Would *you* sign this statement?

I did ID it by the third sentence, even before reading the rest of the thread. Very nice work, pax.

I would sign it. I also recognize how far our nation has come from those principles.

The phrase "there oughta be a law" is one of the worst to ever be uttered in a community that values its freedom. All law constrains freedom. There are times when that is necessary (to ensure the right to life, liberty, and property), but all too often we have uttered that phrase to fix nothing more than annoyances.

Liberty is sold out on the installment plan. It remains to be seen if it can be recaptured in the same fashion.
 
The quartering act was a big part of it. If you have ever housed someone outside your family you would realize the cost is immense. Much more than the three percent.
There were check points leading into and out of cities to check for weapons stolen from British armories among other things(we had quite a few Brown Bess's before any shots were fired).
The main objection was laws especially taxation without representation and where that was going.

I have a vote, it counts as much as anyone else's. We are putting ourselves into this mess. Everyone except me seems to be content with the two party system. Strickland, a Democrat, is probably the first politician I will ever vote for that I really thought was doing a good job and decently representing my interests. Even where he isn't in line with what I believe, he at least seems to be doing what he actually thinks is right, not what will get him re-elected or money for the next campaign. Can't say that about any elected official I have voted for above the county level.
 
Last edited:
There were check points leading into and out of cities to check for weapons stolen from British armories among other things(we had quite a few Brown Bess's before any shots were fired).

My understanding of this is that the British troops were notorious for selling their weaponry and gear in order to avail themselves of Boston's pubs and... er... industrious women.:D

I've read reports of quite regular public floggings for this offense.

The quartering act was a big part of it. If you have ever housed someone outside your family you would realize the cost is immense. Much more than the three percent.

There were only about 2500 or so troops in New England in 1775. Most of them were stationed in Boston at the barracks there or in the Navy's fleet. Some manned various forts lightly. While the concept of quartering a soldier is certainly onerous, I'd like to read specific accounts of it happening or hear an accounting of the total times it actually happened. Not defending the british by any means... I'm illustrating that the onerous deeds committed by the Crown pale in comparison to some of the things we face today.

I immediately recognized Pax's OP as a modernized translation of the Declaration in the first sentence. You can only say "We hold these truths to be self-evident" so many ways in the English language without saying almost the exact same thing. :)

I'd sign it, and be honored to pledge my life, my fortune and my sacred honor to such a noble pursuit in company of like minded men (or women).
 
Some truths are so obvious that they do not require an elaborate proof, and so obvious that it is all but ridiculous to attempt one. Among these is the obvious truth that all human beings are equally responsible for their own consciences, behaviors, and actions. This means that all human beings have a right to live their own lives, to do whatever pleases them as long as it doesn't interfere with the basic rights of others, and to be free to make their own decisions about their own lives.
The problem with this claim arises in every instance of economic exchange with one's peers. You don't have to consider yourself beholden to their society, to get affected by their trades. If everyone were to rest content with bartering goods for services and the like, there would be no cause for alarm. But to the extent that people come to rely on bonds and securities, their transactions and holdings become punitively interdependent. As witness the current state of affairs, socialism is an unavoidable consequence of free credit. Resisting it at the grass roots for the sake of notional libertarianism incompatible with full economic freedom is likely to favor the worst variety of socialism currently foisted upon the taxpayers, whereby the losses of the rich get socialized, even as their gains get exempted from taxation. The sole remaining option for fairness is to concern ourselves with safeguarding liberty in the face of creeping socialization.
 
Where do I sign? An artful rendention of the DofI ... would that our elected officials be required to sign -- and faced penalties when the inevitably violated its tenants ...
 
I recognized it also, mostly because TFL and THR have made me much more politically conscience and forced me to examine my beliefs and how they line up with the founders. I have always tended to be a libertarian (probably from reading too much Heinlein as a kid) but have gotten much more so in the last few years. I would sign it and be proud to do so.
 
I am suggesting that we, including the self-identified libertarians, have sure moved a long way away from the kind of thinking that founded our nation.
Our nation was founded in 1776 by self-identified liberals hewing to the thought of James Harrington, John Locke, and Charles de Montesquieu. Political libertarianism was first articulated over a century later. What reasons can you offer for believing that a failure to endorse its doctrines represents a move away from the kind of thinking that founded our nation?
 
What reasons can you offer for believing that a failure to endorse its doctrines represents a move away from the kind of thinking that founded our nation?

I don't think she's talking in abstract political philosophies... she's talking about specific incidents that could be construed as "a long chain of abuses and usurpations," and the dichotomy of our response today to it versus the responses of our forefathers 233 years ago.

She's talking about the Coercive/Intolerable Acts compared against the Patriot Act. The Stamp Act or Tea Tax versus the proposals of certain congresscritters to nationalize 401(k)'s or double the capital gains tax. She's talking about the 1774-75 seizure by Cornwallis of local militia cannon, powder and shot versus the 86 FOPA, the 94 AWB and a potential 2009 AWB-II.

How did the Colonials respond?

Intolerable Acts: They held their meetings in pure spite of the law, passed their own regulations/rules and governed themselves... the Crown be damned.

Tea Tax: They maliciously destroyed the entire shipment of the East India Trading Company as protest.

Arms Seizure: We all know what happened on April 19th, 1775. And folks... it wasn't about individual muskets or the 1/2 pound of powder in each home. It was about large stores equivalent to the guy who has 100K rounds of ammo and a gross of SKS's in his garage. It was about cannon. It was about implements of war. Basically, it was about the equivalent of class 3 weaponry and assault rifles.

How do we respond now? Consider our responses so far.
 
There were only about 2500 or so troops in New England in 1775. Most of them were stationed in Boston at the barracks there or in the Navy's fleet
Enlisted men were not quartered. Many officers were with wealthy families.

http://www.usconstitution.net/declarsigndata.html
What was the second most common profession of signers of the DoI?
Merchant, actually wholesalers of imports. Many of the other signers were involved in the trade through stocks. They were getting pinched as domestic supplies, although inferior, became more popular.

Tea Tax: They maliciously destroyed the entire shipment of the East India Trading Company as protest.
Do you propose we destroy a whole shipment of food stamps? Turn over car transports if they bail out "not even trying to be competitive Detroit" AGAIN.
I might be willing to play.

It was about cannon. It was about implements of war.
The only thing US civilians would really need at this point is shoulder fired missiles to attack helicopters. Even that can be gotten around by bump firing an air net. The Vietcong and Al Quaida proved that, at least with full auto rifles. Accuracy is not imperative for an air net, so imagine bump firing would be effective. It just isn't pretty. At a price of about $38,000 I doubt too many would be laying around anyways. If it comes to it enough GIs would be interested in bars and industrious women a few would show up.
 
Last edited:
How do we respond now? Consider our responses so far.
Our real responses tend to go both ways. The security of our mortgages and retirement funds is inextricably intertwined with grossly leveraged financial instruments that precipitate trillion dollar bailouts and catalyze double digit tax increases. Is any of that unconstitutional? I fully expect the Supreme Court to hand down its rulings in the wake of its restaffing by the current crop of redistributionist officials.
 
I didn't realize that it was the DOI rewritten in modern english usage and I will be honest about it. But it really doesn't matter as I would not sign it today.

The problem with history however is always context when applied to current times.

In 1776 the document had meaning, but to use it in 2008 is out of historical context. We are not suffering under anything remotely the same as we did as a colony of England with zero representation in government in 1776. Today our government is elected by us and it was not in 1776.
 
Internationally the American Revolution is often referred to as The Revolution of babies or whiners.
The American Revolution launched long before other revolutions have(condition wise). I still agree that we are currently at a much higher standard of living than in 176, and until that changes there will be no revolution.
 
Last edited:
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

That's the most relevant undocumented quotation I've seen in this thread yet. ;) Seriously we have crossed the bridge of self governance long ago and found ourselves lacking in many ways. If you pay attention to one of the regular "who's the vice president" man in the street polls that we are entertained with you'll know that if democracy (or a constitutional republic) is failing it's because ordinary citizens will not do their part if their life is soft enough.

Most of the revolutionaries in 1776 were driven by a daydreamer's politics instead of greed. Yes they were upset with certain things not the least of which was having officers quartered in private homes. It wasn't so much the number of officers so lodged but rather the manner in which they acted in those private homes treating the owners as part of their staff of servants. The tax levels might have been low but so were profit margins. For many a 3% tax meant the difference in Monticello or the ghetto.

But by far the revolution was a romantic endeavor spurred on by Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" which was ubiqutous in the colonies. Very few colonials had read Locke or Hume but almost all of them could quote the romantic writing and thinking of Paine. It was as much about class envy as anything else but in their case they had reason to envy the upper classes. That's the one thing that stands out as the greatest accomplishment of the revolution. We were given the chance to rise above class distinctions. It isn't easy now but it certainly is possible.

It was classical liberalism. It bears little resemblence to modern liberalism. In fact modern conservatism is closer to it. Today the man who wants to "conserve" the values of our past is the one who's trying to hang on to the revolutionary values of days gone by.

What we quickly learned was that the new boss was just as corrupt as the old boss. By the time of Andrew Jackson corruption in Washington was set in stone. From the violation of treaties with the Native Americans to land grabs in the Appalachians and beyond the Washington scene was quickly dominated by lobbyists and politicians. Witness the quote of Davey Crockett after his old friend, Andy Jackson, had stabbed him in the back politically and caused him to lose his seat in Congress. He said, "You all can go to hell, I'm going to Texas." And he took much of the old romantic republican spirit with him and it died with him at the Alamo.

What we should be concerned about is what follows the mess we have now if we should happen to revolt. The great thing about the American Revolution is that there was a well known plan for a new style of government that was extremely popular in the colonies. If we only have the desire to overthrow a corrupt government we'll quickly disintegrate into a banana republic mold where one revolution follows another with the results always being the same. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

It might become necessary to overthrow the government some day but that will be the beginning of a very tough time in America. We just can't guarantee a moral government will be instituted here. In fact we can be sure it won't be. That's just human nature and swapping one set of corrupt politicians for another won't change a thing.

We have about the best government any country can have here in the USA. That might not always be true but sadly it is true now. I wish it weren't so but it is. The land of milk and honey we all dream of is on the other side of the River Jordan where the streets are paved with gold and you enter through a pearlescent gate.

Would I sign it? Probably because it's true. It just isn't practical. Still I wouldn't want to be the one that stood in the way if it did turn out to be possible.
 
Last edited:
I am suggesting that we, including the self-identified libertarians, have sure moved a long way away from the kind of thinking that founded our nation.

Have we? I think one significant difference is that the citizens of the colonies had no representation in Parliament and no vote in the affairs of the day. Would our Founding Fathers have felt as outraged if most of their fellow citizens had voted for such a tax?

As you already noted, many of the men involved in the Revolution were leaders of their communities. They played an active role in their local governments and were skilled at the logisitics and communications necessary to succeed in politics at that time. Had they been allowed a vote, there is no question they would have represented a significant faction even in a parliamentary system.

I think this is another reason our Revolution was successful when so many others were not. Not only were we given a structure and a stable environment to slowly develop a "shadow" government in the midst of the same government we would later oppose, we also learned the logistics and communications that are necessary to any successful war effort.

This is one reason why I think revolt has been less of a feature in our political system. We essentially have a major revolt every four years and minor revolts every two years. Although these don't have the violent aftermath and destruction of infrastructure as a real civil war, they require mastery of many of the same skills - such as logistics and communication. This one reason why I believe a revolution would be futile as long as this system is accurately reflecting its representative nature - if you had the necessary numbers and skills in logistics and communication to win a war, you could much more easily win a political campaign and without the instability, risk or damage that accompanies a war.

One thing all gun owners should be working on is that logistics and communications aspect. Our founding fathers were leaders and respected men in our communities. We should be as well if we want to be in a position to protect RKBA with either guns or votes - and simply by virtue of taking on those leadership responsibilities, we will learn skills that will serve us well whether we fight with votes or guns.
 
Peter Townshend, The Who, "Won't Get Fooled Again", 1971

From Won't Get Fooled Again on the Who's Next album produced by The Who, associate producer Glyn Johns. A complete quotation credit requires all the pertinent info. ;)

Still one of the best ever.
 
a revolution would be futile as long as this system is accurately reflecting its representative nature
The problem is the system no longer represents the tax payers. In our present system the kids tell the parents what their allowance will be. I am tired of 35+% of my money going to things that I have no influence over and serve no long term benefit to this country. Tax payers are footing the bill and bums are making the decisions.

Think about how much you really pay in taxes:
Federal, state and local income 25-45%
Sales of 4-10% of what is left over.
Gas tax from .25 to .75 per gallon
Property tax
estate tax
excise taxes on cars, firearms, cigarettes, alcohol, and others.
All the government fees you pay for licenses(driving, hunting, fishing, zoning teaching, firearms transfers and FFLs,etc)

All these other taxes besides income add up to well over 10% of your income. So next time you think about what your income tax is, add 10% to get a true figure.

Just wait until they implement a value added sales tax which drops the sales tax onto goods purchased for resale. How does wild feel about paying sales tax when those guns come in the door and still collecting it when they go out?

The more I think about it the more less I am opposed to a new Boston Tea Party.
 
Last edited:
The problem is the system no longer represents the tax payers.
U.S. tax rates rank among the lowest in the world. Civil society costs money. Low taxes in Somalia go hand in hand with tolls exacted by warlords. All in all, I prefer paying the state to mitigate violence and corruption.
 
All in all, I prefer paying the state to mitigate violence and corruption.

How does social security, medicare, department of housing and urban development, unemployment, and the host of other "suck from the teat" programs mitigate violence or corruption?

Because that stuff accounts for between 30 and 40 percent of your tax load right now.

I see that 700 Billion dollar bailout is mitigating a LOT of corruption.:rolleyes:

The parts of government that mitigate violence and corruption are the first 25% of your current tax load.
 
Back
Top