adask | We can debate whether all of our rights are unalienable, inalienable
or merely illusory. But what we can’t easily debate is that The United
States of America started with the legal premises that: “We hold these
truths [premises] to be self-evident, that 1) all men are created equal,
that they they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights . . . .” and 2) “That to secure these rights, Governments are
instituted among men . . . .” In those two premises we see the basis
for the governmental system and nation envisioned by the Founders. In
those two premises, we see the basis for America being deemed “the land
of the free” and the basis for American exceptionalism.
Every governmental system starts with one or more spiritual and/or
political premises. For example, a monarchy is based on the
premise/belief that only one man or woman in the country receives
his/her rights directly from God and he/she is therefore the only
sovereign–all else are subjects. Communism rejects the idea that any
individual or individuals can be “sovereign”. Communism is based on the
premises that 1) God does not exist; 2) the State is sovereign; and 3)
all of the people are, at best, subjects. The United States of America
started with the premises that we all received an equal endowment of
unalienable Right from God and that government’s primary duty was to
secure those God-given, unalienable Rights.
The premises on which any nation is constructed will determine how
well that nation prospers and how long it lasts. The premises
underlying the Soviet Union led to poverty and national destruction in
just a few generations. The premises underlying The United States of
America led to prosperity and national longevity and even world
preeminence.
So, when a group of government officers or special interest steals or
surreptitiously eliminates the premises on which a nation is built, the
result is more than an intellectual debate. The result can be national
destruction. Right or wrong, the two premises on which America was
built were the “people’s premises” and should only be changed with the
people’s knowing consent. However, we live in a society where our
fundamental premises have been concealed and virtually denied. In my
opinion, as a result of the loss of our memory of our basic premises
(unalienable Rights, etc.) we are all worse off as individual men and
women; the American dream is dying; our children’s futures are being
diminished; and our nation is heading for hard times and possible
disintegration.
I am therefore in favor of restoring the two, original premises on
which this nation was built. Other people–fascists and fools, in my
opinion–are indifferent to those premises or even opposed to them. Our
current government seems dominated by those who believe that might makes
right. I disagree with that premise.
The premises are the “rules of the game”. When special interests
unilaterally change the rules to suit themselves but don’t inform the
people, they “cheat”. The cause a kind of treason.
I am against that treason and the “Unalienable vs. Inalienable”
article was intended to help people recognize those original premises,
regain respect for those premises, and hopefully, encourage them to
demand a restoration of those premises.
If you disagree with the premise of “unalienable Rights,” what
premise(s) do you think should constitute the foundation for our nation?
