reply to post by stephinrazin
On the one side is the idea that humanity has rights that are always hampered by the existence of governing institutions, and the other that these
institutions can be used for the benefit of a society.
I don't think you've fully grasped, at the very least, one side of this argument. In all honesty I am not really clear on what Maslo's argument is
in this thread, but I do not at all believe that the existence of government necessarily means rights will be hampered, and I certainly believe that
government can be used, and should be used for the benefit of individuals of any society.
All people have unalienable rights as individuals, and because each and everyone of them have these rights, it follows they have the right to protect
and defend their rights. It then follows that these individuals have the right to form an institution towards that same end, the protection and
defense of unalienable rights.
Lord Acton correctly observed that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. IN terms of political power, it makes sense that this power
should be spread evenly and equally amongst the people. For this reason the people hold the inherent political power of any government. All
governments exist by the good graces of the people, and while Thomas Jefferson correctly pointed out that people are inclined to suffer a long train
of abuses before finally breaking free from the shackles of tyranny, it is a flaw Jefferson is pointing to, and if the people have come together to
form an institution with the sole purpose of protection and defense of unalienable rights that no train of abuses should be tolerated at all.
They tend to be tolerated for a number of reasons, the greatest being expedience. It is easier to go along to get along than to stand up to every
single government abuse, and people will go along to get along until they can no longer get along, and once that happens revolutions follows. Waiting
for the train of abuse to become that long train of abuses and trusting that revolution will solve the problem risks needless bloodshed, particularly
under a Constitutional republic where government has been severely restrained.
There are other reasons besides expedience, and another reason is the dogma that unalienable rights is really just an ideology, and worse a "cemented
ideology". Either unalienable rights are universal or they are not. If they are not then the term unalienable becomes inappropriate, but if the
opponents of unalienable rights are represented by the arguments in this thread made against unalienable rights then the opponents of unalienable
rights have a long uphill battle that will invariably be lost.
It has certainly not been made clear what the advantages are to arguing that unalienable rights are non existence and that law is a human invention
subject to the whimsy of individual politicians, or even the will of the people. Such arguments no doubt benefit the despot and tyrant who would rule
over people, but it doesn't benefit the people who would be ruled by such a tyrant. Conversely, it is perfectly clear how unalienable universal
rights benefit all, and when all understand they do indeed have unalienable rights that are theirs to be sacredly kept, protected and defended, its
hard to imagine how any tyrant could ever gain power to begin with.
It is of course, not so difficult to imagine how tyranny rises to power today. There are a vast amount of people who are all to willing to view
unalienable rights as nothing more than an ideology, and ironically cling to a different ideology that holds that clinging to any one ideology is base
and uneducated. There are also, of course, too many people who understandably find it prudent to go along to get along until they no longer find such
an action to be prudent, but this lack of vigilance is generally imprudent because even the ambitious politician with the best of intentions will
gladly usurp the inherent political power under Machiavellian beliefs that the end justifies the means.
It is never the end that justifies means, and always the means that get us to any end, and those who argue the end justifies the means will always
have some excuse as to why that end has not yet been met.