2nd Declaration of Independence

[ZSorenson]

There is a great deal on this topic referring to Atlas Shrugged. I am refering to an actual new document in the format of the original.

I've been bothered recently by the Glenn Beck types. These Gingrich, Hannity, tea party types keep refering to 'God-given' rights in their appeal to constitutionalism. I've been bothered because I feel that calling something 'of God' and therefore proving its rightness is a stupid worthless argument. But I get it now!

Objectivism is perhaps among the few secular philosophies that offers a similar attitude about political legitimacy. That is: the concept that rights are natural givens (objective, 'god-given'). This is the idea that no political system can legitimately alter the fundamental nature of rights, nor does the legitimacy of rights depend on the legitimacy of the political system.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote the declaration of Independence, it has been noted, he was searching for a justification for Congress's action more than necessarily charting a new political philosophy. While I believe that Jefferson and others like Tom Paine were in fact devoted to the new ideas embodied by the declaration, the federalists who effectively won the political battle - and were hardly different from British Whigs - were the ones who set the philosophical tone for the nation. For many years, nonetheless, the courts read into the declaration certain unenumerated rights and principles which they held were embodied within the constitution as an extension. This has long since changed.

I don't fault the original declaration, nor Jefferson, but I do think that neither represents a decisive viewpoint on Objective (or natural/"god-given") rights.

That's what we need today. If you think about it, that's what the 'tea party' wants: a clear statement of political philosophy that redefines American government back towards its 'roots'. Identifying those roots is part of the task.

We need a document that explains what Objective rights are and where they come from, so that as individual citizens we can possess those rights and knowledge of them indifferent of any government tyranny.

Imagine if someone were to write such a declaration and declare a second American revolution. This revolution would be completely within the democratic system and completely non-violent - but would count legitimately as a revolution.

One demand of the revolution would be: any and all potential judges must declare fidelty with the 2nd declaration as the foundation of the constitution - not the document itself, but the immortal and fundamental rights mentioned therein. The constitution doesn't need to be changed much in that regards, because the rights don't require the constitution to be legimate and are superior to it. If you think about it, demands such as that really are revolutionary - because they change the political institution from the outside (ie without ammending it endogenously).

So this is the task of this thread: what would be contained in this declaration?

There are three broad areas that must be covered (not necessarily in this order):

1) A statement identifying Objective individual rights and their origin.

- It would not be required, but not delegimitize the document to mention 'in nature as created' for the religionists.

- Some rights might be enumerated

- Still others would only be mentioned in broad categories: this document is one of political philosophy not of governance

- With that in mind, there must be a special emphasis on the conceptual process used to determine the rights. This way none need be enumerated if the process for identifying them is clear.

2) Why the current political status quo is inadequate.

- Specific abuses must be mentioned, this explains why a set of philosophical principles is needed beyond what already exists.

- Defining the opposition. Not everyone who agrees with the revolution will agree on everything, what matters is unity of opinion and purpose until the basic stated philosophy of the declaration is instituted. By defining the opposition, unity is achieved as those who simply cannot be integrated into the new order are excluded from it.

3)Statements of action

- In the original declaration, the statement of action is included in the title. The United States were separating politically from Britain. It could legitimately be considered an act of rebellion.

- This new declaration doesn't require the formation of a new national boundary, or a new constitution. So instead, other actions must be specified. These will help define and unify the 'revolution'.

- Some actions might include: refusing to pay taxes until the government makes necessary reforms, electing state officials who ignore the demands of the federal government, my example about judges, and so on etc.

- Any such action might inherently be illegal, and could be considered civil disobedience. But if enough people believe in the cause, these actions will irreperably harm the current 'regime', and make it much easier to finalize an acceptable change to the system (newly elected pols will realize that they can't tax people who won't pay them anyway, so they won't be as eager to reneg on campaign promises).

I am asking people for proposals, as a thought experiment. You may remark on any of the categories I mentioned.

If you want to be comprehensive, keep in mind that any 'actions' of 'revolution' MUST tie in to specific philosophically grounded principles in reaction to specific real abuses by the government. You don't need to mention them, but keep that in mind.

[ZSorenson]

I'll start 'er off.

How about this as an abuse:

"...has assumed absolute power over the currency, so as to render the individual pursuit of happiness irrelevant, with the result of corrupt persons with ties to government power reaping massive reward off of the losses of the hardworking and honest."

If When the economy collapses, and the monetary regime fails, people will be destitute, despondent and pissed. Ironic, if a Republican were in charge post 2008 it would be easy to blame 'big business'. But I think Obama is perhaps a 'gift from God'. Because of him people will properly blame the government, and hopefully the Federal Reserve system.