Freedom, Morality, and Ignorance

This Freedom thing is not for the faint of heart or the blissfully ignorant. Although the Constitution limits the powers of the Federal Government, much that government does today is, in fact, unconstitutional. We have allowed this abuse of authority to occur because we have forgotten basic truths. Decades of apathy and sloth have us headed toward self-imposed slavery. We will preserve freedom for posterity only if we recall the wisdom of our fathers and the requisites that brought us here:

1) Freedom cannot exist without morality. Without strength of character and moral fortitude, we cannot govern ourselves. A decline in morality results in the abuse of rights and increases the need for government. Criminals need jailers; domesticated animals need herdsmen; an immoral citizenry needs a police state. As we abandon morality and adopt the law of the jungle, we lose freedom.

2) Freedom and ignorance are not compatible. To be capable of self-government, we must be informed as well as moral. Without information, we tend to vote for the politician who promises the most, which results in more and bigger government. An omnipotent government rules inept individuals, and an uninformed and impotent people votes itself into slavery. Only a moral, informed electorate will vote for men and women of principle who will limit government to its proper role.

3) The Declaration of Independence proclaims that our rights come from our Creator and are therefore intrinsic. Because rights existed prior to governments, the purpose of government is only to protect these rights, not to legislate out of existence rights that are incapable of being surrendered. A Constitutional Republic is based on this fundamental truth. If we ever abandon it, we also lose freedom.

4) The limitation of government is the essence of freedom. Because men are not angels, some government is necessary to secure our inalienable rights. Because government officials are men, powers of government must be strictly limited and constantly held in check.

Essay by Sara Jo DuHamel

See also:

 

Reclaiming Americanism and the Constitution

Personal Responsibility and Independence

The Contract with America the story of the Constitution

Advertisements

6 comments

  1. >”
    The Declaration of Independence proclaims that our rights come from our Creator and are therefore intrinsic. ”

    That’s a pretty scary proposition – if there is no “creator” there is no “freedom” ?

    Next we should be hearing from the Mormons claiming that God wrote the Constitution :))

    1. Much scarier is the mistaken notion that an individual’s rights are only what a government says they are. The latter is a characteristic of socialism, communism, and dictatorships. In a constitutional republic, rights are regarded as intrinsic to the individual and the government’s job is to protect those rights from both government and the tyranny of the majority. It looks to me that you are purposely misunderstanding the intrinsic nature of human rights.

      1. >”
        It looks to me that you are purposely misunderstanding the intrinsic nature of human rights.”

        By pointing out that “rights” are not dependent upon “creators” ?

  2. In this case, I agree with Tip. I think we have rights simply by virtue of drawing breath, not because of an alleged deity or government who bestow them upon us. Morality is also not what this country needs, it’s ethics. Morality is based in fear of punishment, generally by a god of some sort for violating its tenets. Ethics are based upon reason and compassion, much better foundations than fear.

    1. Tunkashila, I agree that we have rights by virtue of our existence. That’s what intrinsic means.

      1. Yes, but you link those rights and freedoms to morality, saying that one cannot exist without the other, which I think is nonsense. There is a difference between moral and ethical behavior, which I outlined in my post above.

        It is my contention that our rights exist thanks to ethics-had our founding fathers been moralists in the Christian sense rather than Deists and Masons, they would never have rebelled against Britain as all kings (supposedly) rule by divine right. Food for thought.

Comments are closed.