Sunday, March 30, 2014

unalienable vs. inalienable


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?

8 comments:

makheru bradley said...

Bro. Dunn, please explain how this video of Iverson, Marbury, and Rodman playing basketball in China refutes Rhoden’s empowerment argument:

[Rhoden insists on the importance of black athletes and entrepreneurs gaining organizational and business power in college and professional sports: the path toward the “redemption” of his subtitle.

The peerless Michael Jordan, by contrast, declined to be identified with black causes, but even His Airness got taken down when he finally retired from his last on-court hurrah with the Washington Wizards (which made about $30 million for the team), expecting to return to the front office, and found himself fired by the owner Abe Pollin.

To Rhoden, this tale bursts with significance, illustrating, in turn: white people’s denial of black business ability while they continue to profit from black athletic skill; black athletes’ training in high school, college and the pros (what he calls the “Conveyor Belt”) to think only about individual success, never about a system that distributes power unequally; and how even today, professional basketball — controlled by whites, dependent on blacks (for the present) — resembles a plantation, albeit one on which the “slaves” earn millions, as long as they don’t notice who’s running the show.]

Particularly in light of facts like these: Per the 2012 NFL Racial Gender Report, 67% of the players are Afrikan American. The majority owners are 97% white, along with 81% of the head coaches; 85% of the senior administrators, and even 72% of the officials.

Ed Dunn said...

Makheru, are you too heavily in the 20th century Black/White paradigm to miss the glaring clue that NBA stars have been going over to China to help start/manage teams and getting contracts - the same contracts that the NBA wanted?

No one cares about the USA in terms of future growth - they got billions of viewers over there and billions of basketball merchandising customers. The Rodman should be glaring because he is extremely popular and when North Korea expressed interested, you saw the artificial backlash.


So Rhoden empowerment argument is nothing more than looking for crumbs when the players already went East years ago for a bigger slice of the bread...

CNu said...

to think only about individual success, never about a system that distributes power unequally

I would rephrase that, "to think about athletic performance" - instead of thinking about the business of the sport and ownership of the sporting franchise.

CNu said...

Frankly, the video didn't convey to me that the former NBA players were in China about the business of the sport and ownership of the sporting franchises, what I gathered was is that they were still just performing but for an Asian sports audience. If their presence there is about the former, then they have indeed made an end-run around the NBA and more power to them. If the latter, then god bless them, I'm glad they've found something to do once the checks stopped coming from the NBA.

Ed Dunn said...

The video was a showcase but there are marketing deals and franchise deals going on. I will pull more research as I was meaning to cover this.


If they wanted to just run around, they would be in Europe chasing the kind of women they like....

CNu said...

Maybe Europe is for the younger players who didn't make the NBA cut, while Asia is for the NBA retirees?

makheru bradley said...

Actually Bro. Dunn, I’m heavily into the impact of 522 years of European global domination, e.g.
http://bit.ly/1iTXiFw

“So Rhoden empowerment argument is nothing more than looking for crumbs when the players already went East years ago for a bigger slice of the bread…” Bigger slice of bread--lol.

[This season, the CBA has its biggest and most talented American roster across the board, for one because the league added an 18th team, the Sichuan Blue Whales. In addition to Marbury, who recently signed a three-year deal with the Beijing Ducks, the top imports include Earl Barron, Bobby Brown, Donte Greene, Hamed Haddadi, Ivan Johnson, Darius Johnson-Odom, Johan Petro, Shavlik Randolph, Josh Selby, Sebastian Telfair (Marbury's cousin), Von Wafer, Delonte West and Shelden Williams. They're all earning between high six figures and $2 million net this season, according to Curtin and Haylett. For the other lesser-known players, the minimum pay is around $350,000 net.]

The average NBA salary for 2013-14 is $5.15 million. The fact of the matter is all of those players are either washed-up by NBA standards, or they are hoping for another shot in the NBA. And they are still controlled by IMG or agents like Dan Curtin and Jeremiah Haylett who have to be paid. Basically they’ve just switched to a lower paying plantation, with perks, which can prolong their careers. Each team can only have two or three foreign born players. Not a bad move for these players, but that does not address the issues Rhoden raised.


Furthermore the the CBA is run by the government's Chinese Basketball Federation. Let us know when Minister Plenipotentiary and Envoy Extraordinaire Dennis Rodman cracks that nut.

CNu said...

Minister Plenipotentiary and Envoy Extraordinaire Dennis Rodman

rotflmbao....., whew!!!!

Elite Donor Level Conflicts Openly Waged On The National Political Stage

thehill  |   House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.) has demanded the U.S. Chamber of Commerce answer questions about th...