As I've said before in trying to close out my thoughts on this thread, the
concept of liberty, and the awesome responsibility of maintaining it, is so
foreign to most people - or so frightening in its complexity and scope -
that they are incapable of understanding or accepting its absolute truth.
Those people are just along for the ride. They will live to inherit and
enjoy the fruits for which others made incredible sacrifices. Yet nothing I
say will persuade you otherwise. Such is the arrogance of experience, the
notion that the sum of what we perceive in our short lifetime equals any
universal truth.
This Constitutional Representative Republic does not exist today in a form
that the founders would recognize, tho' a few would find little to disagree
with. Then, as now, there were those who doubted the soundness of this
experiment.
But it persists as an ideal worth protecting with my life, however vainly,
because short of the fulfillment of my spiritual beliefs (better left unsaid
considering the tone of this thread), there is nothing better on Earth.
Yes, it may come to the point of violating a system of legalism that has
attempted to legislate fundamental freedoms out of existence. But as those
who fought the American Revolution knew, there is a difference between
legalism and justice, between what is law and what is right.
The reason the Constitution is explicit rather than relying on the vagaries
of common law is that the lines are clearly drawn for all to see - whether
they choose to or not, whether they wish to recognize it or not.
Yes, agents within the government acting under color of law have indeed
violated the Constitution. The McCarthy example is a rather poor one
because despite the notoriety of that era (elevated to undeserved stature by
the liberal media) he was eventually stopped when he became abusive. The
fact remains that Communists did hold positions within the U.S. government.
McCarthy simply lost any sense of perspective. I can think of far more
detestable examples of such abuse of power and violation of Constitutional
rights, such as a pre-WWII Douglas MacArthur leading a lethal assault
against American veterans demonstrating to demand their guaranteed benefits.
Yet history regards MacArthur as a somewhat flawed hero of WWII, not as a
criminal who oversaw the massacre of American citizens.
Yes, it is the flawed implementation of a flawless ideal. Diligence, an
understanding of the entire history of mankind, and a refusal to compromise
on certain fundamental principles are required to help others recognize that
this ideal comprises self-evident truths - not a wishbook of whims. And
that protecting this ideal may in an extreme situation involve the ugliest
of all human actions, the killing of those who oppose it. Those who reject
that notion believe that liberty is a gift. Those who accept that awful
truth recognize that liberty is a right.
BTW, it is "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Lex
===
From: "Terry and Tracey" <foxcroft@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 23:11:59 +1100
OK, I've ignored this, but I can sit quiet no longer.
Let's remember a couple of things. The great US of A started through a
treasonous act. That's right. They weren't patriots, they were fighting
their king's forces. Against all law.
The laws designed to protect written after the independence thing were not
applied during that time. Less than 1/2 of the population wanted to become
a
republic. By force of weapons the wants of the few were forced onto the
many. Great ideals?
So, you said the US constitution survives only because of the weapons to
back it up. What if one group believed one thing, and another group
something different. Both believe they are right. Where does it end? This
is
the civil war.
The first amendment didn't stop McCarthy. How did he do that with the
freedom of speech rule? Was the governemnt on his side, effectively denying
the first amendment?
We have no freedom of speech enshrined in our constitution. It is hidden in
common law. We can pray in school. Why can't you? Yet non Christian
religions can. Freedom?
Someone once said unarmed I am a subject, armed I am a citizen. With the
exception of the US, can you show me one country that is not a monarchy or
constitutional monarchy where the freedoms proposed in their constitution
works? Why does it work in the US? They haven't figured out to shoot the
lawyers first. 8-}
How does is owning a gun a fundamental human right? You constitution (or
declaration of independence, I forget which), has those great words
"liberty
freedom and the pursuit of happiness". Shooting makes me happy, but I don't
believe anyone would say it is a fundamental human right.
I love the US. I had the joy to go there recently for work. Wasn't looking
forward to it. Now I'm converted. Take me back, particularly to the South.
But please don't go on about how guns shall set you free. It's like
copulating for virginity.
Foxy
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|