8 ms·

The Declaration of Independence states that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator wit

by nkoren 13y ago

The Declaration of Independence states that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Gendered language aside, the idea of the founders was clearly that rights derive from one's innate humanity, and do not derive from government largess. This was the ideal which provided America's inner light; for all of America's mis-steps, the proclamation of this core ideal fanned the flames of some sort of tendency towards goodness. This ideal is all but gone. Today, the American government baldly proclaims that rights do not belong to human beings, but are conferred only by citizenship. the starkest example of this remains John Yoo's rationale (embraced by the Bush administration) for why the Geneva Convention does not apply to the Taliban: that the rights guaranteed by the Convention were not human rights, but rights granted to combatants of UN member states. Yoo argued that human rights did not exist, and that rights derive solely from citizenship. To be fair, the roots of that doctrine long preceded the Bush administration, and have continue to grow since. But when I look at framing of debate about rights -- and this applies not only to the NSA spying, but also to the outrage over the fact that the US President would order the drone assassination of, gasp, American citizens (as opposed to the thousands of other non-combatants he has killed in the same way) -- when I see this, it becomes clear that the ideals which inspired the declaration of independence are long since gone.

sounds 13y ago
Thank you for that. Can I just say, I wouldn't say the Enlightenment Ideal is all but gone. It's not even near death. We, the people, chose leaders and were betrayed. That doesn't just apply to the US, but I'll start there. I believe the people were half-awake...but not completely unaware of who they were electing or what they would lose. The idealist's battle against tyranny on one side and anarchy on the other is strewn all across the pages of history. Some idealists lost their way. But the ideals, "Safety and Happiness" – really, the entire Declaration of Independence or the UN Declaration of Human Rights – the ideals don't die. They are self-evident. Like 3.14159 and 2.71828.
- obviouslygreen 13y ago
  We, the people, chose leaders and were betrayed. That doesn't just apply to the US... Absolutely true. Unfortunately, in my opinion, one of the things that simply does not work in modern democracy is the election system, two-party death march or otherwise: Candidates play to emotion and often outright lie or intentionally overpromise solely for the purpose of attaining office. And it works, every damn time. They then find themselves either predictably impotent or, worse, they settle in and show their real colors... and usually win re-election anyway. If enough people continue to fail to understand this, the majority of the voting public will continue to actively subjugate everyone to the rule and whim of dangerously uninterested officials, and those who do understand will continue to find themselves without candidates worth voting for, as these races the world over are overwhelmingly choked with self-serving bureaucrats who have little if any interest in their constituents' (or anyone else's) well-being.
  - sounds 13y ago
    No, the ability to choose the outcome is still well and truly in our hands. I didn't say when or where, but I do believe that the power to govern invariably flows from the people themselves.
    - crusso 13y ago
      Nah, it's too late. The USA is no longer what it was relative to the rest of the world. It still has the same flag, but the understanding of the importance of Liberty is largely gone. 200+ years ago, a large portion of the population would rather die than be dictated to by an implacable and uncaring confiscatory government. Today the population doesn't even realize what they're missing because they have really good cable television, video games, and reality shows.
    - jacoblyles 13y ago
      99.999% of government officials aren't close to being touched by elections. Do you honestly believe you can change government significantly while leaving 99.999% of the government unchanged? See my previous comment on the issue: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5842029 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5842029
7952 13y ago
The constitution was written for a world that lacked instant communication and had clearly defined jurisdictions that could be drawn on a map. It is time to extend the bill or rights to everyone.
- dfc 13y ago
  Just so we are clear the comment you are replying to is quoting the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution. These documents are very different.
- mosselman 13y ago
  Welcome to the world outside of the US, there is such a thing as 'human rights' already you know. You can keep your bill of 'rights' where it is, thanks.
chrisdevereux 13y ago
Actually, it died fairly quickly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts_of_1798 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts_of_1798
tome 13y ago
> This ideal is all but gone. Doesn't slavery demonstrate that this ideal never even existed in the first place?
- taway2012 13y ago
  I wish I had some authoritative references for this. Hopefully somebody else can write authoritatively or correct me. Based on my readings, slavery was always a problematic aspect of America. Even the founders debated whether to abolish slavery, but ultimately punted because they felt uniting the states was more important. That is, it was a tough compromise. Take a look at the book The Long March (about Lincoln). There was a several-decade long movement before 1864 to abolish slavery.
  - elwin 13y ago
    William Freehling's Road to Disunion covers the topic thoroughly. Most of the founders expected slavery to die away gradually. The idea that it should remain permanently didn't appear for another 50 years and was never universal, even in the Deep South. The book also explores the tensions between slavery and American ideals, and the many complications the tensions produced.
- krapp 13y ago
  An ideal can exist, but take time to be fully realized. It's not as though slavery were universally accepted in America even at the height of its use.
- crusso 13y ago
  It demonstrated that they had the right ideals but were unable to put them into practice in one fell swoop. As Lincoln pointed out - the framework of the Declaration was an ideal to be pursued. The Founders' wisdom in what they put into motion necessitated the eventual end of slavery. There's a big difference between moving toward the Declaration as an ideal as we still were in the time from the Founding until the early 1900s vs completely running away from those ideals as we have since.
  - 13y ago
masklinn 13y ago
Not that this is much of a surprise. You'll have a hard time reconciling France's last 200 years with the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen it birthed
Goladus 13y ago
It would, perhaps, be enlightening to quote the entire sentence from the US Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. In particular: ...deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed... In other words, I give MY government the power to arrest, prosecute, employ various armed agents to use against ME if I violate its laws. I've made no such tacit contract with France, or Russia or Singapore or China or anywhere else. Russians spying on me may be violating a treaty, but they've made no implicit social contract with me via a constitution or other set of laws.
- furyg3 13y ago
  You are interpreting this precisely backwards. These "Rights" are unalienable. They are not to be given away, they are not to be taken away. Governments exist to secure these rights. To help protect these rights, the government may exist... but only by consent of the people being governed. It may be true that the Russian government does not give these rights to it's citizens, or that these citizens yield these rights to the Russian government. Nevertheless, according to the morals listed in the DoI, the US government is founded on the belief that Russians have these rights, because they are human beings. Therefore, the US government, when dealing with 'men' of any nationally, needs to respect the unalienable Rights which all men have been granted by their Creator. Anything else is hypocritical. Edit: after thinking about it, it gets even better. Because foreigners have not consented to being governed by the US, the rights of foreigners not to be spied on by the US government would go even further than the rights of Americans. And yes, I know the DoI is not law. But if we Americans cannot simultaneously claim to believe in it's principles and make laws that contradict it without being hypocritical.
  - 13y ago
pekk 13y ago
That ideal was gone at the time those words were written, when the founders had slaves.
r0s 13y ago
I was interested, so I found the original John Yoo opinion on the subject: http://works.bepress.com/johnyoo/9/ http://works.bepress.com/johnyoo/9/
rayiner 13y ago
> that they are endowed by their Creator Okay, so what about all of us that don't believe in the supernatural? Do our rights come from an all-loving God, or are they creations of man like everything else in society?
- jebblue 13y ago
  It says "their creator". You didn't spring up from a cabbage patch so something created you. The total context of what that means to you is up to you. The US is a free country, believe what you want. A lot of people died and do die to give us that, I'm grateful for them and for the US even though I wish and pray for a better choice in the next election.
- bobwaycott 13y ago
  Well, Enlightenment ideals that were still based in semi-religious terminology aside, "their Creator" does not necessarily require an appeal to the supernatural. One would, I think, be justified interpreting that to mean the physical processes of the Universe from which humankind arose (justified in interpreting the meaning of 'their Creator', not necessarily possessed of an easily established and defended position regarding how rights themselves rose from the primordial soup (which I must admit would make for an entertaining read)). Science had yet to provide an explanation for the origin of life, as I'm sure you know, and we can safely dispense with the defense that these rights come from a god. To suggest they come from the Universe is equally silly, but it's a hell of a lot better than the supernatural. One would, I think, be more justified interpreting it properly just as you said--the Creator is humankind itself, like everything else in society. All (nearly all?) notable political theorists have built their analyses of social states on the premise that there are fundamental rights agreed to be important for all persons, for which humankind organizes governments/societies to protect and guarantee in the pursuit of justice. (I can't think of a notable theorist who has argued otherwise, but would be interested in knowing of one.) Their appeals to the supernatural aside, the founders are certainly the creators of the rights of which we still believe we are endowed.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    > To suggest they come from the Universe is equally silly, but it's a hell of a lot better than the supernatural. No, it's equally supernatural. > One would, I think, be more justified interpreting it properly just as you said--the Creator is humankind itself, like everything else in society. Rights come from your neighbors willing to fight to protect your "rights" whether its your right to life or your right to property. And that's why rights are not universal. I'll take up arms to defend my neighbors, but not people in China or Russia.

by nkoren 13y ago

sounds 13y ago

Thank you for that. Can I just say, I wouldn't say the Enlightenment Ideal is all but gone. It's not even near death. We, the people, chose leaders and were betrayed. That doesn't just apply to the US, but I'll start there. I believe the people were half-awake...but not completely unaware of who they were electing or what they would lose. The idealist's battle against tyranny on one side and anarchy on the other is strewn all across the pages of history. Some idealists lost their way. But the ideals, "Safety and Happiness" – really, the entire Declaration of Independence or the UN Declaration of Human Rights – the ideals don't die. They are self-evident. Like 3.14159 and 2.71828.

obviouslygreen 13y ago
We, the people, chose leaders and were betrayed. That doesn't just apply to the US... Absolutely true. Unfortunately, in my opinion, one of the things that simply does not work in modern democracy is the election system, two-party death march or otherwise: Candidates play to emotion and often outright lie or intentionally overpromise solely for the purpose of attaining office. And it works, every damn time. They then find themselves either predictably impotent or, worse, they settle in and show their real colors... and usually win re-election anyway. If enough people continue to fail to understand this, the majority of the voting public will continue to actively subjugate everyone to the rule and whim of dangerously uninterested officials, and those who do understand will continue to find themselves without candidates worth voting for, as these races the world over are overwhelmingly choked with self-serving bureaucrats who have little if any interest in their constituents' (or anyone else's) well-being.
- sounds 13y ago
  No, the ability to choose the outcome is still well and truly in our hands. I didn't say when or where, but I do believe that the power to govern invariably flows from the people themselves.
  - crusso 13y ago
    Nah, it's too late. The USA is no longer what it was relative to the rest of the world. It still has the same flag, but the understanding of the importance of Liberty is largely gone. 200+ years ago, a large portion of the population would rather die than be dictated to by an implacable and uncaring confiscatory government. Today the population doesn't even realize what they're missing because they have really good cable television, video games, and reality shows.
  - jacoblyles 13y ago
    99.999% of government officials aren't close to being touched by elections. Do you honestly believe you can change government significantly while leaving 99.999% of the government unchanged? See my previous comment on the issue: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5842029 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5842029

7952 13y ago

The constitution was written for a world that lacked instant communication and had clearly defined jurisdictions that could be drawn on a map. It is time to extend the bill or rights to everyone.

dfc 13y ago
Just so we are clear the comment you are replying to is quoting the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution. These documents are very different.
mosselman 13y ago
Welcome to the world outside of the US, there is such a thing as 'human rights' already you know. You can keep your bill of 'rights' where it is, thanks.

chrisdevereux 13y ago

Actually, it died fairly quickly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts_of_1798 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts_of_1798

tome 13y ago

> This ideal is all but gone. Doesn't slavery demonstrate that this ideal never even existed in the first place?

taway2012 13y ago
I wish I had some authoritative references for this. Hopefully somebody else can write authoritatively or correct me. Based on my readings, slavery was always a problematic aspect of America. Even the founders debated whether to abolish slavery, but ultimately punted because they felt uniting the states was more important. That is, it was a tough compromise. Take a look at the book The Long March (about Lincoln). There was a several-decade long movement before 1864 to abolish slavery.
- elwin 13y ago
  William Freehling's Road to Disunion covers the topic thoroughly. Most of the founders expected slavery to die away gradually. The idea that it should remain permanently didn't appear for another 50 years and was never universal, even in the Deep South. The book also explores the tensions between slavery and American ideals, and the many complications the tensions produced.
krapp 13y ago
An ideal can exist, but take time to be fully realized. It's not as though slavery were universally accepted in America even at the height of its use.
crusso 13y ago
It demonstrated that they had the right ideals but were unable to put them into practice in one fell swoop. As Lincoln pointed out - the framework of the Declaration was an ideal to be pursued. The Founders' wisdom in what they put into motion necessitated the eventual end of slavery. There's a big difference between moving toward the Declaration as an ideal as we still were in the time from the Founding until the early 1900s vs completely running away from those ideals as we have since.
- 13y ago

masklinn 13y ago

Not that this is much of a surprise. You'll have a hard time reconciling France's last 200 years with the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen it birthed

Goladus 13y ago

It would, perhaps, be enlightening to quote the entire sentence from the US Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. In particular: ...deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed... In other words, I give MY government the power to arrest, prosecute, employ various armed agents to use against ME if I violate its laws. I've made no such tacit contract with France, or Russia or Singapore or China or anywhere else. Russians spying on me may be violating a treaty, but they've made no implicit social contract with me via a constitution or other set of laws.

furyg3 13y ago
You are interpreting this precisely backwards. These "Rights" are unalienable. They are not to be given away, they are not to be taken away. Governments exist to secure these rights. To help protect these rights, the government may exist... but only by consent of the people being governed. It may be true that the Russian government does not give these rights to it's citizens, or that these citizens yield these rights to the Russian government. Nevertheless, according to the morals listed in the DoI, the US government is founded on the belief that Russians have these rights, because they are human beings. Therefore, the US government, when dealing with 'men' of any nationally, needs to respect the unalienable Rights which all men have been granted by their Creator. Anything else is hypocritical. Edit: after thinking about it, it gets even better. Because foreigners have not consented to being governed by the US, the rights of foreigners not to be spied on by the US government would go even further than the rights of Americans. And yes, I know the DoI is not law. But if we Americans cannot simultaneously claim to believe in it's principles and make laws that contradict it without being hypocritical.
- 13y ago

pekk 13y ago

That ideal was gone at the time those words were written, when the founders had slaves.

r0s 13y ago

I was interested, so I found the original John Yoo opinion on the subject: http://works.bepress.com/johnyoo/9/ http://works.bepress.com/johnyoo/9/

rayiner 13y ago

> that they are endowed by their Creator Okay, so what about all of us that don't believe in the supernatural? Do our rights come from an all-loving God, or are they creations of man like everything else in society?

jebblue 13y ago
It says "their creator". You didn't spring up from a cabbage patch so something created you. The total context of what that means to you is up to you. The US is a free country, believe what you want. A lot of people died and do die to give us that, I'm grateful for them and for the US even though I wish and pray for a better choice in the next election.
bobwaycott 13y ago
Well, Enlightenment ideals that were still based in semi-religious terminology aside, "their Creator" does not necessarily require an appeal to the supernatural. One would, I think, be justified interpreting that to mean the physical processes of the Universe from which humankind arose (justified in interpreting the meaning of 'their Creator', not necessarily possessed of an easily established and defended position regarding how rights themselves rose from the primordial soup (which I must admit would make for an entertaining read)). Science had yet to provide an explanation for the origin of life, as I'm sure you know, and we can safely dispense with the defense that these rights come from a god. To suggest they come from the Universe is equally silly, but it's a hell of a lot better than the supernatural. One would, I think, be more justified interpreting it properly just as you said--the Creator is humankind itself, like everything else in society. All (nearly all?) notable political theorists have built their analyses of social states on the premise that there are fundamental rights agreed to be important for all persons, for which humankind organizes governments/societies to protect and guarantee in the pursuit of justice. (I can't think of a notable theorist who has argued otherwise, but would be interested in knowing of one.) Their appeals to the supernatural aside, the founders are certainly the creators of the rights of which we still believe we are endowed.
- rayiner 13y ago
  > To suggest they come from the Universe is equally silly, but it's a hell of a lot better than the supernatural. No, it's equally supernatural. > One would, I think, be more justified interpreting it properly just as you said--the Creator is humankind itself, like everything else in society. Rights come from your neighbors willing to fight to protect your "rights" whether its your right to life or your right to property. And that's why rights are not universal. I'll take up arms to defend my neighbors, but not people in China or Russia.