Self Goverment

[conway]

Thomas Jefferson

 

 

"All men and all bodies of men, have the inherent right to self government."

 

 

I am of the opinion that this is one of the highest orders of truth. Opinions?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[John Cuthber]

Did Jefferson say that?

It seems odd.

[conway]

John

 

 

 

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/thomasjefferson/jeff0600.htm

 

 

Jefferson spoke of self government a lot.

[John Cuthber]

Possibly, but the phrase you attribute to him doesn't appear on that page; nor elsewhere on the web (as far as Google can tell).

Did you make it up?

[StringJunky]

From that page. He paraphrased it a bit:

 

 

"Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Residence Bill, 1790. ME 3:60

Personally, I disagree because everyone doing their own thing is anarchy ...that's not civilisation.

[John Cuthber]

If what he meant was that all bodies of men should be allowed to set up their own government that's fine- until you realise that we are all part of one group- the human race and we are also part of smaller groups- (like the golf club or whatever) and those groups might not agree.

Can I get together with a group of my friends and decide that as a self governing body, we are allowed to kill people who watch soap operas?

[studiot]

 

Possibly, but the phrase you attribute to him doesn't appear on that page; nor elsewhere on the web (as far as Google can tell).

Did you make it up?

 

 

 

I found this at the top of the reference readily enough.

 

 

Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Residence Bill, 1790. ME 3:60

 

Personally I regard the Preamble to the American Constitution as one of the masterpieces of political and social thought in English.

 

I don't know much about Jefferson though.

[swansont]

 

Personally, I disagree because everyone doing their own thing is anarchy ...that's not civilisation.

 

Self-government isn't doing your own thing, though. Governments have powers that may preclude you from doing your own thing.

[StringJunky]

 

Self-government isn't doing your own thing, though. Governments have powers that may preclude you from doing your own thing.

Yes, it's a matter of degree. I was looking at it in an absolute sense of self-determination.

[conway]

Thanks swansont

 

Anarchy is not a government, therefore, choosing anarchy as a "self government" is not choosing a government.

 

 

 

Studiot

 

Jefferson is considered the father of the constitution.

 

 

 

John

 

If you go off into the boonies where there is no "current" government then yes.

 

 

Why play words games with this. It is a simple idea. If a human being does NOT want to create, or chose their own government, then not only are they lazy, but they are cowards as well.

Edited July 18, 2015 by conway

[dimreepr]

It is a simple idea. If a human being does NOT want to create, or chose their own government, then not only are they lazy, but they are cowards as well.

 

 

 

There’s a huge disparity between creating a government and choosing one; just because the question is simple doesn’t mean the answer isn’t complicated.

I think perhaps you’re confused as to the intent of that quote; does the right of a society/country to self governance equate to an individual’s right to it?

[John Cuthber]

 

John

 

Why play words games with this. It is a simple idea. If a human being does NOT want to create, or chose their own government, then not only are they lazy, but they are cowards as well.

This thread is not going to achieve much beyond "playing word games"

If it's so simple, why have you asked about it?

It's entirely possible that, since I'm content with the government I have, creating one would be a waste of time so it's not lazy or cowardly.

 

incidentally, if you attribute something to someone as a quote, it should be what they actually said.

[Phi for All]

Why play words games with this.

Spoken like someone who misquoted a famous man.

 

It is a simple idea. If a human being does NOT want to create, or chose their own government, then not only are they lazy, but they are cowards as well.

Oh goody, a flaming generality. Can you please show how EVERYBODY that doesn't want to create or choose a government is lazy and cowardly? Seriously, where do you get off making a statement like that? Do you know EVERYBODY and their motivations?!

[Ten oz]

I think it is dificult to understanding to what Jefferson was saying. "Every man, and every body of men on earth" did not posses the ability to self govern in Jeffersons day nor did Jefferson personally advocate for "every man". Were black slave and Native Americans part of the "every body of men on earth"? What was the standard in Jefferson's mind for darawing a line in the sand defining what a man was education, race, place of birth, religion, or something more ambigouis? Also once we acknowledge that "every man" actual meant "certian men" than perhaps "self-govnerment" meant something different as well? Something more akin to a Pope saying a all Priests have the right to preach their own testament. The statement is made with the undertsanding that the testament preached will always fall inline with Catholic constructs.

[conway]

To All

 

 

Ok, clearly I was wrong in suggesting anyone was a coward or lazy for any reason whatsoever. I apologize.

 

In any case I agree with Ten Oz. That is why I paraphrased the quote. What does it matter if it's quoted exactly if the man who said it owned slaves. What WAS important was the idea. The idea does not need a quote. I truly only wanted to convey the idea. By word games I clearly meant "the definition of government". That is the point! All men INDVIDUALLY has the right to decided how government is defined. And that "choosing" a government is equivalent to creating it. Assuming it was not a forced choice. So then what I have should have stated was, show me an example where a human being would actually claim that they DO NOT posses the inherent right to self government. Note, allowing someone else to govern for you is self government. So long as it's not forced.

Edited July 18, 2015 by conway

[studiot]

Conway,

Perhaps I was the only one who understood you were simply modernising Jefferson's actual words.

 

As an aside this is considered perfectly acceptable practice. We do not state the original words of Kirchoff, Newton and many others when stating their Laws.

But you did not make a point or ask a question so I have nothing else to respond to.

 

So tell us why you started this thread and what you expect to get out of it.

 

Hopefully that might avoid further silly misunderstandings.

[swansont]

What does it matter if it's quoted exactly if the man who said it owned slaves. What WAS important was the idea.

 

In a broader application it matters, since misquoting people is not an uncommon issue. Paraphrasing isn't a problem but you shouldn't knowingly paraphrase and put quotes around it

[conway]

Thanks Studiot

 

I did ask for opinions in my first post. My hope was that the majority of people agreed, or as stated in my following post, that someone could actually present a scenario were an individual would claim that they did NOT posses the right to define the word government. If it could be done, then I would have to reconsider my opinions on this matter as well. If it could not, then the intention was to ask (in a new thread), if we personally posses the right to self government in America

 

 

To All

 

I apologize for the miss spelling in the thread title. I will try to correct the "paraphrasing" and "quoting" differences in the future.

Edited July 18, 2015 by conway

[swansont]

I think it is dificult to understanding to what Jefferson was saying. "Every man, and every body of men on earth" did not posses the ability to self govern in Jeffersons day nor did Jefferson personally advocate for "every man". Were black slave and Native Americans part of the "every body of men on earth"? What was the standard in Jefferson's mind for darawing a line in the sand defining what a man was education, race, place of birth, religion, or something more ambigouis? Also once we acknowledge that "every man" actual meant "certian men" than perhaps "self-govnerment" meant something different as well? Something more akin to a Pope saying a all Priests have the right to preach their own testament. The statement is made with the undertsanding that the testament preached will always fall inline with Catholic constructs.

 

It probably helps to recognize that, at that time, nobody had that choice at a national level.

[conway]

Swansont

 

I think your point is good. I would also add, that while we currently understand that all races of humans are humans. It was Jefferson and his time, that actually believed that certain races weren't actually human. Clearly "a bit" of cognitive dissonance. But it helps us to understand why they could have such a good point as "self government" and still be so ignorant of human equality.

[Gees]

Ten oz;

 

I wondered when someone would remember that Jefferson was a slave owner. It is always nice to have a few facts thrown in with our considerations. If his slaves heard, believed, and acted on his words, how well do we think Jefferson's plantation would have fared? (chuckle)

 

 

Conway;

 

Please consider my following thoughts regarding some of your points.

 

All men INDVIDUALLY has the right to decided how government is defined. And that "choosing" a government is equivalent to creating it. Assuming it was not a forced choice.

 

Well I will not dispute the idea that they believe they have this right, because I think that they do believe it. They also believe that they have the right to decide government for women. Although women were finally given the vote, the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) was never ratified, as far as I know. So we are still talking about some men's perspectives.

 

Does a belief constitute a right?

So then what I have should have stated was, show me an example where a human being would actually claim that they DO NOT posses the inherent right to self government. Note, allowing someone else to govern for you is self government. So long as it's not forced.

 

Even a hermit believes that he has the right to eschew the local government, so he would also fall in with these beliefs. But again, does a belief constitute a right?

 

If I believed that I had the right to shoot the neighbor for abusing my child, does that mean that I have the right to shoot my neighbor? Can I decide how this situation should be governed? If so, we can close down most of the jails.

 

Ok, clearly I was wrong in suggesting anyone was a coward or lazy for any reason whatsoever.

 

I am not sure that I can agree with this statement, as I can see a reasoning behind your original words -- from a certain perspective.

 

Instead of tying rights to beliefs, if we tied rights to responsibilities, I suspect that we would find more truth.

 

If we choose to accept the current government, then we choose to take all of the protections that the government offers us. So what must we contribute to that government for this protection? If it was a Feudal government, maybe we owed part of our crops; if another government, maybe we owed taxes, the obligation to fight in wars, allegiance, or to vote.

 

If we find that the obligations to a government outweigh the rights and privileges that the government offers, we may decide to overthrow that government or establish a new government based on our beliefs. But again, this right is tied to our abilities and our determination to take responsibility for governing ourselves.

 

There are no free rides. Either we accept the current government and our responsibility to contribute to it as a member of that society, or we develop a new government and work and fight to establish it. So if a person chose neither of these options, he could be seen as cowardly or lazy, from a certain perspective; although, things are rarely that simple.

 

If you read more of Thomas Jefferson's words, I think that you will find that he was very aware of the need for responsibilities to match rights.

 

Gee

 

[conway]

Gee

 

I have considered your idea of rights matching responsibility. However one does not always have the right to be responsible for a given thing. There may be no land for me to be responsible for, (at least none of any worth), therefore I would not have the right of property. I may not have the ability to fight for my government, or take physical action to take part in that government. Therefore because I don't not have the responsibility of government, I do not have the right. No Gee, it is my belief that right's are beliefs. The thing is, any thing you personally consider to be a "responsibility" is only a belief by you that it is so. Such as a man and his land. He may take care of it, therefore he owns it through right of responsibility, but in the end it is only his belief that he takes care of the land. It would exist with or with out his care, the state of it's existence being relative. This again is akin to government.

[Ten oz]

Thanks Studiot

 

I did ask for opinions in my first post. My hope was that the majority of people agreed, or as stated in my following post, that someone could actually present a scenario were an individual would claim that they did NOT posses the right to define the word government. If it could be done, then I would have to reconsider my opinions on this matter as well. If it could not, then the intention was to ask (in a new thread), if we personally posses the right to self government in America

 

 

To All

 

I apologize for the miss spelling in the thread title. I will try to correct the "paraphrasing" and "quoting" differences in the future.

In most calls for individual freedom and empowerment those leading the charge have a specific image of how people will/should behave. Even amongst white land owners I suspect Jefferson would not have felt people looking to practice polygamy or incest should be entitled to self government. I also doubt people practicing Islam or Judaism would have been provided the same courties of self government Quakers were during Jefferson's time. The broad call for every man shrinks considerably upon review. Just as you started this thread with assumptions about how it would be recieved Jefferson had assumptions about how self government would be used and by whom.

 

 

Swansont

 

I think your point is good. I would also add, that while we currently understand that all races of humans are humans. It was Jefferson and his time, that actually believed that certain races weren't actually human. Clearly "a bit" of cognitive dissonance. But it helps us to understand why they could have such a good point as "self government" and still be so ignorant of human equilty.

Not just black slaves but Native Americans clearly weren't deserving in Jefferson mind as well. Even assuming Jefferson's views applied to all with european ancestry is wrong considering that many european immigrants were indentured servants during Jefferson's time. I believe that Jefferson was truly only referencing his peers when he wrote about equility and self government. Not all men, not all Europeans, but merely his peers.

[conway]

Ten Oz

 

I agree completely in regards to your thoughts on Jefferson's perception of this idea. That is, he surely meant it only for his peers and himself.

 

 

However. I have truly assumed nothing. I have A) stated an opinion, B) asked for others opinion C) expressed a hope others felt the same. While I am "leading this charge" as in I am the OP, I have no such cognitive dissonance as Jefferson. I have no problem with the inherent rights of polygamist, and incest people to govern themselves. I however will not personally take part in that government nor any union that might arise with said government. But nor will I conquer them for their "own good" or the "good of the children".

 

I believe Ten Oz, that more so than self government. People have the right to be wrong. This is to say nothing of consequences so....we should still have those, don't get me wrong. If you wish a "line" drawn in this matter.....that's the point.....we should all draw it ourselves.

[Ten oz]

Ten Oz

 

I agree completely in regards to your thoughts on Jefferson's perception of this idea. That is, he surely meant it only for his peers and himself.

 

 

However. I have truly assumed nothing. I have A) stated an opinion, B) asked for others opinion C) expressed a hope others felt the same. While I am "leading this charge" as in I am the OP, I have no such cognitive dissonance as Jefferson. I have no problem with the inherent rights of polygamist, and incest people to govern themselves. I however will not personally take part in that government nor any union that might arise with said government. But nor will I conquer them for their "own good" or the "good of the children".

 

I believe Ten Oz, that more so than self government. People have the right to be wrong. This is to say nothing of consequences so....we should still have those, don't get me wrong. If you wish a "line" drawn in this matter.....that's the point.....we should all draw it ourselves.

Making a inherent right to personal freedom argument that allows for polygamy and incest is akin to making one that would allow people to own slaves. Whose freedom are we talking about here? The Alpha's that run a community/family or everones? Surey you are aware of the history of abuse, particulary of females, in communities with polygamy and incest. Who stands up for their rights?

It took government action to end slavery, government action to stop the murder and disenfrachisement of Native Americans, government action ended child labor, and government action to end the practice of marying off young teenage girls. Many people will use their own freedom to oppress others. Some family patriachs will honour kill females over personal beliefs if allowed and tolerated.

In my opinion the best way for individuals to be assured freedom and a voice in government is through strong centralized democracies. Otherwise the weak (poor, less educated, disabled, minority, etc) won't have a voice. We have seen it through out history.