Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

958

Every time someone, from the Left or Right or inbetween, proposes some new law or restriction or action: push back!

The simple elegance of the Declaration of Independence - from which even the Constitution and Bill of Rights ultimately derive their jurisdictional authorities - rests on this very simple phrase: governments exist solely to protect the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Anything and everything else that people, organizations, groups, political parties, and even the government itself call out for action upon - push back with asking, how would what they propose protect or enhance Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Every time someone, from the Left or Right or inbetween, proposes some new law or restriction or action: push back! The simple elegance of the Declaration of Independence - from which even the Constitution and Bill of Rights ultimately derive their jurisdictional authorities - rests on this very simple phrase: governments exist solely to protect the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Anything and everything else that people, organizations, groups, political parties, and even the government itself call out for action upon - push back with asking, how would what they propose protect or enhance Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

(post is archived)

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt (edited )

governments

Let's not get too hasty - remember it was idealistically broad ideas that got us into this mess to begin with. Specifically, you're talking about the government of the United States of America. Other governments can (and should) have their own particular set of imperative values, as derived from their peoples' cultures.

Realistically, a government is nothing more than an appointed representative entity for the collective synthesis of the will of the nation. Doesn't matter if it's a democracy or a dictatorship, monarchy or theocracy - though they all have different explanations for the source of their power, they all have to contend with the simple reality that said power rests pretty much entirely on getting the people to buy into that explanation.

(As an aside, we can also see throughout history - typically nations perform best when there is a high degree of unity of purpose between the government and the people; indicative of true leadership)

The real brilliance of the US government, in my personal opinion, is encapsulated in the second amendment. Because the principle of arming the populace very clearly underscores the aforementioned reality of government. True leadership doesn't fear its people, because its will and their will are aligned.

A government fears its people, and seeks to remove their power, if and only if it believes they will not listen to its dictates; that the state must reserve the right to force compliance, or more clearly, that the state's will - that of its elected, hired, and appointed mucky-mucks - must be held paramount over that of the nation.

Every modern government is built upon this imbalance of power.

Hence, no modern government is based upon true leadership. If in the absence of leadership, a government is just a tyrannical bureaucracy - a home grown foreign invader, handing down mandates from the seat of the occupation.

Thus, I contend that there is no modern government worth supporting.

Arm the mob.

[–] • 0 pt

I appreciate the thoughtfulness you put into your reply, while utterly disagreeing with you on multiple points.

First, the Declaration of Independence addressed the government of the British Empire and its monarch. It has been used and cited by other nations as a foundational reference document for their own formations of governments. This stands at odds with your premise that it pertains solely to the United States.

Second, I believe the First Amendment has essential linkage to the Second Amendment, and neither hold much value without the other.

Third, groups unified by purpose tend to become the worst in terms of tyrannical behavior and unravel as the initial unifying purpose or purposes drift and change over time. The strongest voluntarily conjoined groups, are those formed upon common beliefs and values - which allows for significant differences of opinion in the how and what the group does to manifest those beliefs and values. Virtues, if you will, being the stronger of the three legs of normative ethics, the other two being deontology and teleology. Tis not enough to do things the right way, nor for the right results - long term unity stems from sharing the right reasons.

Once we've lost our common virtures - those beliefs and values - then we've lost the "us" and all that remains is yet another tyranny where men with guns enforce how's and what's on the ones who don't - and in that, I agree with you that the 2nd Amendment underscores a threat of violence to enforce beliefs of the governed upon the government. If an Antifa-friendly President comes about someday, what them impose a limitation wherein only Antifa types get 2nd Amendment protection - what says you about that?

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

thoughtfulness

Put down mostly to me being a complete idiot who doesn't comprehend the meaning of the phrase "value proposition".

First

Doesn't matter who they addressed, and doesn't matter who cribbed notes from them. Whatever a nation decides to write in its declarations, constitutions, charters, law books, etc. ends exactly as far as their borders extend. Beyond that, we enter the realm of conquest, which is beyond the scope of the present futility.

Second

Well, that's like, your opinion, man.

Third

I honestly think that's the most words a person has ever wasted in order to restate one of my own points back to me. But yeah, let's hide basic unity behind five layers of abstraction and call it super virtue justice rights 9000.

If an Antifa-friendly President comes about someday ... what says you about that?

Shoot them.

[–] • 0 pt

Salty 😄

I didn't expect that after the quality of your first reply - thanks for dispelling my illusions of your cognitive faculties for formal argument and discussion.

I don't play well with those who practice sophistry - so how about let's agree we have different philosophical inclinations and stand pat.