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
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.