by Dreams End » Sat Aug 05, 2006 1:12 pm
Here is a portion of the Declaration of Independence...calling for the institution of new government. Not anarchy. Roth is simply living in some weird fantasy world, likely involving lifesize inflatable Ayn Rand dolls.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>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 <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>institute new Government,</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> 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.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>The "Founding Fathers" also wrote a Constitution, which specifically installed a new form of government...<br><br>A more interesting debate, because it is based on fact, would be the real politics behind the initial rebellion. Zinn has it that there was a British elite and then opposing them was a growing upper middle class who had wealth but not the same elite status. They, in turn, encouraged and organized various more broadbased rebellions with the ultimate goal of grabbing a bigger share of the pie.<br><br>Naturally, it was a difficult balancing act. One wants to incite the masses to rebellion against the central British economic elites but NOT against the homegrown elites. There is a vast paper trail of discussion about how to keep the thing from getting TOO democratic and for making sure that laws and systems are in protect the property of the wealthy from the masses. The central debate, in fact, was not whether or not there should be a government...that's just silliness...but what form it should take...and many of the founders were quite explicit about distrusting the masses...which is why originally only men of property had any democratic rights to speak of. <br><br>There are also those interested in the parapolitics..since so many of the founding fathers were freemasons, etc. I don't have much to say about that, really, though I do know that cries of "freemasonic plot" have accompanied resistance to social movements quite frequently. "Everyone would be perfectly happy if it weren't for these conspirators stirring the pot." <br><br>And I assume that many of the rank and file of the Revolution really believed in the cause and that rebelling against England was a noble cause that would make their lives better. I just think the rich guys channeled all that energy into ways that kept their elite status safe.<br><br>By the way, Roth, I abandoned our Jesus genealogy side conversation because I don't really have much of a bone to pick there..the significance to me of the genealogies is only really in terms of those who believe the Gospels are literal and inerrant...i.e. basically dictated by God. You suggested those men were doing their best to record the history as they understood it...I don't have a problem with that, though one can argue then about the facts on the ground at the time...that wasn't really the point. I'm not out to "disprove Jesus existed" because I think he did exist. He even had a brother named James whose writings we still have. <p></p><i></i>
