IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
What distinguishes Americans-what makes a person an American is not the luck of being born between the Atlantic and Pacific and N of Mexico/S of Canada. What makes a person an American are these defining beliefs that the nation’s founding fathers unanimously announced to the world.
Everyone is created equal
Everyone has a right to live
Everyone has a right to pursue their own happiness
And these rights are given to us all, by God.
Americans have risen to defend these rights for themselves and for dozens of nations over the past 200+yrs. It doesn’t matter if the people are Moroccan, French, Algerian, Tunisian, Sicilian, Italian, Belgian, British, Australian, Burmese, Somalia, Sudanese, Kuwaiti, Afghan, Iraqi, or otherwise. Americans are the defenders of freedom for all men.
The only thing that has ever stopped the American people from helping others has been political cowardice for the United States has never had a problem sacrificing blood, or treasure. The only thing that’s been too expensive to risk in defense of others has been political capital. It’s why American soldiers never declare that a cause is lost-only politicians and blinded partisans who follow them like lemmings offering words rather than deeds to hide or excuse their denial of those initial, unique, core American values:
Everyone is created equal
Everyone has a right to live
Everyone has a right to pursue their own happiness
And these rights are given to us all, by God
See author page
These are some of my favorite movies. How can you watch these, and come to the absolute wrong conclusion ?
Our defense of others freedoms has only been a recent phenomena that became more common as America became more socialist.
Think about it.
You are saying that you would sacrifice your life (your unalienable right, granted to you by your creator), for another man’s freedom, another man who does not value that freedom enough to sacrifice his own life. This is communism, it is like giving up your food to someone who is unwilling to work for it.
Anyway, Here are two videos you should watch that point out where you are going wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_qQt9IrUc0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpo3OoyUUUc&watch_response
Then Ask yourself, who do the sheepdogs serve? the farmer or the sheep ? http://practlib.blogspot.com
John, that’s one of the most thought provoking comments I’ve seen in a long time. I agree with a lot of what you’re saying, but I disagree on some, and I think the problem isn’t the premise or the conclusion, but the space in between that.
For example, I view the concept of “sacrifice” (particularly sacrificing one’s “life”) as something different. I also see the idea of Americans coming to the aid of others for their freedom as something that is not new-not at all. HOWEVER, I do see the point about the sheepdogs servitude very similarly.
For me, I think that sacrificing one’s life can mean ‘taking a a bullet’ for someone else, but more than that I think it means something bigger, something harder, and ultimately something more valuable. We are judged as human beings not in how we die, but in how we live (judging people by how they die…that’s Klingons), and so when someone asks, “will I sacrifice your life for others” I see it as, “will you live your life for others”-not will you die for others. As I said, it can mean risking death or even giving up life, but I think it means more like will you live for others than will you die for them.
To that end, I don’t think that Americans have only recently started fighting for others. I think that there’s surely political and capitalist reasons for things like the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, and all of the conflicts other than war (see also 1-2 dozen US “interventions” in Central and S America, as well as all over the globe pre WWII)…I think that the American people-particularly the soldiers, but other Americans as well have lived their lives and given their lives for the rights of others long before the trend towards socialism began here in the US.
Now, in regards to the sheepdogs comment-the most thought-provoking I think, the answer is the farmer AND the sheep. YES I think many Americans-yourself included-live their lives (ie sacrifice their lives per my definition) in an effort to help people learn to feed themselves. That’s what I do every day, it’s what this site and so many others on the web try to do: inform people and convince them not to rely on the government, but to learn for themselves, make informed judgements, and to NOT arbitrarily give up their freedoms, their rights, etc., just because it feeds their partisan contempt, political ignorance, or some sort of preference to be fed rather than to feed one’s self. By trying to convince people to focus on their own rights, and trying to get others to teach people to do things for themselves rather than sloughing off and relying on the state, I think that by doing that every day, we are sacrificing our day to day lives in defense of the rights of man over the natural tendency of government to seek more power at the expense of those rights.
And so it is, I believe, that the sheepdogs serve the farmer by getting the sheep to feed themselves. The sheepdogs also serve the sheep by making them less reliant upon the farmer, and thus more free.
So it is that I wonder, if everyone is created equal, then why not live our lives-sacrifice our day to day lives-in support of each other. This doesn’t have to mean taking from the haves to give to the have nots. I can mean teaching man to fish rather than giving him fish.
Does that make any sense?
I’m trying to feed my munchkin right now (who ironically, got caught feeding himself by sneaking into the pantry and boosting not one, not two, not three, not four, but FIVE packs of fruit snacks when I wasn’t looking). (true story btw)
UPDATE
In the time it took to write that, my 2 1/2 yr old son revisted the pantry, boosted 2 more packs of fruit snacks-ignoring the baloney ration supplied by the state (me), and has since been sent to the Gulag (naptime). Seems we’re not only endowed by the creator with the rights, but have an instinctual need to seek them for ourselves. Kenny’s right to free fruit snacks seems inalienable.
Scott,
I share your pain. My 2 1/2 yr old raids granola bars and cheese slices. Luckily he has not learned that sound travels.
He is also looking towards the day when he can train his now 3 mo old brother to aid him. My wife wants a girl, so in 2 years we have to go from “man-to-man” to a “zone” defense.
On topic, I like your response.
Thanks Scott,
You do make sense, and we agree to a point.
We are all social creatures, libertarians included, it is simply a matter of the guidelines we use for interacting with others. IT is good to live life where you value other people, and help when you can. That is not “a sacrifice”.
But I saw a news story today, a soldier returned from Iraq, and surprised his kids at school. It was a heart warming story. Of course, we are supposed to honor the soldier for his sacrifice, but then I thought, what was he doing in Iraq with 3 kids at home ? How is it moral to view the mission in Iraq as more valuable than his mission as a father ?
Phyllis Schlafly has talked about this in regard to mothers serving in dangerous roles in the military, and she is right on in my view, Sadly she does not value fathers quite so much.
John, I am one of those fathers. My mother and father also served, as did their fathers, and theirs, and theirs. If I have to explain it to you, it is doubtful you will understand. Your statement boils my blood, but I will try to remain civil. You really do believe the poison of socialism, and for that I pity you.
That said, the duty of a father is to provide for his family, protect his family, and provide a good example for his children. Sadly, far too many fathers/sperm doners run from any such duty (my mother gets to see the results in 30 years of working for WIC).
In the Military, our tradition is to place ourselves in front of our people and families. We give up home for war’s desolation so that our children might not have to see that desolation. Therein lies the morality, though I do not know if you can see it easily. I do not want my boys growing up having to duck because Kassem or BM21 rockets pound their neighborhood, as happens DAILY to the Israelis. I do not want any daughter I have to be forced into a burka and denied education because we were to weak to stand up to encroaching Islamofascism. This IS happening in Europe and in sections of the United States now. Sharia is here, but the ACLU seems to be AWOL in the fight against it. Terrorism is trying to gain a foothold here, but is so far losing to Law Enforcement withing our boarders and our Military outside the USA (The US Military is forbidden to act as law enforcement within the USA).
I do not want to look at my kids and say that it is okay to let millions of others suffer under tyrants because we are too afraid of pissing off self-hating, limp-spined socialists in Europe or the Islamic dictators who hate us no matter what. Sitting at home and watching the world fall apart as we try to convince ourselves that a defensive war against Islamic terror, as we “fought” in the 90s, and lost, is somehow “moral” is not only a slap in the face us Soldiers, but something I could not justify to my or anyone else’s children.
That fact the evidence of the resurgent Islamic goals for worlds domination are easily available and restated daily by Islamic media/Imams/leaders yet ignored by the West is what is truly immoral. We have a chance, right now, to halt this menace, which openly calls for the destruction of Western society: Both the socialist leftists, the Jews/Christians/any non-Muslim, and all of us on the right. Ignoring what is happening in Europe and being too afraid to stand up for Western culture, accomplishments, and a positive future is what is immoral. All of our political debates are mute in the face of what Islam demands for the world.
It is 1937 all over again. We can stop the menace now, or fight it from the ashes of our cities.
“It is good to live life where you value other people, and help when you can. That is not “a sacrifice”.”
Welp, I think those vids in the earlier link described it well (sometimes, other times…well, why go there). The one said that it’s a sacrifice to give up a new hat for a child if one values the hat over a child. It’s not a sacrifice to give up the hat for the child if there’s no value given the hat. (sorry if I misunderstood it). SO, if one weighs the reasons to go vs the reasons to stay, then they are deciding for themselves what they want to do (freedom). Is that an informed decision? No decision is ever made with full knowledge of the future, so no decision ever really is in full, but some people make the decision with more knowledge than others, and each person’s decision must be their own (another reason for a volunteer force vs mandated state service/conscription). Now, as some responses have shown, for many people the decision to live their lives for others-to sacrifice their time and/or their very existence-outweighs the duty to fatherhood (for example). In other cases, as in the sheepdog metaphor I used earlier, the decision is made to help one’s own needs by helping others.
Ultimately, it’s what I tell my kids: the most important thing is to help other people. I don’t teach them, the most important thing is to:
help your family
help your extended family
help your employer
help the state
help your neighbor
help African-Americans
or
[the most important thing] is to help downtrodden sheep who refuse to find food on their own and rely on you to provide for them
No, I tell em the most important thing is to help other people because everyone is created equal. In a bank robbery, would you sacrifice your life to protect someone? Absolutely. How about if your neighbor’s house is on fire? How about if a co-worker is dangling from a rope at a jobsite and you’re holding the rope? How about if you’re on vacation and there’s a mugging going on? In each case, I think we ought to try and help others.
Back to that sheepdog analogy earlier…it seems to much of an endrun.
If we sacrifice our lives-our day to day lives-to help others akin to the teach a man to fish parable, then a time would never come when he had to be fed by sharing our own. More to a realistic example, if a nation is in trouble and in danger of becoming a terrorist staging area for attacks on the US-attacks on my daughter for example-then I think it’s better to help that nation become secure than it is to wait until it’s insecure, in collapse, or collapsed before addressing the threat of a terrorist staging ground there.
“How is it moral to view the mission in Iraq as more valuable than his mission as a father ?”
Again, that’s an individual’s decision-not the state’s. Perhaps that’s one of the key differences between merely authorizing force and declaring that a national state of war exists.
Wow, such good discourse…I didn’t expect that.
🙂
Scott & Chris, what great comments. They should be posts of their own right.
This statement by John sums up his viewpoint of the world quite clearly:
As Chris stated much more clearly then I ever could, it is the moral and right thing to do to ensure that those children do not grow up living under Sharia or with suicide bombers. Most of your types laugh and chuckle at such statements but fail to look across the ocean where in Britian they are indeed falling under the thumb of fanatical Islam every day.
Perfectly stated Scott.
But people like John will keep their head in the sand until its too late.
I was watching the video from the OP, and something occurred to me…
“IT is good to live life where you value other people, and help when you can. That is not “a sacrifice”.”
…
“but then I thought, what was he doing in Iraq with 3 kids at home? How is it moral to view the mission in Iraq as more valuable than his mission as a father?”
Whether it’s Iraq, or Afghanistan, or France, or Morocco, or Tunisia, etc….I just have a tough time with the idea that soldiers who go fight overseas aren’t sacrificing. American soldiers live in mud holes, sleep in ditches, patrol in 130degree heat, eat crap for food, and they get attacked…somehow, I just can’t mesh that kind of living as not being a sacrifice. It’s not like they value that kind of living over their families (that would be a sacrifice). I watched the part in the video where the paratroops jumped out into the night over France, and I just couldn’t see that as not being a sacrifice. Same thing with the guys hitting Omaha Beach, or the guys in the trenches who jumped out to run headlong into machinegun fire. Somehow, these actions seem sacrificial-whether the end result is death seems irrelevant since it’s real hard to say that living in the trenches of WWI wasn’t a sacrifice. Were all these people “conned” by a socialist state or something? I dunno, surely in some cases, but in today’s day and age, and with a war so vehemently opposed and as long as the war in Iraq has been, I can’t possibly believe someone enlists anymore without knowing they’re gonna go to Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., and since they don’t HAVE to enlist, these people fighting today are making informed decisions for themselves. That brings us back to the question of…is it a sacrifice to patrol in 130degree heat, get shot at, etc.? Or are these people not sacrificing?
Nah, the socialist bit doesn’t work via Iraq. Marx never could have envisioned this kind of war.
Scott,
My point is that “the socialist” is the person that sacrifices for a greater good that does not serve him. He gives himself to “the state” and not to himself. ‘The statement “all men are created equal” is not justification for serving the state, it is a reason to serve yourself, because you are as important as anyone. Your life matters way more than the Iraqi political system.
We have been sold a value system where another man’s child is more important or at least as important as your own. I think you know this is not good value system. Soldiers provide “freedom” for Iraqis at the expense of our own families. That means we value Iraqi freedom more than the well being of of our own families – what kind of value system is that.
The thing is, The sacrifice idea has been skewed, so that it is the sacrifice that is recognized, and not the moral code that leads to the choices you make. The honor of “sacrifice” itself being more important than the value system that produced the sacrifice.
Being a good father, and raising strong, independent minded children is the most important thing you can do.
“Being a good father, and raising strong, independent minded children is the most important thing you can do.” (*)
Key to raising them is protecting them, and if people believe that by serving the state in an action that they are helping protect their kids-as well as others-then they are serving both their own interests (*) as well as the interest of others.
“We have been sold a value system where another man’s child is more important or at least as important as your own.” Now, I can understand where you’re coming from with the idea, but let’s just talk about the “…or at least as important as your own.” part since it’s most reflective of everyone being created equal. If we disregard the need to protect others regardless of their blood relationship, then isn’t the entire purpose of a nation-state (coming together for the mutual defense of a community) moot? I guess I’m missing where the line is:
our kids
our brothers and sisters
our mothers and fathers
our grandparents
our second cousins
our friends
our neighbors
our fellow Americans
at what point do we say, “gosh, I’d like to help, but I care more about myself than I do ______ (kids, brothers, sisters, other Americans, other people…who?)”
I agree that “Being a good father, and raising strong, independent minded children is the most important thing you can do.” but it’s not the only thing, and very often helping others, helps us accomplish the objective of raising our own independent minded children. Were that not the case, there would be no teachers teaching other kids-they’d only teach their own. There’d be no doctors helping others-they’d only take care of their own kids. There’d be no police-they’d only protect their own kids, and so forth. There’d be no army protecting us-the soldiers would only protect their own kids.
Where is the line-at what point does one say, “ok, I want to raise strong, independent minded children, but I need help, and to get it I need to help others.” Or should we strong, independent minded children without help from teachers, doctors, protected by police, and soldiers? Those people (really almost every occupation) contributes to the nation as a whole at the expense of time spent raising strong, independent minded children.
Why be a teacher?
Why be a doctor?
Why be a policeman?
Why be a soldier?
Why be a bridge builder?
Why be a farmer feeding a nation instead of just feeding yourself?
We have to help each other so as to achieve our objective of raising strong, independent minded children, AND to get help from others; to buy food at stores, to get healthcare from doctors, to be protected by police and fire and soldiers, and we need to work to get money to get those things from others.
Exactly Scott. I guess I am being selfish for strapping on a sam browne every day and going to work protecting the community I live in. I should be home protecting my children, and ONLY my children.
Wait a minute, lets look at your list, Scott
Why be a teacher? – for the pay
Why be a doctor? – for the pay
Why be a policeman? – for the pay
Why be a bridge builder? – for the pay
Why be a farmer feeding a nation instead of just feeding yourself? – for the pay
The fact that you feel useful doing these people oriented jobs is just secondary. I could add Barber, garbage man, or coal miner – since they too are important to society.
Notice that I didn’t include soldier, because I don’t think that that fits the same category. Soldiers arise during times of crisis. Most wars are fought by citizen soldiers that volunteer because there is a particular danger. They go back to their other occupations later.
If you are a soldier because of the money, then you are a mercenary, which I don’t view as noble in any way.
Soldiers that volunteer because they think it is noble to provide service to the state, are socialists. They view some obscure state goal, like making the world safe for democracy of greater value than the needs of their own.
Now, if you truly believe that there is a serious threat from Iraq, then volunteering to serve there makes sense. (I disagree with this, and have had that argument here before), but to value another persons freedom, more than you value your own life, or your families comfort, or even your own countries well being seems immoral to me.
John, thanks for the comments.
I have a tough time believing anyone is a teacher for the pay. Certainly that can be true, but why seek pay? Why not just teach your kids yourself, protect them from criminals by yourself, purify your own water for their consumption and yours, build your own home?
btw, I’m a little confused about what you’re saying re American volunteer soldiers. Are you saying they’re mercenaries, and nothing more? That seems like a leap to me.
“but to value another persons freedom, more than you value your own life, or your families comfort, or even your own countries well being seems immoral to me.”
I always try focus on EQUAL as it pertains to equal to our own value-not “more than you value your own life….”
btw, I’m interested…why care at all about your country’s well-being? I mean, is the state more important than one’s need for pay or pay as a means to taking care of one’s family?
John,
Your attempts to state volunteer American Soldiers are socialists are a slap in the face to everything we fight for and believe in as Soldiers. That said, I will try to remain civil, though the left and their islamofascist allies are making that more difficult by the day.
Socialism is a failed political system where those who produce are raped by an all powerful state to keep those who do not produce “happyâ€Â. Thus making everyone “equalâ€Â. “Equal†only in misery, except for the “party eliteâ€Â. Yes a socialist values the “state†more than anything else. This is true of National Socialists and Lenin/Maoist socialists. Individual rights are forfeit as is any freedom in these countries. Socialism is a murderous, deceitful, failed political system and calling US Service Members socialists is an insult.
“Soldiers that volunteer because they think it is noble to provide service to the state, are socialists. They view some obscure state goal, like making the world safe for democracy of greater value than the needs of their own.â€Â
You need to read the US Oath of Enlistment and Commission for all Service Members. We do not provide “service to the stateâ€Â. Our oath explicitly states “support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America†NOT “support and defend the government of the United States of Americaâ€Â. We are one of the very few armed forces whose oath reads as such. The Preamble to the Constitution states “We the Peopleâ€Â. Unlike socialist states, “the People†here actually means “Peopleâ€Â, not “elites in the socialist partyâ€Â.
Thus the United States Military exists to protect “We the People from all threats foreign and domesticâ€Â.
Our oath also ends with a pledge to follow ONLY lawful orders from officers and the President. If the President, or any superior officer, gives an unlawful order, it is our duty to disobey it. Clinton gave a few unlawful orders in the 1990s and they were disobeyed. The Generals told him why they would not be instituted and then resigned. If the US Armed Forces were simply socialist organs of the state, then we would have behaved like the Chinese Military in Tiananmen Square. Be thankful we are not what the leftists claim we are.
The wisdom of this oath is that the government is ultimately NOT IMPORTANT to the survival of the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America. The PEOPLE, however, are. Soldiers, who are overwhelmingly VERY conservative, understand this. A socialist may not be able to comprehend how defending the People of a nation, which has the side benefit of assisting the state (always a small ‘s’) in its survival, is moral.
That is the bottom line: The People matter much more than the state.
You may not believe Iraq was a threat, but leaders from both the left and the right, along with 14 UN resolutions, did. They were correct. Helping the Iraqis and Afghanis achieve Freedom IS paramount to our country’s well being. With Iran now buying more and more weapons, threatening to use nuclear arms, supporting terrorism world-wide, and openly moving to control 80% of the Mid-East oil, a stable, free, and allied Iraq is extremely important to our country’s well being.
For the pay! You have to be kidding me?
Now that is one retarded argument. I could make much more money in the private sector then I ever could as a police officer.
Teachers are in it for the pay?
Um….wow.
And here I thought you were getting into a serious conversation here and you pull this out of your ass.
And now I know your an idiot.
“Soldiers that volunteer because they think it is noble to provide service to the state, are socialists.”
“for the pay”
Is it only a socialist or a capitalist option?
Can’t be something in between?
Can’t be both?
Can’t be both and more?
?
We have many misled people in the Unites States today. Soldiers anywhere are pawns of the state. Supporters of the partyline. Soldiere sent to fight in Iraq, are part of a political/economic agenda. It is not about making the world a better place. The middle east has been a bloodbath for thousands of years. The US military is not going to stop that. Our founding fathers warned about getting involved in other peoples’ affairs, “entangling alliances.” The world is more dangerous today than it was in history, and entangling alliances have not made the world safer and freer. All throughout history, soldiers have been taught the values of supporting the party line whether you call it the state, democracy, helpfulness. Our founding fathers were firm believers of independence, minding your own business, helping yourself, self sufficiency. The United States military typically goes abroad to free people from sometging that the people don’t want to be freed from. We help people who do not share American fundamentals.
Kenneth,
thanks for the comments, but I think you’re completely wrong. I think American soldiers in particular are extremely well informed, far more intelligent than any other force in history, and fully capable of making their own decisions-especially their own decision to serve in Iraq or not.
My favorite comment was this one though:
“The United States military typically goes abroad to free people from sometging that the people don’t want to be freed from. ”
Yeah, um, I’m pretty sure the Germans, French, Italians, Japanese, South Koreans, and more are content and/or happy with the freedom they have as enabled by the United States military. If they weren’t, they’d have risen up and replaced the democratic governments that the US backed with a new Hitler, a new Mussolini, a revived Tojo-style govt, joined with N Korea under Kim, and so forth. This idea that the US is “imposing” freedom is pure political rhetoric because it can’t be and has never tried to be imposed-only enabled.
If you really think American soldiers, sailors, Marines, etc are just mercenaries or pawns or mindless robots killing for the power of a socialist government or perhaps for the imperial glory of running dog capitalist pigs, I invite you to walk into the closest US Marine Corps recruiting depot and discuss this with them. I’ve no doubt the nearest soldier-enlisted, NCO, or officer-can clear up the matter for you.
🙂
btw, please let us know how it goes when you get done discussing it with them