The American Ideal of 1776: The Twelve Basic American Principles

[Theocrat]

I would like to dedicate this thread to the many anarchists/"voluntaryists" who frequent our forums. I would also like to give special thanks to Todd Morris for the link which provides the following information:

1. The Spiritual is Supreme
2. Fear of Government-over-Man
3. Unalienable Rights--From God
4. Man Organizes Governments to Be His Tools
5. Limited Government
6. Decentralized Government
7. Equal, By God's Gift, In Sight of God and Law
8. Life and the Pursuit of Happiness
9. Liberty--Against Government-over-Man
10. Private Property--Liberty's Support
11. Taxes--Limited to Safeguard Liberty
12. The Majority--Limited for Liberty

[Theocrat]

Hmmm. No one has anything to say about the twelve principles? It seems we haven't been trained properly about our nation's history and philosophy concerning civil government. I believe those principles gives us an introduction into what our republic was supposed to be for generations.

[Acala]

A little too much of your God in there for my taste. I consider myself to be a highly spiritual person. But the last place I want to see my spirtuality is in the hands of government. *shudder* If you want to ruin Christianity, be sure and get government involved. On the other hand, if you love Jesus, you should prohibit politicians from using his name.

A proper government doesn't need to have a lengthy and well-developed metaphysical explanation of creation and rights. All a proper government needs is a set of massively redundant and unbreakable chains fettering its power. Free people can take care of the rest.

[Aurelia]

I agree, the government shouldn't force a religious view on a people or take that standpoint. Using the principles of Christianity that are not at all unique to Christianity--such as do unto others as you would have them do to you, or don't kill--is great, but people deserve religious freedom as well. Religious fundamentalism is not freedom and doesn't bring about justice. Acceptance does.

[inibo]

1. The Spiritual is Supreme

No problem with this one, but in spiritual things there can be only one arbiter. Me.

2. Fear of Government-over-Man

No problem with this one at all.

3. Unalienable Rights--From God

I'd say "From Nature," but ultimately no difference.

4. Man Organizes Governments to Be His Tools

In every instance in history I am aware of governments organize men to be their tools

5. Limited Government

Over time there is no such thing.

6. Decentralized Government

Self government.

7. Equal, By God's Gift, In Sight of God and Law

Again, I'd say "by Nature," but see #3.

8. Life and the Pursuit of Happiness

Always, everywhere.

9. Liberty--Against Government-over-Man

Duh.

10. Private Property--Liberty's Support

Absolutely.

11. Taxes--Limited to Safeguard Liberty

Taxes--None. If anything fees paid for services rendered.

12. The Majority--Limited for Liberty

Of course.

[acptulsa]

Even so--

In the context of the time it was the way to help define these new ideas and lend them legitimacy. You must admit that the principles outlined above are far, far superior to the concept labeled 'the divine right of kings'.

Even today to say that we are endowed by God with inalienable rights is not a bad way to express the thought in certain circles.

Now, anyone care to look past that and find fault with the precepts themselves? Edit: Ah, I see inibo was on it even as I typed.

[PatriotLegion]

The Founders based all most all there principles on the faith of God and that we where all free from the beginning. (We all know this)

Just like Acala, I do have a "spiritual" side but also to have Government mend in religious augmentations does make me "shudder" as-well. In many aspects of our government there are many references to God (ie, Money, Pledge of Allegiance, etc.) but its the general principle and not a "force" of faith that a person must have to be an American.

Besides all this there is much more critical issues at hand that wants to destroy our Republic and it seems these Ideal's and Principle's mean nothing anymore, and by the Majority of our "Elected officials".

[acptulsa]

If we can restore their meaning to the people, the chameleons in Washington will at least pay them lip service. Of course, what would actually be useful is if we can get the people to not only embrace them, but use them as a yardstick in measuring their candidates.

[Theocrat]

I think many of you who have responded have failed to understand the nature of the precepts listed in the OP. They come from a Christian worldview and perspective of human nature and civil governments in relation to mankind. Our Founders were deeply Christian men, and they spared no expense to speak publicly about the influence in which their Christian beliefs had upon forming our republic. The twelve principles did not come from a humanistic, nor Islamic, nor Buddhist, nor any other faith system in our American heritage. They only make sense from a Christian paradigm. The fact that many people ignore that fact shows just how far we have fallen from the true intent and character of our nation's beginning.

Also, it's important to note that all governments are religious by nature. There is no neutrality of beliefs to justify why civil governments should exist or not. The operating assumptions for the state of any government form the basis of legitimacy for why that government should be set up in the first place. In our American republic, our Founders derived those precepts in the OP because they understood the nature of human beings as sinful but redeemable creatures who needed to be governed by God under His law. That is one reason why there was a separation of powers and decentralization of government. It was instituted with the understanding that human beings can be corrupted by too much power and needed to be restrained due to their sinful hearts (Jeremiah 17:9). So, those who say the government should not incorporate a particular religious belief into its system already have missed the point. Governments do that by nature, whether it's Christian, secular, or anything else.

[heavenlyboy34]

It's nice that you've begun reading Bastiat, Theo. If you keep it up, you'll eventually abandon your misguided and irrational faith in the State. (I like "The American Ideal", FWIW)

[LibertyEagle]

It's nice that you've begun reading Bastiat, Theo. If you keep it up, you'll eventually abandon your misguided and irrational faith in the State. (I like "The American Ideal", FWIW)

I've read Bastiat and I believe in a limited constitutional republic. The ideas of liberty are held by us all. Don't hold your breath that we're going to become anarchists.

[Theocrat]

It's nice that you've begun reading Bastiat, Theo. If you keep it up, you'll eventually abandon your misguided and irrational faith in the State. (I like "The American Ideal", FWIW)

How is my faith in the State misguided and irrational (by what absolute standard)? For the sake of staying on topic, please be specific and refrain from posting links to articles and books which will take an extended amount of time to read and comprehend.

Also, it's curious that you would suggest my reading Bastiat will lead to my abandoning belief in the State because I find my reading his writings strongly affirms my beliefs in the legitimacy of the State. It's quite the contrary to what you would have me believe.

[powerofreason]

Monarchy > Republic

Source: history

[heavenlyboy34]

How is my faith in the State misguided and irrational (by what absolute standard)? For the sake of staying on topic, please be specific and refrain from posting links to articles and books which will take an extended amount of time to read and comprehend.

Also, it's curious that you would suggest my reading Bastiat will lead to my abandoning belief in the State because I find my reading his writings strongly affirms my beliefs in the legitimacy of the State. It's quite the contrary to what you would have me believe.

To explain all this would be far too time consuming for me. Plus, you've demonstrated that you aren't serious about learning this stuff. I value my time more than educating the willfully ignorant. Perhaps I'll do it in 50-60 years when I'm retired.

Doing the reading that I and fellow anarchists have suggested would serve you well, and save me a great deal of time and energy. There's always the audio book route if you don't like reading. (I've read your Constitution and so forth which you try to prop up your fallacies with-now it's your turn to read about my philosophy. )

[heavenlyboy34]

Don't hold your breath that we're going to become anarchists.

I won't. It will happen in due course.

[Kraig]

I've read Bastiat and I believe in a limited constitutional republic. The ideas of liberty are held by us all.

Then your ideal constitutional republic doesn't have taxes? Or rather, voluntary "taxes"? That would have to be the liberty ideal, but doesn't the constitution "allow" for taxation?

[CCTelander]

I won't. It will happen in due course.

My personal belief is that a stateless society will be the next major stage in human societal evolution. I don't know how long it will take for us to reach that paradigm shift, but I absolutely believe it's coming.

As a result, I don't feel the need to convince anyone who's unwilling to even give the idea an OBJECTIVE look, since ultimately, they'll come around on their own once a "critical mass" of more willing individuals has been achieved.

[CCTelander]

Then your ideal constitutional republic doesn't have taxes? Or rather, voluntary "taxes"? That would have to be the liberty ideal, but doesn't the constitution "allow" for taxation?

Actually, the constitution places NO EFFECTIVE restraints upon the power of taxation. If Congress wanted to, they could place a 10,000% tax on whatever they desired and, as long as it met the minimal limitations of either apportionment or uniformity, it would be perfectly constitutional.

Seems a rather poor attempt at limiting government to me.

[Kraig]

Seems a rather poor attempt at limiting government to me.

Well I agree, but I don't think taxes should be limited either.

[CCTelander]

Well I agree, but I don't think taxes should be limited either.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

ALL taxation is theft, IMO, so I would say that taxes should be limited to 0.

However, for those who believe in the concept of "limited government," the fact that the constitution basically claims that the government has a right to whatever amount they feel they need to extract from one, at gunpoint, it's basically a flat out repudiation of the concept of individual property rights.

If they have the constitutional authority to take whatever they feel they need, the idea that one owns ANYTHING is a hollow sham.

[powerofreason]

Here's a short LRC podcast on why monarchy is better than forms of democracy. And of course natural order is infinitely better than either.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?...hat_failed.mp3

[heavenlyboy34]

More Bastiat, for those interested. Bastiat Was Right
What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen It’s a Statist Life

[Son_of_Liberty90]

Here's a short LRC podcast on why monarchy is better than forms of democracy. And of course natural order is infinitely better than either.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?...hat_failed.mp3

Sorry to resurrect this from years and years ago. But what do you mean by 'natural order'?

[pcosmar]

Sorry to resurrect this from years and years ago. But what do you mean by 'natural order'?

hasn't posted 5 years.

did you expect a response?

Why?