. The last thing our government schools wish to do is present our founding and Constitution for the miracles they are.
My book list on the subject so far is,
The 5,000 Year Leap
Liberty and Tyranny
Natural Law, Reflection on Theory and Practice
Written on the Heart, The Case for Natural Law
Christianity, Democracy and the American Ideal
Isn’t the Law of Our Creator pretty much subjective, depending entirely on what one believes?
When 2 factions disagree, who gets the final say, on what is the Natural Law?
What is your definition of Natural Law or the Law of our Creator? What do you use as a reference?
Thanks
Try reading something other than your navel.
Great answer, very thoughtful.
Thank you.
Fortunately, our Founders had a deeper philosophy.
I'm fairly certain this axiom was the base for their thinking. It was the basis for their logic and remains the basis for freedom definitively. What other axiom could there be?
With that in mind it is remarkable how few of us know the philosophical basis of our Declaration and Constitution.
The basis is Natural Law which is a gift from God. God's Law grants us Natural Rights which all are born with. As such they cannot be legitimately denied us by government.
William Blackstone wrote, “Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to forfeiture.”
Read the first three sentences of the Declaration to see for yourself. Note also, “That to Secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men . . . “ That means the only legitimate purpose of government is to secure the aforementioned unalienable Rights, among them Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Our Founders started with a short list of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. When they got around to the Constitution we can see freedom of the press, speech and religion, self defense, property, assembly, fair trial, association, and contract. All are Natural Rights granted by God, not by man.
Notice that totalitarian countries meet a lot of resistance from the people when they deny them their Natural Rights. It is why after 36 years, almost everyone, regardless of belief in God, have some reservations about unlimted abortion. It is against Natural Law, the denial of life to innocents.
It is only in the context of Natural Law that the Declaration and Constitution form a coherent whole.
Spend a few bucks and order “The 5,000 Year Leap” by W. Cleon Skousen, 1981. Be careful though as I find the subject to be addictive. I started there, ordered several other books on the subject and am now wading into John Locke.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.