[Oboro returns home late, as usual, to a pleasant surprise. He's excited to see the package, and more excited to delve into the documents within. He hasn't forgotten Josh's promise of reading material, so even though the content is difficult, several harrowing visits to the library and questionable internet searches later, he's written a response.]
The documents you've given me took some time to read, so I apologize for the delayed response. In general, I think they say some interesting things. The first part of the Declaration seems to be saying that even people you don't like are entitled to your reasons. That it's your duty to tell them, even if nothing can change. This was my understanding as well, though it's difficult to know when to respect hierarchy and when to provide this sort of information.
Overall, I noticed how often both documents focus on freedom. The pursuit of happiness is an understandable goal, as is the desire to be safe, but what should be done if freedom inhibits those things? As much as the Constitution tries to keep the government from taking away freedoms, the Declaration mentions at least once 'safety and happiness' without freedom, so I believe that it's secondary to the other two. Still, there aren't many ways for your government to ensure them, with all of the people's free will protected. Do you think your people are happier, being able to make mistakes that could be prevented?
The Declaration is a group of people escaping a tyrant, since the King, a man and not the Heavens, commit many injustices. Rising against him makes sense, even if I wouldn't expect it. Some of his actions are common among statesman, such as using any means for compliance and taking prisoners of war and forcing them to fight. But since your people were able to write a letter, they can be free. What about the governed people who do not consent and can't write? Most slaves are illiterate, and some may have no other safety but to rely on an unjust lord.
I believe that the line "all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed" is true. What has been predetermined should not be challenged lightly. Suffering is the most common result of such attempts, maybe the only one, since the effects of such efforts extend for decades. The Declaration contradicts itself, I think, when it says that only after a long string of abuses should suffering be challenged. That means those with good lives should never look to change their fortunes or positions, yet they're the ones most capable, and most often seeking new paths - and the ones writing the document. If only those who suffer may rise against their suffering, yet it is that very resistance which causes suffering, that means they're trapped in a cycle, and their efforts are worthless.
I will bring your items back to your office tomorrow, and we can discuss things when you're available. [He doesn't want to impose, but he's eager to debate.]
Remember context, and know that there were a great many documents that came before this and influenced it. America's Founding Fathers were great thinkers, inspired and guided by the likes of Plato and Aristotle and a list I could spend all day writing out and still not get halfway through.
So I'm asking you to consider this information in a vacuum, which is a little unfair, but you seem to be doing just fine with tackling the gist of it. A few things I should mention: There's some hypocrisy in here; many of those whose signatures appear in these papers insisting on equality and freedom kept slaves. Also, as you'll see with the addition of the Amendments, the Constitution is a living, breathing document. It changes. It's meant to be flexible and to evolve as the needs of American society evolve.
I don't believe freedom is secondary to safety and happiness; I believe that the three are co-dependent, and for one to exist, the other two must as well. That said, yes, I think it's important to allow people to make mistakes that could be prevented through whatever means. I don't know if that makes anyone happier in the end, but it's another kind of freedom that must be protected. Maybe some of the choices you make bring unhappiness with them, but without the promise of freedom and safety, it'd be almost impossible to find happiness again anyway.
Which I know raises a lot of questions about happiness, and I dunno that I'm the right guy to talk to about that specifically.
You're right that these people were escaping a man and not a higher power, but how familiar are you with the monarchical system itself? There's a whole history there that includes a belief in the "divine right of kings" — it's not something England subscribed to at the time, at least on paper. It comes back to the idea of fate, in some ways. It says that monarchs rule as a result of the will of God, and are therefore not subject to earthly laws. Kings aren't elected to the throne, but are rather born into it. In the United States, we let the people decide who should be given power through the democratic process. We ask them to exercise free will in that way, and we then hold those who are elected to the same set of laws as private citizens. (Mostly. Things get tricky sometimes.)
I'm not sure what you mean by "some may have no other safety but to rely on an unjust lord." If the person in question is unjust, how are they providing any safety? By forcing those under them to submit to the system in place, rather than rebelling against it, and doing them the favor of allowing survival?
This seems like a good point to acknowledge that we're speaking from two vastly different viewpoints. I come from a relatively wealthy family that lived in a safe area of the country. I had every comfort growing up, I was able to attend prestigious schools, and I got a great education. This is often the argument made about politicians: That we're disconnected from the people we serve because of our privilege. I know you saw that in some of that in the documents, especially with the language used — it's not writing that would have been accessible to everyone, but it was still written in what was believed to be the best interests of the country the Founders were trying to form.
The point I'll disagree on you on is your last paragraph, which is why I brought up my background. I don't know the extent of what your life was like before you died, but I have enough evidence to make a somewhat educated guess. Out of respect, I won't. If you want to tell me more, I'll listen.
Those who suffer may incur more suffering as a result of rising against it, but in my experience, that's the first step toward real societal change when those in power have failed. There are plenty of historical examples I could provide from my own world to illustrate that (including slavery). I wish that weren't the case, but there's a reason the phrase "things get worse before they get better" exists. Is that fair? Hell no. But should that stop people from protesting, from demanding better, from seeking relief, from shoving fate off course?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
The documents you've given me took some time to read, so I apologize for the delayed response. In general, I think they say some interesting things. The first part of the Declaration seems to be saying that even people you don't like are entitled to your reasons. That it's your duty to tell them, even if nothing can change. This was my understanding as well, though it's difficult to know when to respect hierarchy and when to provide this sort of information.
Overall, I noticed how often both documents focus on freedom. The pursuit of happiness is an understandable goal, as is the desire to be safe, but what should be done if freedom inhibits those things? As much as the Constitution tries to keep the government from taking away freedoms, the Declaration mentions at least once 'safety and happiness' without freedom, so I believe that it's secondary to the other two. Still, there aren't many ways for your government to ensure them, with all of the people's free will protected. Do you think your people are happier, being able to make mistakes that could be prevented?
The Declaration is a group of people escaping a tyrant, since the King, a man and not the Heavens, commit many injustices. Rising against him makes sense, even if I wouldn't expect it. Some of his actions are common among statesman, such as using any means for compliance and taking prisoners of war and forcing them to fight. But since your people were able to write a letter, they can be free. What about the governed people who do not consent and can't write? Most slaves are illiterate, and some may have no other safety but to rely on an unjust lord.
I believe that the line "all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed" is true. What has been predetermined should not be challenged lightly. Suffering is the most common result of such attempts, maybe the only one, since the effects of such efforts extend for decades. The Declaration contradicts itself, I think, when it says that only after a long string of abuses should suffering be challenged. That means those with good lives should never look to change their fortunes or positions, yet they're the ones most capable, and most often seeking new paths - and the ones writing the document. If only those who suffer may rise against their suffering, yet it is that very resistance which causes suffering, that means they're trapped in a cycle, and their efforts are worthless.
I will bring your items back to your office tomorrow, and we can discuss things when you're available. [He doesn't want to impose, but he's eager to debate.]
no subject
So I'm asking you to consider this information in a vacuum, which is a little unfair, but you seem to be doing just fine with tackling the gist of it. A few things I should mention: There's some hypocrisy in here; many of those whose signatures appear in these papers insisting on equality and freedom kept slaves. Also, as you'll see with the addition of the Amendments, the Constitution is a living, breathing document. It changes. It's meant to be flexible and to evolve as the needs of American society evolve.
I don't believe freedom is secondary to safety and happiness; I believe that the three are co-dependent, and for one to exist, the other two must as well. That said, yes, I think it's important to allow people to make mistakes that could be prevented through whatever means. I don't know if that makes anyone happier in the end, but it's another kind of freedom that must be protected. Maybe some of the choices you make bring unhappiness with them, but without the promise of freedom and safety, it'd be almost impossible to find happiness again anyway.
Which I know raises a lot of questions about happiness, and I dunno that I'm the right guy to talk to about that specifically.
You're right that these people were escaping a man and not a higher power, but how familiar are you with the monarchical system itself? There's a whole history there that includes a belief in the "divine right of kings" — it's not something England subscribed to at the time, at least on paper. It comes back to the idea of fate, in some ways. It says that monarchs rule as a result of the will of God, and are therefore not subject to earthly laws. Kings aren't elected to the throne, but are rather born into it. In the United States, we let the people decide who should be given power through the democratic process. We ask them to exercise free will in that way, and we then hold those who are elected to the same set of laws as private citizens. (Mostly. Things get tricky sometimes.)
I'm not sure what you mean by "some may have no other safety but to rely on an unjust lord." If the person in question is unjust, how are they providing any safety? By forcing those under them to submit to the system in place, rather than rebelling against it, and doing them the favor of allowing survival?
This seems like a good point to acknowledge that we're speaking from two vastly different viewpoints. I come from a relatively wealthy family that lived in a safe area of the country. I had every comfort growing up, I was able to attend prestigious schools, and I got a great education. This is often the argument made about politicians: That we're disconnected from the people we serve because of our privilege. I know you saw that in some of that in the documents, especially with the language used — it's not writing that would have been accessible to everyone, but it was still written in what was believed to be the best interests of the country the Founders were trying to form.
The point I'll disagree on you on is your last paragraph, which is why I brought up my background. I don't know the extent of what your life was like before you died, but I have enough evidence to make a somewhat educated guess. Out of respect, I won't. If you want to tell me more, I'll listen.
Those who suffer may incur more suffering as a result of rising against it, but in my experience, that's the first step toward real societal change when those in power have failed. There are plenty of historical examples I could provide from my own world to illustrate that (including slavery). I wish that weren't the case, but there's a reason the phrase "things get worse before they get better" exists. Is that fair? Hell no. But should that stop people from protesting, from demanding better, from seeking relief, from shoving fate off course?
Hell no.