Random
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Is this true about the USA?

No other nation on earth was ever conceived on the principle of allowing people to manifest their own destiny, while keeping government out of their lives. The vision, the premise and the purpose, was to allow you the freedom to determine your place in life; and even, at any time, change that determination and strike off in an entirely new direction.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
I'm not really sure how many of the founding fathers were pure anarchists, determined to rid themselves of all government interference, though. Consider the emphasized text before the Declaration enumerates the things King George did to piss them off:


...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. ...

My guess is most didn't want their taxes going overseas, but were willing to pay State taxes. And a few years later, they went further and set up a Federal Government, albeit a limited one.
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@MistyCee You have no idea what the difference between John Locke Liberalism and anarchy is. Now that is FUNNY!!!
@hippyjoe1955 Shrugs. You said they wanted to keep "government out of their lives."

Is that Locke?
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@MistyCee Have you ever read Locke? Doesn't sound like it. Marxists like you think that anarchy is the answer and when it isn't then totalitarianism is best. Locke thought that we as people are best suited to choose our way in life. That does not mean no government it means very limited government. Keeping the peace by imprisoning murderers is a legitimate role of government. Telling people they must inject an untested vax into their bodies and the bodies of their children is not a legitimate role of government. Of course twisted people like you would reverse that order but then that is why you are on the side of evil.
@hippyjoe1955 I remember having real issues with Locke's State of Nature, tbh, as opposed to Hobbes, but I like the social contract thing, and the idea of limiting government's role in people's lives.

How limited seems like the hard part, and what do you do when people don't agree on those limits. Do they become sovereign citizens?
hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M
@MistyCee Government needs to be very limited. If silly people want more government they can always move to some place like Venezuela.