[I'm going to repeat, with very little modification, what I posted here a year ago for Independence Day.]
Revolutions. History is strewn with them, including a minor one in Ecuador while I was there as a missionary. That revolution threw out a military junta but in so doing improved the situation of the citizens only a little. The same has happened repeatedly in this world. All too often overthrowing a tyrant only allows another to take his place, sometimes a worse one. Czarist Russia was replaced by the horror of Stalinist Communism. The French replaced their king with the excesses of the French Revolution. My friends in Ecuador overthrew the junta, then elected a demagogue. Yet tomorrow we celebrate the revolution that created these United States, probably the freest country in the world. Why was ours so successful while so many others failed?
The reason is that it is easier to destroy a bad government than to create a good one. Most revolutionaries concentrated on the revolution, not on the aftermath. That left the way open for new tyrants to take over. Our founders did not make that mistake; they went to great lengths to prevent government from becoming too powerful. They defined their principles in two remarkable documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I believe that every Independence Day we should review those documents and see what we should do to defend the principles described therein.
Ours was a revolution not just of armies and government, but of ideas and a way of thinking about government. The Declaration of Independence was shocking at the time it was written. Its statement that all men are created equal must have been a shock to believers in the divine right of kings. Yet that simple statement contains the basis of our belief that we are all born with equal rights (though not, of course, equal abilities).
The next idea from the Declaration was perhaps even more radical. We are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Herein is the germ of limited government. If we have inalienable rights then no government can in justice take those rights away from us except as punishment for crime. That was an unheard of idea in a time when kings and aristocrats demanded obedience from those regarded as of less worth. It took decades, a civil war, and a civil rights movement to free the slaves and remove official racism. That only underscores how radical those statements were.
Next in the Declaration comes a line that is often ignored but is of supreme importance. “That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” This stood previous ideas of government on their heads. The government existed for and at the pleasure of the banker, the farmer, the garbage hauler, etc. collectively. It was an idea so radical as to be beyond the conception of most of the world at the time.
Of course if government exists at the pleasure of the governed that implies that the governed must take responsibility for how that government operates. The Constitution describes how that is to be done and again includes some ideas that were unheard of when it was written.
First was the idea that government was to be limited. Herein lies the genius of our founders. Democracies had existed before, but our founders added the idea that even a democracy cannot go beyond certain bounds. Based on the statement that all people have inalienable rights, the founders deliberately built restrictions into the Constitution. Certain laws are prohibited, no matter how many voters want them.
A bill of attainder was prohibited at the outset, as was any ex post facto law. Congress cannot just decide that you are a bad person and declare that you are a criminal. That would have the effect of making you illegal. A person cannot be illegal, though his actions may be. Nor can they decide that an action you committed yesterday was illegal because of a law passed today. Those restrictions allow citizen freedom from arbitrary government action.
The Bill of Rights was added soon after constitutional ratification and provides even more protection. Short of actual threats, you are free to say anything you want about the president, congress, or other government officials. Even if all the voters in the country want to outlaw certain forms of speech, they are prohibited from doing so. We have an inalienable right to our ideas and the free dissemination thereof.
Other rights of course have similar constitutional protections. That was the great legacy our founders gave us and for which we should be forever grateful to them.
However gratitude alone is inadequate. It has been wisely said that freedom is not free. We are constantly faced with politicians who love power and who would like to increase the power they have. The price of freedom is therefore eternal vigilance. We must consider wisely those for whom we vote and the type of government we support. We must resist demagoguery and the attempt of charismatic politicians to reduce those restrictions on government. We must also express our views to our hired representatives, not just send them off to do as they please.
We must also resist the temptation to vote benefits for ourselves at the expense of others. Those others whom we would tax to help ourselves should have the inalienable right to their liberty. That includes the right to decide how their property is used, subject only to the most necessary restrictions.
Most of all, we must realize that government can be a good servant but is a fearful master. We must keep it down as a servant and not allow it to become a master. Sadly, many politicians tend to think of themselves as an elite, above the ordinary citizen who should defer to their “superior wisdom.” That is a dangerous attitude and those people should not be elected.
Some politicians have also claimed, “We’re for the people, they’re for the powerful.”* I regard that as demagoguery, it detracts from the fact that government is the powerful, the most powerful entity in the country. That is a power that must be controlled and restricted.
Let us, this and every Independence Day, review the blessings of our limited, constitutional government and consider how we can best defend that constitutional government.
*The Gore campaign used that slogan in the 2000 presidential election.
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don’t like it, please tell me.
Showing posts with label declaration of independence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label declaration of independence. Show all posts
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Friday, September 25, 2009
The Lessons of Flight 93 - Reprise
On 11 September this year I posted a blog about Flight 93 and how we should learn from the actions of the passengers. We should take primary responsibility for our own safety and try to defend ourselves. I would like to comment further on that because of something that has just happened in my home state of Oregon. Authorities finally found the body of Brooke Wilberger.
In 2004 Wilberger was a 19-year-old college student, home for the summer. She disappeared from the apartment complex where she was doing some cleaning. Finally, over five years later, her killer confessed and described how he abducted her by threatening her with a knife. The killer was careful to place his van so it blocked the view of the abduction. Some in the area heard Wilberger's scream but saw nothing. As a result he was able to bind her with tape, put her in his van, and leave with nobody knowing what had happened.
The killer described how Wilberger fought him when he raped her and said that was when he decided to kill her. He claimed he would not have murdered her had she not fought so hard. If true, that is unusual. Rapist-killers usually want to see their victims suffer, and fighting won't change that. I am reluctant to accept statements from such criminals at face value.
What I do believe is a statement from a retired police captain. CW Jensen has a regular time as an expert on KXL, a local radio station. According to him, the time to fight an abductor is before he gets you into his car. Once you are in that vehicle it is much more difficult to do anything, especially if you are bound and gagged. Potential victims should do all they can to avoid being put into a criminal's car, even at the risk of injury.
Captain Jensen mentioned that he's seen lots of people survive knife wounds, even serious wounds. Many even survive gunshot wounds. However once an abductor gets you into an isolated area with your hands taped, you are usually helpless. He recommends not only screaming but also running like hell to escape. Even if the criminal shoots at you, it is difficult to hit a moving target and most criminals are not trained marksmen. Besides, the noise of a gunshot will attract more attention than will a scream.
Jensen's recommendations make sense, plus he has decades of experience dealing with criminals to back up his beliefs.
We cannot know what would have happened had Wilberger fled when threatened with that knife. Maybe she would have been killed on the spot but I think it more likely she would have escaped, perhaps after being cut. However we do know what happened because the criminal was successful in getting her into his van. Had she fled, even had she been stabbed and bled to death on the spot, that would have been preferable to the pain he inflicted before killing her.
Fortunately crimes such as the kidnapping, rape and murder of Brooke Wilberger are rare. Most of us will never have to make such decisions. However just the idea of being prepared to fight for our own lives and safety will help us should that happen, and will also help defend against other crimes. If a criminal has a gun and only wants our money, we should give it to him. Our lives are worth more. However if he tries to abduct us or to violently assault us we are usually better off to resist, fleeing if possible or fighting if that is all we can do. Such resistance will not only give us a better chance, it will give police a better chance of catching the criminal.
A personal note: I'm afraid I'll have to reduce the number of blogs I write in order to free up time for other things. Starting next week I will probably only write two a week, most likely posting them on Tuesdays and Fridays.
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
In 2004 Wilberger was a 19-year-old college student, home for the summer. She disappeared from the apartment complex where she was doing some cleaning. Finally, over five years later, her killer confessed and described how he abducted her by threatening her with a knife. The killer was careful to place his van so it blocked the view of the abduction. Some in the area heard Wilberger's scream but saw nothing. As a result he was able to bind her with tape, put her in his van, and leave with nobody knowing what had happened.
The killer described how Wilberger fought him when he raped her and said that was when he decided to kill her. He claimed he would not have murdered her had she not fought so hard. If true, that is unusual. Rapist-killers usually want to see their victims suffer, and fighting won't change that. I am reluctant to accept statements from such criminals at face value.
What I do believe is a statement from a retired police captain. CW Jensen has a regular time as an expert on KXL, a local radio station. According to him, the time to fight an abductor is before he gets you into his car. Once you are in that vehicle it is much more difficult to do anything, especially if you are bound and gagged. Potential victims should do all they can to avoid being put into a criminal's car, even at the risk of injury.
Captain Jensen mentioned that he's seen lots of people survive knife wounds, even serious wounds. Many even survive gunshot wounds. However once an abductor gets you into an isolated area with your hands taped, you are usually helpless. He recommends not only screaming but also running like hell to escape. Even if the criminal shoots at you, it is difficult to hit a moving target and most criminals are not trained marksmen. Besides, the noise of a gunshot will attract more attention than will a scream.
Jensen's recommendations make sense, plus he has decades of experience dealing with criminals to back up his beliefs.
We cannot know what would have happened had Wilberger fled when threatened with that knife. Maybe she would have been killed on the spot but I think it more likely she would have escaped, perhaps after being cut. However we do know what happened because the criminal was successful in getting her into his van. Had she fled, even had she been stabbed and bled to death on the spot, that would have been preferable to the pain he inflicted before killing her.
Fortunately crimes such as the kidnapping, rape and murder of Brooke Wilberger are rare. Most of us will never have to make such decisions. However just the idea of being prepared to fight for our own lives and safety will help us should that happen, and will also help defend against other crimes. If a criminal has a gun and only wants our money, we should give it to him. Our lives are worth more. However if he tries to abduct us or to violently assault us we are usually better off to resist, fleeing if possible or fighting if that is all we can do. Such resistance will not only give us a better chance, it will give police a better chance of catching the criminal.
A personal note: I'm afraid I'll have to reduce the number of blogs I write in order to free up time for other things. Starting next week I will probably only write two a week, most likely posting them on Tuesdays and Fridays.
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Independence Day
If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don’t like it, please tell me.
Revolutions. History is strewn with them, including a minor one in Ecuador while I was there as a missionary. That revolution threw out a military junta but in so doing improved the situation of the citizens only a little. The same has happened repeatedly in this world. All too often overthrowing a tyrant only allows another to take his place, sometimes a worse one. Czarist Russia was replaced by the horror of Stalinist Communism. The French replaced their king with the excesses of the French Revolution. My friends in Ecuador overthrew the junta, then elected a demagogue. Yet tomorrow we celebrate the revolution that created these United States, probably the freest country in the world. Why was ours so successful while so many others failed?
The reason is that it is easier to destroy a bad government than to create a good one. Most revolutionaries concentrated on the revolution, not on the aftermath. That left the way open for new tyrants to take over. Our founders did not make that mistake; they went to great lengths to prevent government from becoming too powerful. They defined their principles in two remarkable documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I believe that every Independence Day we should review those documents and see what we should do to defend the principles described therein.
The Declaration of Independence was shocking at the time it was written. Its statement that all men are created equal must have been a shock to believers in the divine right of kings. Yet that simple statement contains the basis of our belief that we are all born with equal rights (though not, of course, equal abilities).
The next idea from the Declaration was perhaps even more radical. We are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Herein is the germ of limited government. If we have inalienable rights then no government can in justice take those rights away from us except as punishment for crime. That was an unheard of idea in a time when kings and aristocrats demanded obedience from those regarded as of less worth. It took decades, a civil war, and a civil rights movement to free the slaves and remove official racism. That only underscores how radical those statements were.
Next in the Declaration comes a line that is often ignored but is of supreme importance. “That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” This stood previous ideas of government on their heads. The government existed for and at the pleasure of the banker, the farmer, the garbage hauler, etc. collectively. It was an idea so radical as to be beyond the conception of most of the world at the time.
Of course if government exists at the pleasure of the governed that implies that the governed must take responsibility for how that government operates. The Constitution describes how that is to be done and again includes some ideas that were unheard of when it was written.
First was the idea that government was to be limited. Herein lies the genius of our founders. Democracies had existed before, but our founders added the idea that even a democracy cannot go beyond certain bounds. Based on the statement that all people have inalienable rights, the founders deliberately built restrictions into the Constitution. Certain laws are prohibited, no matter how many voters want them.
A bill of attainder was prohibited at the outset, as was any ex post facto law. Congress cannot just decide that you are a bad person and declare that you a criminal. That would have the effect of making you illegal. A person cannot be illegal, though his actions may be. Nor can they decide that an action you committed yesterday was illegal because of a law passed today. Those restrictions allow citizen freedom from arbitrary government action.
The Bill of Rights was added soon after constitutional ratification and provides even more protection. Short of actual threats, you are free to say anything you want about the president, congress, or other government officials. Even if all the voters in the country want to outlaw certain forms of speech, they are prohibited from doing so. We have an inalienable right to our ideas and the free dissemination thereof.
Other rights of course have similar constitutional protections. That was the great legacy our founders gave us and for which we should be forever grateful to them.
However gratitude alone is inadequate. It has been wisely said that freedom is not free. We are constantly faced with politicians who love power and who would like to increase the power they have. The price of freedom is therefore eternal vigilance. We must consider wisely those for whom we vote and the type of government we support. We must resist demagoguery and the attempt of charismatic politicians to reduce those restrictions on government. We must also express our views to our hired representatives, not just send them off to do as they please.
We must also resist the temptation to vote benefits for ourselves at the expense of others. Those others whom we would tax to help ourselves should have the inalienable right to their liberty. That includes the right to decide how their property is used, subject only to the most necessary restrictions.
Most of all, we must realize that government can be a good servant but is a fearful master. We must keep it down as a servant and not allow it to become a master. Sadly, many politicians tend to think of themselves as an elite, above the ordinary citizen who should defer to their “superior wisdom.” That is a dangerous attitude and those people should not be elected.
Some politicians have also claimed, “We’re for the people, they’re for the powerful.”* I regard that as demagoguery, it detracts from the fact that government is the powerful, the most powerful entity in the country. That is a power that must be controlled and restricted.
Let us, this and every Independence Day, review the blessings of our limited, constitutional government and consider how we can best defend that constitutional government.
*The Gore campaign used that slogan in the 2000 presidential election.
If you don’t like it, please tell me.
Revolutions. History is strewn with them, including a minor one in Ecuador while I was there as a missionary. That revolution threw out a military junta but in so doing improved the situation of the citizens only a little. The same has happened repeatedly in this world. All too often overthrowing a tyrant only allows another to take his place, sometimes a worse one. Czarist Russia was replaced by the horror of Stalinist Communism. The French replaced their king with the excesses of the French Revolution. My friends in Ecuador overthrew the junta, then elected a demagogue. Yet tomorrow we celebrate the revolution that created these United States, probably the freest country in the world. Why was ours so successful while so many others failed?
The reason is that it is easier to destroy a bad government than to create a good one. Most revolutionaries concentrated on the revolution, not on the aftermath. That left the way open for new tyrants to take over. Our founders did not make that mistake; they went to great lengths to prevent government from becoming too powerful. They defined their principles in two remarkable documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I believe that every Independence Day we should review those documents and see what we should do to defend the principles described therein.
The Declaration of Independence was shocking at the time it was written. Its statement that all men are created equal must have been a shock to believers in the divine right of kings. Yet that simple statement contains the basis of our belief that we are all born with equal rights (though not, of course, equal abilities).
The next idea from the Declaration was perhaps even more radical. We are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Herein is the germ of limited government. If we have inalienable rights then no government can in justice take those rights away from us except as punishment for crime. That was an unheard of idea in a time when kings and aristocrats demanded obedience from those regarded as of less worth. It took decades, a civil war, and a civil rights movement to free the slaves and remove official racism. That only underscores how radical those statements were.
Next in the Declaration comes a line that is often ignored but is of supreme importance. “That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” This stood previous ideas of government on their heads. The government existed for and at the pleasure of the banker, the farmer, the garbage hauler, etc. collectively. It was an idea so radical as to be beyond the conception of most of the world at the time.
Of course if government exists at the pleasure of the governed that implies that the governed must take responsibility for how that government operates. The Constitution describes how that is to be done and again includes some ideas that were unheard of when it was written.
First was the idea that government was to be limited. Herein lies the genius of our founders. Democracies had existed before, but our founders added the idea that even a democracy cannot go beyond certain bounds. Based on the statement that all people have inalienable rights, the founders deliberately built restrictions into the Constitution. Certain laws are prohibited, no matter how many voters want them.
A bill of attainder was prohibited at the outset, as was any ex post facto law. Congress cannot just decide that you are a bad person and declare that you a criminal. That would have the effect of making you illegal. A person cannot be illegal, though his actions may be. Nor can they decide that an action you committed yesterday was illegal because of a law passed today. Those restrictions allow citizen freedom from arbitrary government action.
The Bill of Rights was added soon after constitutional ratification and provides even more protection. Short of actual threats, you are free to say anything you want about the president, congress, or other government officials. Even if all the voters in the country want to outlaw certain forms of speech, they are prohibited from doing so. We have an inalienable right to our ideas and the free dissemination thereof.
Other rights of course have similar constitutional protections. That was the great legacy our founders gave us and for which we should be forever grateful to them.
However gratitude alone is inadequate. It has been wisely said that freedom is not free. We are constantly faced with politicians who love power and who would like to increase the power they have. The price of freedom is therefore eternal vigilance. We must consider wisely those for whom we vote and the type of government we support. We must resist demagoguery and the attempt of charismatic politicians to reduce those restrictions on government. We must also express our views to our hired representatives, not just send them off to do as they please.
We must also resist the temptation to vote benefits for ourselves at the expense of others. Those others whom we would tax to help ourselves should have the inalienable right to their liberty. That includes the right to decide how their property is used, subject only to the most necessary restrictions.
Most of all, we must realize that government can be a good servant but is a fearful master. We must keep it down as a servant and not allow it to become a master. Sadly, many politicians tend to think of themselves as an elite, above the ordinary citizen who should defer to their “superior wisdom.” That is a dangerous attitude and those people should not be elected.
Some politicians have also claimed, “We’re for the people, they’re for the powerful.”* I regard that as demagoguery, it detracts from the fact that government is the powerful, the most powerful entity in the country. That is a power that must be controlled and restricted.
Let us, this and every Independence Day, review the blessings of our limited, constitutional government and consider how we can best defend that constitutional government.
*The Gore campaign used that slogan in the 2000 presidential election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
