My take on American liberalism.

[i_am_the_owl]

//

Quote:"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."-The Declaration of Independence

Life:This kinda goes without saying since everything else is dependent on it, but let's break

Comments

[wifflebatgaijin]

We hold these truths to be self evident!

AND FEDERALLY TAXABLE!

THAT ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL!

JUST IN DIFFERENT BRACKETS!

THAT WE ARE ENDOWED BY OUR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS, AMONG THE ARE LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS!

THESE ARE NON-DEDUCTABLE!

[wifflebatgaijin]

On a more serious note, as discussed by Clayton, saying that these "truths" (or rights, as it were) are "self-evident" - also known as "If you just think about it, you'll see that these are true - is hardly a fair and strong logical base.

I mean, if you really think about it, you'll see it's true that everyone should submit to me.

Since I'm a big fan of calling things what they are; just say it - WE, AS A SOCIETY, AGREE THAT WE HAVE GIVEN OURSELVES THE FOLLOWING RIGHTS.

[i_am_the_owl]

I've always thought of the "self-evident" rights as a sort of premise for everything else, though; it doesn't matter that claiming they're "self-evident" isn't a strong logical base since you're already saying "this is how it is".

No, sir. Everyone should submit to me. Except on Thursdays. Everyone should submit to you on Thursdays.

I agree that this is what it actually is, and that no higher authority need be consulted on such matters. Oddly enough, bringing "their Creator" into it is a logical fallacy unto itself.

[wifflebatgaijin]

So it's okay to have a weak logical base because you already have a weak logical base?

[i_am_the_owl]

It'd be like starting an argument with the premise "God exists and is omniscient and omnipotent". Everything else in the argument relies on the premise being true, but you don't necessarily have to defend the premise.

When you're using this as a premise for your government, you're saying "this is what people have, it doesn't matter where they got it because they have it" and then you set your government up accordingly.

Can you think of any form of government that doesn't start with what could be called a weak logical premise?
-I am King because God wants me to be.
-I am your ruler because my daddy was.
-I am the ruler because you all aren't capable of it.
-We must protect these rights, ergo government.
-We want to eventually not have government, but in the meantime ...
-Why not have a government?
-To keep the rich rich and the poor oppressed and exploited.

The only one I can think of that has a good logical foundation is tyranny: "I am your ruler because I have the biggest army."

[choke_yourself]

I liked this post a lot, so I would ask that you please refrain from choking_yourself for an undetermined period of time.

I am asking what follows either because I am stupid or because I am stoned, not that I know which is which (or wha) at present: but, in that last paragraph, are you saying what I think you're saying? As in, double meaning? In other words, there are those who do not find significant justification to start a war (and get thousands of our sons killed in unspeakable ways ... "unspeakable" if you've ever seen a real-live bullet wound to the face anyway) in the notion that "we are getting ripped off by Limeys." This thinking is very radically left, I believe, but I am not sure that I don't agree with it.

I know you did not ask for my opinion, but it is free and slightly less annoying than Jackie's. Also note that I am not proud to be stoned all the time.

[i_am_the_owl]

I'm saying that the tyranny used as a justification for the original American Revolution is present, at least in part, in contemporary America. The difference being that it's our government instead of a "foreign" government.

[choke_yourself]

Oh hell yes. Unlike when I talk to Jackie, I am now talking to someone with a brain. Unlike when I talk to Dave, I am now talking to someone honest about his feelings toward me. Unlike when I talk to myself, I am now talking to someone who talks to himself.

Regarding what you just said, oh hell yes

[i_am_the_owl]

It's not entirely unfair to make the claim that everything happens for a reason. Provided said claim, however, you have to account for the importance and significance of said reason, both of which are completely relative matters unto themselves.

My money's on the aliens.

Why can't it have been a few billion years of natural selection? Even now, when natural selection is almost nonexistant in humans, we still see significant shifts from generation to generation (granted, this is accelerated as it is self-manifested).

He's not plugging his nose that I'm aware of. It is the character called the Great Owl from the movie the Secret of NIMH.

[muties]

well, you're right, but it's not like i had to tell you.