Declaration of Independence - Essay Example

The Declaration of Independence Lives on Only in History Books The concepts of freedom found within the Declaration of Independence are evidently lost to the ages. The words within this revered document are powerful and often quoted but few understand what the Founding Fathers envisaged as free people in a free country. The level of personal autonomy established in the Declaration is much broader than what is enjoyed by Americans today and reflects the philosophy of few politicians. Americans have allowed the government that is supposed to be the voice of the people to erode the freedoms and diminish their quality of life. Unlimited personal freedoms are the basis upon which the country was founded but this idea has long since become a quaint notion lost to the readings of history and not practiced in the spirit of those who fought the Revolutionary War. Laws that impede personal freedoms are unconstitutional, defy the intentions of the Founding Fathers and therefore are un-American. Only when a person’s actions negatively affect another does the government has a right to intervene. This is the definition of freedom as embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The definition of freedom as espoused by the Founders certainly and sadly does not reflect the same philosophy of the majority of Americans today. Citizens have natural rights that the government cannot bestow or take away. The country was founded by people who believed this concept and wrote the Constitution to forever protect personal freedoms, a concept not reflective of attitudes toward freedom. To what extent personal freedom should be permitted is not the issue. Personal freedoms are an American birthright that is slowly but surely eroding over time. Whether or not the American people have the courage to protect and restore these freedoms is the real issue. The Founding Fathers displayed courage when they broke away from a tyrannical, oppressive King of England who ruled over the most powerful military at that time to establish a country where personal autonomy was considered the most precious commodity in a society. The seeds of the Founders’ concept of law and freedom emanated from Britain. The Constitution was inspired by the Magna Charta and British philosopher John Locke helped to lay the foundation for the Founders’ deep belief in personal freedoms. Locke defined each individual as having the right to “life, liberty and estate” (Locke, 1960 p. 448). These words have an almost identical mirror in the beginning paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence written nearly 70 years later: “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” (“Declaration of Independence” 1776). Jefferson’s words in the Declaration echo many of Locke’s premises, including the idea that the people not only have a right, but an obligation, to revolt against the unnatural reign of King George under the existing conditions because the natural rights of men living in the colonies were being exploited rather than protected. “The human right in property (one’s life was his property) was meant by Locke and understood by the Framers of the Constitution to be the fundamental liberty … It was only necessary to organize [government] to protect property and life and once organized other freedoms had to be protected against government’s power” (Stephens, 2006) When the role of government ceases to protect these rights and instead begins to infringe upon them, Locke, and the founding fathers of the United States, felt it was the right and the responsibility of the people to revolt and establish a new social order. Classical liberalism often referred to as libertarianism is a deeply held conviction in the concept of personal liberty. Those of this ideology hold closely to the words in the Declaration of Independence that refer to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness being inalienable rights. In the time of the country’s founding and today as well, the majority of people think that their individual rights emanates from government decree, that the rights they enjoy are contingent upon what the government decides to allow. But liberals follow the philosophy of Locke who argued that it quite the opposite. The government, by law, should be allowed only to enact legislation that follows the ‘no harm’ rule. Those who cause harm to others should be justly punished but those who are excising personal freedom, their constitutionally guaranteed right, should be allowed to pursue happiness in whatever manner they choose. Denying personal freedom is often justified and accepted as necessary but in the greater scope of human endeavor the acceptance of these ‘no harm’ laws leads the public to accept other such laws which slowly but steadily lead to further reductions of free will decisions by free peoples. ‘No harm’ legislation legally restricts the personal freedom of individuals whose actions hurt no one other than themselves but which some consider morally wrong. This extends to many situations such as drug possession, prostitution, bigamy, etc. In the U.S., laws preventing gambling and gay marriage fall into this category as well. There is, of course, a line drawn within this opinion regarding laws that include children. Consensual adults, however, should be free to choose how to live their lives as they please if it does not interfere with the personal welfare or property of others. Personal freedom is a commodity not fully understood by the American public. Two examples of this presently being debated, euthanasia and abortion embrace compelling and impassioned arguments on both sides of the issue. Proponents of euthanasia are concerned with human suffering. Many diseases such as cancer cause a lingering and excruciatingly painful death. Watching a loved one as they wither away from the disease eating away at their organs is tough enough on family members, but to see them suffer even when drugs are administered is unbearable not to mention what the patient must endure. This emotionally and physically torturous situation is played out in every hospital, every day of the year but serves no purpose. The psychological pain for both the family and patient is unimaginably horrific as well. Patients suffering from Alzheimer’s may not suffer physical pain but endure a different type of pain and usually for a long period of time. Alzheimer’s is a degenerative disease causing the patient to ramble incoherently and lose their memory. Many people who led vibrant, active and purposeful lives are remembered by their family members in this state (Messerli, 2007). The debate centers on individual autonomy, whether or not patients who suffer from extreme pain and have a terminal or degenerative disease have the right to an assisted death of the type and time of their own choosing (“The Fight”, 2004). The Supreme Court decision to permit abortions (Roe vs. Wade) was correct from a constitutional context. Critics of the decision have generally made arguments based on personal moral beliefs which are irrelevant when the language of the Constitution is examined. Their moral arguments against the Roe decision can be quickly dismissed by weighing the examples of constitutional decisions reached by the Supreme Court in addition to reading the specific words contained in the Constitution. The argument against the decision should address the 9th Amendment which states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” (“Bill of Rights”, 2006). It clearly encourages the recognition of abortion and all other rights over and above what is contained in the Constitution. Just because the word ‘abortion’ does not appear, the Constitution is still the origin for legal decisions for this issue as it is for all other civil rights cases. Euthanasia and abortion are but two of the more high profile issues surrounding personal freedoms. Seatbelt and helmet laws, prostitution, gambling are other examples of ‘no harm’ laws. The justification for seatbelt/helmet laws is that fewer and less severe injuries are sustained as a result of the law which, when properly enforced, ultimately lowers the cost of health care for everyone. Overwhelmingly, lawmakers and the public have approved the substitution of money for freedom as quickly as they have sacrificed liberty for security in the ‘war on terror.’ Prostitution laws are ridiculous. What else can you give away but can’t legally sell? Gambling is illegal and immoral unless the state does it and calls it lottery. Other activities popularly trumpeted under the personal freedom umbrella such as smoking in public, carrying concealed firearms or driving while talking on the phone affect the safety of others and therefore are subject to governmental control. Many have strongly suggested the U.S. government has, for a long time, extended its range of power beyond what was intended, beyond concerns regarding the welfare of the people of the nation such as invading sovereign nations without just cause, i.e. Vietnam and Iraq and using fear to justify spying on its own citizens. Those in government have defended what many deem immoral and unnecessary actions. In addition, the government has come to define its powers more broadly reducing the degree of personal freedoms over time resulting in a system today Locke and likely the majority of the Founding Fathers would strongly object to. Works Cited “Declaration of Independence.” (1776). March 14, 2008 “(The) Fight for the Right to Die.” CBC News. (September 27, 2004). March 14, 2008 Locke, John. “Two Treaties of Government.” Cambridge University Press. (1960). p. 448. Messerli, Joe. “Should an incurably-ill patient be able to commit physician-assisted suicide?” Balanced Politics. (March 4, 2007). March 14, 2008 Stephens, George. “John Locke: His American and Carolinian Legacy.” John Locke Foundation. (2006). March 14, 2008 “United States Constitution Bill of Rights.” Cornell Law School. Legal Information Institute. (2006). March 14, 2008 Read More