Where is your Loyalty?

[InterestedParticipant]

Where is your Loyalty? I look at the thousands of threads here, and I cannot figure it out.

[SWATH]

I suppose my ultimate loyalty would not be to a document but to a philosophy of liberty.

[aclove]

2nd what Swath said. My primary loyalty is to the principles of self-ownership, non-aggression, and individual liberty.

[Baptist]

God.

That is why I don't say the pledge of allegiance anymore. My allegiance is to God and Jesus.

[FrankRep]

Sounds like a trick question.

I have loyalty to God, Myself, and the Declaration of Independence/Constitution.

[youngbuck]

I selected Declaration of Independence (inherently includes God)


mainly because, as you point out, it inherently includes God.

[JamesButabi]

I suppose my ultimate loyalty would not be to a document but to a philosophy of liberty.

+1. Many of the objects listed are good teaching tools to the philosophy.

[pcosmar]

God.

That is why I don't say the pledge of allegiance anymore. My allegiance is to God and Jesus.

^
seconded

First allegiance is to God, secondly to the principals of liberty.

[torchbearer]

loyal to myself first.

[Baptist]

I personally strongly believe in having a final authority. The final authority for governing America is the Constitution. So I advocate getting public officials, in all spheres of government, who will follow the Constitution. However, my personal philosophy is becoming more and more anarchist everyday. So even though my personal philosophy may be in conflict with the Constitution at times, I still advocate that our leaders follow it.

In my perfect world our political leaders would follow the Constitution today, but starting tomorrow we'd begin devising plans to get rid of government all together. In my perfect world there would be no government, and we'd on our own chose to live by the Bible. Of course that will never happen, so I'd take just getting rid of government so that I can be left alone to worship as I see fit.

[dr. hfn]

The Philosophy of Liberty

[StateofTrance]

I'm a Ron Paul sheep.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

I suppose my ultimate loyalty would not be to a document but to a philosophy of liberty.

this.

[Andrew-Austin]

I look at the thousands of threads here, and I cannot figure it out.

Does that surprise you or what?



Declaration of Independence No


United States Constitution

Definitely no. Against Constitution worship. And I think we'd be better off if they'd stuck with the Articles of Confederation, or if the Confederacy were successful in seceding, or if the union broke up today and came up with far better Constitutions than that one.



Ron Paul

I like and respect him greatly but no.



A Poltical Party LOL.


A Political Group No. This is supposed to be all that different from the political party option?



Other (please specify) Ideas. My own morals/values.

[constituent]

My loyalty is to loyalties in that I loyally avoid them.

[mediahasyou]

voluntaryism

[TC95]

God.

That is why I don't say the pledge of allegiance anymore. My allegiance is to God and Jesus.


^
seconded

First allegiance is to God, secondly to the principals of liberty.

Thirded. :)

[Elwar]

<----- This guy

[Peoples_Front_of_Paul]

With Ron, and I'm not afraid to admit it!

[MelissaWV]

Myself.

Of course, that "inherently includes God," as I believe I was created by God (and given free will by God... what was He thinking?!).

It also includes Dr. Paul, because his goals jive with mine, but if he were to change his tune, mine would still remain the same. In that contest, it's obvious who I'd stick with.

It includes the Declaration of Independence as an ideal, as a document that emerged at the time, as a symbol of breaking away from tyrrany and starting relatively fresh.

It includes the Constitution, which is a line towards which we can push the current situations and gain more liberty for ourselves. Without faith in myself, I would cower, and want more and more Government to protect me from myself and others.

It includes the philosophies which I hold dear, the actions I'm willing to take to advance those ideas and protect my rights, and so on.

Ultimately, though, I have to be true to myself.

[muzzled dogg]

2nd what Swath said. My primary loyalty is to the principles of self-ownership, non-aggression, and individual liberty.

:cool:

[torchbearer]

I support Ron because his ideas are good for me.

[Libertytree]

Bill of Rights.

Declaration of Independence.

Constitution.

You.

I.

Every patriot we can muster.

That's where my loyalties lie.

[Arklatex]

My loyalty is to you, all of life on this plant and beyond. As we are all one. I am loyal to the infinite one creator.

Positive Vibrations yeah!

[nobody's_hero]

Why does the O.P. suggest that the D.o.I. inherently requires 'loyalty' to God?

There's nothing in the D.o.I. that suggests a requirement of loyalty to God. It only says that the 'creator' endowed you with rights. Some believe in a creator, some do not, but you have rights all the same.

[Kludge]

My loyalty is to loyalties in that I loyally avoid them.

^ loyal to him 4everrrrrrr

txt me!

[BenIsForRon]

My loyalty is to the Reptilians, who could squash the planet at any moment, with their mind.

[lester1/2jr]

with scott brown, regardless of how he votes :lol:

[torchbearer]

My loyalty is to the Reptilians, who could squash the planet at any moment, with their mind.

Your loyalty is well placed. Your mind will be subjucated last.

[__27__]

I swear allegiance to no man, and expect allegiance from none.

[UtahApocalypse]

"inherently includes God"

Way to eliminate the option I would have went with. Are you saying that because I am an agnostic I cannot hold the declaration of independence sacred and most important?

[FrankRep]

Why does the O.P. suggest that the D.o.I. inherently requires 'loyalty' to God?

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

The Declaration of Independence


When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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.


The Declaration of Independence sounds God inspired to me.

[someperson]

I am loyal to ideas. Policy over personality, party, and label.

[InterestedParticipant]

"inherently includes God"

Way to eliminate the option I would have went with. Are you saying that because I am an agnostic I cannot hold the declaration of independence sacred and most important?
What is an unalienable right? Define it for me please.

[krazy kaju]

Freedom.

[InterestedParticipant]

I am loyal to ideas. Policy over personality, party, and label.
Ideas change over time. So do policies.

So, ones interpretation of say the Declaration of Independence can change over time, wouldn't that be consistent with your statement?

[New2Libertarianism]

RP is my god.

[The Patriot]

I would say to the ideals of life, liberty and property as outlined in the Declaration of Independence. I can't say I am loyal to one thing. I am loyal to the Constitution, but believe we have the right to withdraw from the Constitution and the Union when the Constitution is being overlooked and ignored by the Federal Government.

[UtahApocalypse]

What is an unalienable right? Define it for me please.

A right that cannot be taken away, or forced against.

[FrankRep]

A right that cannot be taken away, or forced against.


DOI: 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

The Declaration of Independence says God/Creator endowed Man certain unalienable Rights. Do you disagree with the Declaration of Independence?

[BuddyRey]

Natural Rights and the Non-Aggression Principle.

[phill4paul]

Loyalty to a petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul. — Mark Twain

Loyalty is defined by faithfulness or devotion to a person, a cause, idea etc... Loyalty is anti-thetical for true unbiased judgement.

I try to remain impartial, but in a society that reveres loyalty and teaches it from birth, it is almost an impossibility. Make that absolutely impossible.

[nobody's_hero]

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

The Declaration of Independence


When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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.


The Declaration of Independence sounds God inspired to me.

I wasn't questioning whether or not the authors of the Declaration of Independence were inspired by God (it is apparent that Jefferson was), but the issue of 'loyalty' came into the equation.

I just don't see in the Dec. of Independence that God requires loyalty in exchange for our rights. That was the concept that I was questioning. Jefferson did not make such a claim, either.

If that were the case, no one would have any unalienable rights, because babies obviously can't pledge loyalty to God in exhange for receipt of their natural rights.

Everyone is born with such rights, unconditionally, and apparently God doesn't discriminate on the matter, because there have been some particularly rotten people with natural rights (they simply don't respect the rights of others, so we call these people, rightfully, tyrants, and deal with them accordingly).

EDIT: Basically, I agree with Utah Apocalypse that it was a good choice but it got botched by the confusing parenthetical caveat at the end. I chose the D.o.I. because it is my favorite, but as I mentioned earlier, I have to consider the irony of pledging "loyalty" to a Declaration of Independence.

[lynnf]

although God is mentioned only once in the Constitution (in the year of our Lord)
it is built upon God's law and therefore also inherently includes God also.

I picked the Constitution, of which the Declaration of Independence is an unofficial preamble.


lynn

[InterestedParticipant]

Loyalty to a petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul. — Mark Twain
Twain is wrong. Twice in human history loyalty to an idea freed mankind.
First, in Athens, pre-400BC.
Second, in 1700's United State of America.

[Theocrat]

It should be obvious where my loyalty lies.

[InterestedParticipant]

I wasn't questioning whether or not the authors of the Declaration of Independence were inspired by God (it is apparent that Jefferson was), but the issue of 'loyalty' came into the equation.

I just don't see in the Dec. of Independence that God requires loyalty in exchange for our rights. That was the concept that I was questioning. Jefferson did not make such a claim, either.

If that were the case, no one would have any unalienable rights, because babies obviously can't pledge loyalty to God in exhange for receipt of their natural rights.

Everyone is born with such rights, unconditionally, and apparently God doesn't discriminate on the matter, because there have been some particularly rotten people with natural rights (they simply don't respect the rights of others, so we call these people, rightfully, tyrants, and deal with them accordingly).

EDIT: Basically, I agree with Utah Apocalypse that it was a good choice but it got botched by the confusing parenthetical caveat at the end. I chose the D.o.I. because it is my favorite, but as I mentioned earlier, I have to consider the irony of pledging "loyalty" to a Declaration of Independence.
How does one separate the concepts inside the DOI from God? Please explain that to me.

[someperson]

Ideas change over time. So do policies.

So, ones interpretation of say the Declaration of Independence can change over time, wouldn't that be consistent with your statement?
Allow me to be more clear: I am loyal to my ideas. I cannot say that I'm loyal to the ideas of any other individual. I have changed my ideas in the past, and may change them in the future, however, I will not define, in an absolute sense, the ideas of another. With study and context, one can interpret the words of another individual with relative accuracy. However, these interpretations would be my ideas, not the ideas of the author.

With that said, yes, one individual can interpret the words of another individual, such as those words attached to the Declaration of Independence, differently at different times. Time, itself, obviously, would not be the reason for this; the reason would likely be a change in understanding of either the words themselves or the context in which they are presented.

[nobody's_hero]

How does one separate the concepts inside the DOI from God? Please explain that to me.

Because it is a quesiton of loyalty.

This is a declaration:


All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.

This is an imperative:


Give your loyalty to God.

The Declaration of Independence is just that—a declaration. There is no imperative statement demanding loyalty to be found within it—Not to King George III, nor to the thirteen colonies, nor even to God himself.

I'm not trying to make it a matter of separating the concepts of the Declaration of Independence from God. It is a matter of whether or not God's demand for our loyalty can be found within the Declaration of Independence (the Bible, certainly, but not the D.o.I.), as Choice #1 assumes.

Perhaps God should have been included as a stand-alone choice. Those whose loyalties are to God, before the D.o.I., will likely select "other." Those whose loyalties are to the principles of the Declaration of Independence (notwithstanding the irony there) would like to select that as an option but are confused about the 'inherently includes God' caveat, which seems unnecessary in relation to the issue of loyalty.

[MN Patriot]

loy·al·ty (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/loyal)

1.
the state or quality of being loyal; faithfulness to commitments or obligations.
2.
faithful adherence to a sovereign, government, leader, cause, etc.
3.
an example or instance of faithfulness, adherence, or the like: a man with fierce loyalties.

—Synonyms
2. fealty, devotion, constancy. Loyalty, allegiance, fidelity all imply a sense of duty or of devoted attachment to something or someone. Loyalty connotes sentiment and the feeling of devotion that one holds for one's country, creed, family, friends, etc. Allegiance applies particularly to a citizen's duty to his or her country, or, by extension, one's obligation to support a party, cause,leader, etc. Fidelity implies unwavering devotion and allegiance to a person, principle, etc.

Word Origin & History

loyalty
c.1400, from O.Fr. loyalté (Fr. loyauté), from O.Fr. loial, from L. legalis "legal," from lex (gen. legis "law"). Replaced Anglo-Norm. leal (q.v.), from the same Latin source. Sense development in English is feudal, via notion of "faithful in carrying out legal obligations." Loyalty oath first attested 1952.

loy·al

1.
faithful to one's sovereign, government, or state: a loyal subject.
2.
faithful to one's oath, commitments, or obligations: to be loyal to a vow.
3.
faithful to any leader, party, or cause, or to any person or thing conceived as deserving fidelity: a loyal friend.
4.
characterized by or showing faithfulness to commitments, vows, allegiance, obligations, etc.: loyal

I think loyalty to an idea such as individual liberty is preferable to being loyal to a person or a group which may betray you.

The concept of loyalty needs to be addressed. Suppose a person declares loyalty to their country. The country is run by exploitative charlatans. Why would someone commit themselves to an organization if their own self-interest is sacrificed? Have they been misled?

[InterestedParticipant]

I'm not trying to make it a matter of separating the concepts of the Declaration of Independence from God. It is a matter of whether or not God's demand for our loyalty can be found within the Declaration of Independence (the Bible, certainly, but not the D.o.I.), as Choice #1 assumes.
Just tell me, where do the unalienable rights (that our Founder wrote in that document) come from?

[jmdrake]

God. Then my family.

[Anti Federalist]

Just tell me, where do the unalienable rights (that our Founder wrote in that document) come from?

They come from being born a human being, rather than say a krill, a squid or a gazelle.

[InterestedParticipant]

They come from being born a human being, rather than say a krill, a squid or a gazelle.
Wrong

[FrankRep]

They come from being born a human being, rather than say a krill, a squid or a gazelle.
How do you prove that unalienable rights come from being born?

[CGeoffrion]

How do you prove that unalienable rights come from being born?

If they don't come from simply being born, then where do they come from? Rights are intrinsic in human nature, something we have merely by being human. Rights can not be given to you by any government, declaration, or constitution. Rights can only be taken away, many times before our brains are allowed to develop empathy, logic, and love (something I feel would happen natural if not for institutionalized indoctrination of generations past). My loyalty lies in my own personal God; more of a perspective than anything divine.

[Anti Federalist]

How do you prove that unalienable rights come from being born?

Because I can observe that throughout the animal kingdom, no other species has the capability to rationalize the concept of rights.

[Anti Federalist]

Wrong

I disagree.

[nobody's_hero]

Just tell me, where do the unalienable rights (that our Founder wrote in that document) come from?

The come from GOD!

>>:)But:)<< God has never demanded that anyone owes him any loyalty in exchange for their rights, and Jefferson never makes this claim in the Declaration of Independence.

That's the point I'm trying to make: Such an assertion doesn't exist anywhere in Declaration of Independence, as the poll implies. :)

[tpreitzel]

I chose the DOI because it's the rationale for the US Constitution. Personally, I see both the DOI and US Constitution as inseparable companions. Hence, my loyalties are to BOTH the DOI and the US Constitution equally.

[phill4paul]

Twain is wrong. Twice in human history loyalty to an idea freed mankind.
First, in Athens, pre-400BC.
Second, in 1700's United State of America.


No problem. I'll give you the Twain quote. Just 'cause that was an addition..what do you think about the rest?

For clarification:

Loyalty is defined by faithfulness or devotion to a person, a cause, idea etc... Loyalty is anti-thetical for true unbiased judgment.

[FrankRep]

How do you prove that unalienable rights come from being born?


Because I can observe that throughout the animal kingdom, no other species has the capability to rationalize the concept of rights.

With all the human slavery and human dictatorships around the world, one could observe that unalienable "rights" are a matter of personal opinion. Personal opinion doesn't prove you have unalienable "rights."

[aravoth]

My loyalty is to my Wife, and my kids.

[StilesBC]

Other.

Liberty under law.

[Toureg89]

Where is your Loyalty? I look at the thousands of threads here, and I cannot figure it out.
can't one be loyal to both the US Constitution, AND the Decl. of Ind.?

i don't see the how loyalty to both would be conflicting. atleast, not nearly as much as say, loyalty to the Republican Party and the Constitution.

[Michigan11]

My loyalty is towards FREEEEEEEDOM.

[akforme]

Freedom.

ditto.

[DjLoTi]

I support Ron because I know he is committed to the constitution more then I may ever understand, and Ron Paul will enable America to become the greatest place on earth if he is elected president. Ron Paul is 'new', whereas the constitution is 'old'. Ron Paul can do more for our future then the constitution at this point.

[InterestedParticipant]

can't one be loyal to both the US Constitution, AND the Decl. of Ind.?

i don't see the how loyalty to both would be conflicting. atleast, not nearly as much as say, loyalty to the Republican Party and the Constitution.
The US Constitution is merely a mechanism to ensure that the spirit & letter of the DOI is maintained on behalf of sovereign individuals. We can throw the US Constitution in the trashcan and still retain the DOI. But if the DOI goes, the US Constitution becomes moot. In short, the DOI stands on its own.

[InterestedParticipant]

No problem. I'll give you the Twain quote. Just 'cause that was an addition..what do you think about the rest?

For clarification:

Loyalty is defined by faithfulness or devotion to a person, a cause, idea etc... Loyalty is anti-thetical for true unbiased judgment.
I would argue that loyalty is the appropriate term to describe a sovereign individual's relationship with the ideal articulated in the DOI. The DOI is not about unbiased judgment, it is a self evident truth. So, I'd say loyalty to a self-evident truth makes sense. Why would one want to be loyal to anything other than a self-evident truth?

[Gideon]

You forgot to include the Bill of Rights, which includes my right to worship my God without registering as a 501c3.

My God will supply your every need.

[devil21]

Beware of intelligence gathering threads seeking to poll information about the collective mindset of members. This kinda looks like one. Just sayin...

I choose Other. My loyalty lies with solely with me since I have to live with myself. All other choices are worthy of attention because they make sense and are smart.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Where is your Loyalty? I look at the thousands of threads here, and I cannot figure it out.

Civil Purpose over legal precedence. Natural law for contentment over every persecution justified through past traditions and future happenings yet to occur.

[InterestedParticipant]

Beware of intelligence gathering threads seeking to poll information about the collective mindset of members. This kinda looks like one. Just sayin...

I choose Other. My loyalty lies with solely with me since I have to live with myself. All other choices are worthy of attention because they make sense and are smart.
Good point. People should be aware of "intelligence gathering threads". I've said similar here before.

Just to be clear, I initiated this thread because I felt too many people were losing sight of the bigger picture and were expending enormous energies defending particular people or organizations, and forgetting that it is the ideal in the DOI that founded this country. I wanted to hightlight, through this thread, that we need to continually recheck our core belief systems against the spirit of the DOI, and make sure we are not straying from those ideals without some very good justification.

[LibertyEagle]

Good point. People should be aware of "intelligence gathering threads". I've said similar here before.

Just to be clear, I initiated this thread because I felt too many people were losing sight of the bigger picture and were expending enormous energies defending particular people or organizations, and forgetting that it is the ideal in the DOI that founded this country. I wanted to hightlight, through this thread, that we need to continually recheck our core belief systems against the spirit of the DOI, and make sure we are not straying from those ideals without some very good justification.

Good points and I agree. But, to be fair, the reason that some have spent time defending a couple of organizations is because a couple have gone out of their way to attack them. I'm thinking JBS here.

[InterestedParticipant]

Civil Purpose over legal precedence. Natural law for contentment over every persecution justified through past traditions and future happenings yet to occur.
What's "Civil Purpose" in your world?

[InterestedParticipant]

Good points and I agree. But, to be fair, the reason that some have spent time defending a couple of organizations is because others have spent a good deal of time attacking them. I'm thinking JBS here.
Ok, how about we focus our energies on achieving the ideals as stated in the DOI, and not the ideal as stipulated in some organization's mission statement? Deal?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Beware of intelligence gathering threads seeking to poll information about the collective mindset of members. This kinda looks like one. Just sayin...

I choose Other. My loyalty lies with solely with me since I have to live with myself. All other choices are worthy of attention because they make sense and are smart.

The Truth cannot perish.
The natural law establishing that Truth is mentioned in both The Declaration of Independence, this being our divorce from tyranny, and in The U.S. Constitution, this being our marriage to a more perfect Union.
This defines the U.S. government as, at best, a "necessary tyranny" established to serve the people's best interest.
Therefore, we should hold the legal precedence laid out in the U.S. Constitution as secondary in importance to the Civil Purpose, the natural law, declared in The Declaration of Indendence.
In other words, our government behaved in crisis mode during the 911 tragedy quite concerned with having its rule decapitated from the people. But the government is not the Civil Purpose, the lightening in a bottle, the ends to a mean our Founding Fathers envisioned, but it was intended only to be a necessary tyranny, a by-product, a means for an end established to serve the people's best interest.
So, one can decapitate the U.S. government from the people and even trash The U.S. Constitution, but one can never decapitate the Truth from the people. The Truth cannot be denied as it is guaranteed by natural law.

[fisharmor]

They come from being born a human being, rather than say a krill, a squid or a gazelle.

Not looking for a fight, here... but when I see rights being tied to birth, I find one.

After all, fisharmor was from his mother's womb untimely ripped... and, you know, the other thing, too.
:D

[Captain Shays]

god.

That is why i don't say the pledge of allegiance anymore. My allegiance is to god and jesus.
amen!!

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

What's "Civil Purpose" in your world?

First off, if the Truth is self evident meaning that we don't need experts explaining it to us and it is unalienable meaning that it reduces down beyond the understanding of the partisan mind to be perceived bipartisanly by the soul, by the conscience, or, as many like to say, by the heart, then I shouldn't have to condescend to explain what Civil Purpose means.
You already know what it means.
I can say that our Founding Fathers were not acting in contempt when they ammended events, but that they held in their hearts honorably a long standing social contract which, like us, they had inherited from their founders. Therefore, we can state with certainty that great benefits are derived from the most careful of alterations.
In this spirit, we can defend our Founders in God's judgement, that they did rightfully and justifiably play the part of commoners, as representatives of the people, not only in contrast to a tyrant king, but against their natures in contradiction to their own titles as gentlemen in American society.
But we should better ourselves, for as we have learned from our nation's history in Africa, there is more to tyranny than just a tyrant master and a commoner slave, but there also existed the even more wretched outcaste untouchable. As the master exploited his or her slave in African culture as it did in every tyranny, the relatively peaceful society made up of both the master and slave in African culture rejected outright the outcaste untouchable.
Indeed, we can further the long standing social contract with just a careful alteration to the masterpiece performed by our Founding Fathers by introducing the character of a prostitute in with the characters of a tyrant king and the commoner people.
We hold these truths to be self evident (reducing down to the ultimate political natural law) that all men are created equal having been born with the same exact business agenda (whether he be a sovereign king sitting on the throne owning all things or she be the exact inverse of a trespassing prostitute subsisting on the street as owner of nothing).

[InterestedParticipant]

Not looking for a fight, here... but when I see rights being tied to birth, I find one.

After all, fisharmor was from his mother's womb untimely ripped... and, you know, the other thing, too.
:D
I'm not famaliar with "fisharmor", so perhaps you can expand on this story.

But doesn't the DOI create a system whereby sovereign individuals "receive" their unalienable rights at birth, or perhaps as conception (although, that's an entirely different discussion I don't really want to get into in this thread). If it doesn't happen at either of these times, I'm not sure what event it would center around. Perhaps you can expand on your point, as I'd like to understand it.

[InterestedParticipant]

First off, if the Truth is self evident meaning that we don't need experts explaining it to us and it is unalienable meaning that it reduces down beyond the understanding of the partisan mind to be perceived bipartisanly by the soul, by the conscience, or, as many like to say, by the heart, then I shouldn't have to condescend to explain what Civil Purpose means.
You already know what it means.
I can say that our Founding Fathers were not acting in contempt when they ammended events, but that they held in their hearts honorably a long standing social contract which, like us, they had inherited from their founders. Therefore, we can state with certainty that great benefits are derived from the most careful of alterations.
In this spirit, we can defend our Founders in God's judgement, that they did rightfully and justifiably play the part of commoners, as representatives of the people, not only in contrast to a tyrant king, but against their natures in contradiction to their own titles as gentlemen in American society.
But we should better ourselves, for as we have learned from our nation's history in Africa, there is more to tyranny than just a tyrant master and a commoner slave, but there also existed the even more wretched outcaste untouchable. As the master exploited his or her slave in African culture as it did in every tyranny, the relatively peaceful society made up of both the master and slave in African culture rejected outright the outcaste untouchable.
Indeed, we can further the long standing social contract with just a careful alteration to the masterpiece performed by our Founding Fathers by introducing the character of a prostitute in with the characters of a tyrant king and the commoner people.
We hold these truths to be self evident (reducing down to the ultimate political natural law) that all men are created equal having been born with the same exact business agenda (whether he be a sovereign king sitting on the throne owning all things or she be the exact inverse of a trespassing prostitute subsisting on the street as owner of nothing).
Okay, i found your thread on civil-purpose. Why implement this term? I get that our unalienable rights are self-evident truths. What I'm trying to figure out is why people here would have loyalties to anything other than this, and what those loyalties are. Seems if this isn't one's top loyalty, everything else is as risk.


What is Civil-Purpose?

If Civil-Purpose is a natural law that we have adoped as our Formal-Culture, and that natural law is the Truth, and that Truth is self-evident and unalienable, then we don't need to be told what it is.

The inverse to the Civil-Purpose of the people is the legal-precedence of government. Legal precedence is established through tradition. By definition, the political natural law declared by our Founding Fathers supercedes every legal precedence established through tradition.

In other words, the natural law is to establish a necessary tyranny over the people to serve them in their burden to express their Civil Purpose, not to disrupt the people (rag them out) making them kneel in order to service tyranny.

Therefore, we don't need experts telling us what is our Civil-Purpose.

Once again, in order to battle the emotionalism of the day, liberty for the sake of liberty is no better than slavery; equality for the sake of equality is no better than inequality; management for the sake of management is no better than chaos; and, living under the U.S. Constitution for the sake of living under the U.S. Constitution is no better than living under a dictatorship.

As Americans, we choose to set aside our lessor cultures for a greater Civil Purpose. This Formal Culture that we choose to adopt is not based on a dark, mysterious political science, which always requires the people to be politically manipulated, but is founded on a Truth.

This Truth holds that all people are created equal; this being true whether he be the greatest king in the world (tyranny) or she be the least prostitute in it (the people ruled by tyranny); whether he have a great, shining face or she be dark and faceless in comparison; whether he own all property or she be a trespasser on it. Though their disparity is great with each being the inverse (perversion) of the other, the Truth behind the cruel and deceitful reality of this world holds that both (all men) are equal with each sharing the same exact business agenda.

While it only seems this Truth isn't enough to solve all our problems, the Truth is what originally established our great economy.

[acptulsa]

IP, my loyalty is to your freedom.

Now let me turn the tables. Can I count on you?

[LibertyEagle]

Ok, how about we focus our energies on achieving the ideals as stated in the DOI, and not the ideal as stipulated in some organization's mission statement? Deal?

It depends upon whether the organization's mission is contrary to the DOI, doesn't it? After all, organizations, and even the DOI, are only tools that can be used in the quest for freedom. Freedom is the end goal.

[InterestedParticipant]

IP, my loyalty is to your freedom.

Now let me turn the tables. Can I count on you?
I need more information in order to answer. Please explain.

[acptulsa]

I need more information in order to answer. Please explain.

Do you have sense enough to value liberty more than the documents which are mainly beloved for defending it? And do you see that if I don't have mine, you'll have a dickens of a time defending your own?

[InterestedParticipant]

It depends upon whether the organization's mission is contrary to the DOI, doesn't it? After all, organizations, and even the DOI, are only tools that can be used in the quest for freedom. Freedom is the end goal.
First, let's keep that in perspective, shall we? Namely, that organizations, political parties, and political leaders are merely tools, or a means to an end, not an end unto themselves. I think that's a glorious idea. However, I'm not seeing that perspective here, and that is one of the things that I am commenting on, for these "tools" are being treated as ends unto themselves.

Second, what I am saying is that the techniques have advanced to such a state that organizations that appear to be in support of the values instilled in the DOI are actually leading us astray. Now, if we refuse to continue to challenge ourselves, and ensure that these organizations are not leading us astray, then it is easy to be lead astray. Is it not?

[InterestedParticipant]

Do you have sense enough to value liberty more than the documents which are mainly beloved for defending it?
We're not going to have Liberty unless we have defined the spirit and letter of said Liberty in documents. This is why the Founders wrote the DOI, and my loyalty is to that spirit and that letter, as clearly articulated in that document. But yes, it is more than a document, is is the soul of a nation and the individuals within that nation. I'll fight for that.


And do you see that if I don't have mine, you'll have a dickens of a time defending your own?
Of course.

Why do you think I invest time here explaining how we are manipulated in such a way that we fail to work in our own self-interest, and toward the goals articulated in the DOI? Unfortunately, people don't want to believe that the techniques are as comprehensive and sophisticated as I've tried to explain.

[TheEvilDetector]

I voted for DOI. I'm an atheist, but I feel DOI speaks for me nonetheless.

In fact the inclusion of the creator wording in my opinion is not the main point of the document.

Its our ability to reason intellectually, and our capability for empathy, and our self-awareness that puts us in a place where notions such as rights can be thought about, understood and declared.

It comes from self-interest ultimately, rights are there to protect you, but to ensure your rights aren't violated, you must do your best to respect the rights of others.

In my opinion, the reason why rights are considered natural, is because self-preservation is a natural instinct, which can be emipirically verified (and has been) as a natural (born with) instinct.

Self-preservation in general requires property (ie. at the most basic: food, clothing, shelter).

Since self-preservation is a human natural instinct, the right to life and right to property which are essentially the basis of the former can be considered natural.

Where the intellectual reasoning of the founders stepped in most of all, is the drawing up of the proper boundary between the rightful limits of your own natural rights and those of others, so as not to
infringe on the rights of others using your own as an excuse.

This delineation is very important. Some restrictions are necessary to the otherwise infinite freedom of action one might feel entitled to (particularly when part of a dominant group) to further one's prosperity.

Without safeguards, its all just a case of "might makes right".

[johnrocks]

The Constitution, it allows me the freedom to worship as I see fit, the freedom to support who I see fit and is a very libertarian slanted document,imho.

[AggieforPaul]

my loyalty is to myself, and to my right to never be forced to work for the sake of another man and his right for me to never require him to work for the sake of me.

[BenIsForRon]

Glenn Beck. He is exposing the progressivists left and right.

[someperson]

Glenn Beck. He is exposing the progressivists left and right.
lol

[georgiaboy]

Cool thread, unexpectedly cool. The thread title appeared to be inciting flamewars, but to the contrary.

My loyalty is to Biblical principles and the God who inspired them, which flow into and permeate the DOI and Constitution, among other founding documents.

More or less.

[dgr]

So 54 or 40% said other
WHAT IS OTHER, after the Decelaration of Independence (GOD as the Creator), the Constitution , either party, a person, a group what is left, besides family and self?

[LibertyEagle]

First, let's keep that in perspective, shall we? Namely, that organizations, political parties, and political leaders are merely tools, or a means to an end, not an end unto themselves. I think that's a glorious idea. However, I'm not seeing that perspective here, and that is one of the things that I am commenting on, for these "tools" are being treated as ends unto themselves.

Second, what I am saying is that the techniques have advanced to such a state that organizations that appear to be in support of the values instilled in the DOI are actually leading us astray. Now, if we refuse to continue to challenge ourselves, and ensure that these organizations are not leading us astray, then it is easy to be lead astray. Is it not?

Sure. I agree with that.

[InterestedParticipant]

The Constitution, it allows me the freedom to worship as I see fit, the freedom to support who I see fit and is a very libertarian slanted document,imho.
The Constitution does not grant you any rights or power. In fact, it does NOT even apply to you.


Cool thread, unexpectedly cool. The thread title appeared to be inciting flamewars, but to the contrary.

My loyalty is to Biblical principles and the God who inspired them, which flow into and permeate the DOI and Constitution, among other founding documents.

More or less.
So Glad you like it. I think they keep me around because I drive so much traffic to this place.


I voted for DOI. I'm an atheist, but I feel DOI speaks for me nonetheless.
I've never been able to understand how one can support the DOI and not believe in God, as they are inextricably linked. It was this realization, many many years ago that turn me away from atheism, as I could not reconcile that dilemma.

[InterestedParticipant]

Sure. I agree with that.
So, how about we start framing discussions within the context of whether the content of those discussions promotes the ideals of the DOI or detracts from those ideals? I mean, isn't that why we're all here?

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

Parents are the heaven and earth of their children.

Heaven and earth are the parents of humanity.

Honoring ones ancestors is prerequisite to being loyal to anything and I agree that an honest and impartial belief in oneself is first neccesary to properly believe in anyone or anything else.

[TheEvilDetector]

I've never been able to understand how one can support the DOI and not believe in God, as they are inextricably linked. It was this realization, many many years ago that turn me away from atheism, as I could not reconcile that dilemma.

I have. :) I guess there are some things I can do that you cannot and vice versa.

The point of all of this is not to make everyone believe the same thing and reason the same way.

Its to allow everyone freedom to pursue their own ideas without violating the rights of others in the process (as much as that can be achieved in the practical sense).

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

United States Constitution 45 31.69%

32% of you are terrorists!

[BenIsForRon]

So Glad you like it. I think they keep me around because I drive so much traffic to this place.



You're delusional.

[InterestedParticipant]

You're delusional.
Hey, would you send me some Cheesy Grits from NC?

[Toureg89]

The US Constitution is merely a mechanism to ensure that the spirit & letter of the DOI is maintained on behalf of sovereign individuals. We can throw the US Constitution in the trashcan and still retain the DOI. But if the DOI goes, the US Constitution becomes moot. In short, the DOI stands on its own.
ahhhh, ok. in that case, now i wish i could change mine from the Constitution to DoI.

[mstrmac1]

Leaving me the F alone!!!! The closest thing to that is what I follow!

[ChaosControl]

Other.

My loyalty is to myself, my own views and values. I will respect those who wish to advance causes I believe in, such as Ron Paul and those like him, but that doesn't mean my loyalty rests with them. If they changed course and suddenly acted like a typical politician then I would stop respecting them.

It isn't to the constitution, I do not think the document is perfect. I respect it as something that attempts to prevent tyranny, but it isn't my ideal document, it doesn't encompass all my values or impose the restrictions to the degree I'd like to see. And while I respect the DoI, my loyalty is not to it or even to any one nation.

A person can earn my loyalty, but that is not going to be a political loyalty, rather it is going to be a personal loyalty. Ultimately my loyalty is to values like chivalry, morality, honor, valor, integrity, and to loyalty itself. These are values I highly treasure, values that often times society wants stripped away from existence, values I will fight to keep.

[constituent]

Parents are the heaven and earth of their children.

Heaven and earth are the parents of humanity.

Honoring ones ancestors is prerequisite to being loyal to anything and I agree that an honest and impartial belief in oneself is first neccesary to properly believe in anyone or anything else.

wow, i agree with the last part, and the first part really made me think. thanks.

[SovereignMN]

1. God
2. Wife
3. Children

In that order.

[SovereignMN]

God.

That is why I don't say the pledge of allegiance anymore. My allegiance is to God and Jesus.

This! I stopped saying the pledge a number of years ago. My "conservative" friends and family think I'm a terrorist because of it. I just reply "Why would you pledge to a government that _____?" (Insert their most cherished issue here...e.g. "allows 45 million unborn babies to die?" for pro-life people)

[Dark_Horse_Rider]

wow, i agree with the last part, and the first part really made me think. thanks.

Glad you found it of interest and also thanks for letting me know ! :D

[InterestedParticipant]

To all those who chose the category = other, putting things down like loyalty to myself, loyalty to family & children, loyalty to ideas, etc.

Let me ask these people a question, where do you think you get the power to choose your loyalties? Where does this freedom originate?

[MelissaWV]

To all those who chose the category = other, putting things down like loyalty to myself, loyalty to family & children, loyalty to ideas, etc. Let me ask these people a question, where do you think you get the power to choose your loyalties? Where does this freedom originate?


Why limit it only to people answering "Other"? Does this imply that the freedom to choose one of the other answers originates in another fashion or from another source?

My free will was pre-installed. By whom or what is a question for another forum altogether.

[Brian Defferding]

I hold to my own beliefs. I think the Constitution and due process of the law should be respected, but I also think some amendments need to be changed (as long as the amendments are made first, not by breaking the law altogether), I am a Libertarian Party member but I don't always vote that way (wrote in Ron Paul last election, as an example), and while I stick to my principles I'm also not an absolutist (even though I am a Libertarian, I don't necessarily have anything against government schools, I just think there should be an open-enrollment per-student funding voucher system and home schooling should be included in that voucher system).

I don't have one thing that I am absolutely loyal to.

[InterestedParticipant]

Why limit it only to people answering "Other"? Does this imply that the freedom to choose one of the other answers originates in another fashion or from another source?
Good point. Point noted. Hence, I will rephrase my question to apply to anyone who selected an answer OTHER than the DOI answer.


My free will was pre-installed. By whom or what is a question for another forum altogether.
How was your free will installed? What continues to give you the power to maintain free will, when the media bombards us with stories that say we are losing our ability to choose freely? And why would your free will be any less today then it was 100 years ago? Or is it any less?