The US constitution and the declaration of independence are two different things that happened years apart from one another.
True. However, both were documents based on the principle of individual rights. The Declaration, the moral justification; the Constitution, the practical application. The purpose of both was to set men free of government power and subordinate it to the principle of Individual Rights.
Calling ideas that you disagree with but cannot disprove "conspiracy theories" is a common tactic among those who venerate the state and its illegitimate powers. But everything I said can be easily verified by historical facts.
We already had the articles of confederation. There was no need for a newer, bigger government as embodied by the US constitution. And the only reason the constitution has a bill of rights is because the constitution's opponents insisted on its inclusion.
And so? He was against the Declaration? He supported unlimited government and limited freedom? He advocated for the confiscation of wealth to be given to the poor? He was against private property? He lived in a pre-hippy commune, or like most of the minds of the time, he held contradictory ideas? Are you implying the Founding Fathers preached mercantilism and state ownership of production and vilified capitalism and its resulting industrialization and private wealth? What exactly was it Patrick Henry advocated that would make you think I would think he was a Marxist, or in some respects, an advocate of government power above the rights of individuals.
He was against the constitution, as were a number of other venerable patriots. You are confused, sir.
Thomas Jefferson believed in small government, State's rights, gun rights, low taxes, minimal regulations, and a restrained foreign policy. In other words, he believed in everything that you do not, Mr. Oliver.
I am somewhat familiar with the conflict of the times, and while there is a kernel of truth in what you say, the resulting documentation was not the subjugation of individuals to the state, but the subordination of the state to the protection of the rights of those individuals. However it came to be, it came to be. And lets at least remember, the conflict was not about how much freedom to allow, but about how much power to give the government to protect that freedom.
Sure they can. I was just pointing out to the other poster that you were not a progressive, but a Libertarian, which you have ably confirmed.
Theres only a handful of countries that still respect the right of individual to value themself over the group. America is greatest among them, and therefore greatest of all.
It's not what I say, it's what Patrick Henry and others like him said during the constitutional conventions. And they were 100% right. Everything they said would happen has come to fruition. Factions emerged, civil war erupted, and the US republic was replaced by an empire. And now look at us. High taxes, massive debt, big government, endless wars - everything the American revolution was against. That is now our reality. And it's because of the constitution. Again, could have fooled me. The US constitution greatly increased the size and the power of the state, so I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. It came to be as the result of a conspiracy among a cabal of aristocrats who sought to consolidate their own wealth and power at the expense of the country. Centralized governments have never protected freedom with the powers they were given.
It's the religiously faithful pointing the government's gun at a woman's head demanding that she live as a breeding cow for God, despite her reasoning that this would not be best for her at this time. You know, deciding for yourself what her life will be.