Dead Men's Law

"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."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident"

We
Who is we? 
Who is included in this group? Men? Americans? Whites?

Truth
What is a truth? 
Something we know to be real. 


Is a pure truth something that exists without an experience of that truth - it is just there, a fact, a real thing that exists without interpretation? 
But how can anything exist without an interpretation? 


Self Evident?
Ok, accept we've somehow gotten a truth, how do we know it is a truth? 
Where is the objectivity in deciding we've attained it truth? 
How do we even know we have been objective and know what objectivity is?  
Surely the best we can hope for is mutually corroborated inter-subjectivity.
Therefore, how can any truth be self evident? 


We decide amongst ourselves and mutually corroborate what is objective and then, because we're all in agreement, we decide that something is self evidently a truth.

"that all men are created equal"

All men.
All? Regardless of race or religion or nationality?
Just men? Not women? All humans?  Including those with IQs of 40? 


Created?

Are men created or just born? 

Created implies a creator and is therefore inherently religious - bringing the metaphysical once more into politics and what is supposed to be the realm of the practical and possible. Therefore should such a notion even be considered?

Equal

What is equal? 

All humans are created equal? 

Where is the evidence to support this?

Equal is defined as what?

Equal in what terms? Mental ability? Physical ability? Some kind of ephemeral and theoretical equality?  Mentally and physically we are clearly not equal. Some people are quantifiably different  than others. Some are bigger, faster, stronger, quicker. 

Where does the notion of equality come from?

It is a construction of humanity. 

Why should it exist when there is nothing in nature to indicate this should be so? 

Why must we be thought of as equal when the facts indicate that in reality, we're anything but?  Equality is a fine notion but it is a notion that appears to be a nothing more than a naive, romantic contrivance. 

In order for this statement to be true, then equality must refer to something vague and intangible, something metaphysical? 

Or something that plainly does not exist.

"that they are endowed by their Creator

with certain unalienable Rights"

They
i.e. Men

Are endowed by their Creator
Who or what is that creator? 

A single creator? 

What evidence is there to support this? 

How can we know this? 
If we cannot know this for sure, should we be including it within the political arena?

Certain unalienable rights
What are those rights?
Why are some things considered rights and others are not?
Why are they rights?
Why are they unalienable?
What makes them unalienable?

"that among these are Life, 

Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Life
The right to Life is an unalienable right?
So the State cannot have the right to take this from anyone?


Liberty
Liberty is unalienable?
The State has no right to take this?

The Pursuit of Happiness 
What is Happiness? 
How can we quantify it so the state can regulate it or protect it? 
It's vague, it's opinion and in politics, it has no place. 


Conclusion
The statement is meaningless. It's rhetoric and it was designed to sound good. Upon examination, it doesn't really hold up. It's an ancient artifact and though the intentions may have been good, the execution needs to be replaced with one that is relevant to a modern society.

Back off

So...

Lindsay Lohan is off to jail for cocaine use. She broke the law, she has to go to jail. Fine.

But who did she harm in this? Who did she threaten to harm? Who did she potentially put at risk of harm?

Was it only herself?

If she was driving under the influence of drugs, then sure, lock her up. However, she was not charged nor convicted of this. She was jailed for taking drugs.

Ultimately, the state has told the individual what she can do with her own body. And when she was unwilling or unable to comply with the edict,  the state used its power to remove her from society.

Where does this power come from? Is there a right to command the adult individual to live her or his life in such a way that meets state approval? If so, where is the line drawn between acceptable state inference and unacceptable state interference?  The state can lock you up for taking coke, so why can't the state lock you up for having bad tats? Hey, a bad tat only harms the individual who chooses to get it, it does nothing of consequence to anyone else. Same with taking drugs.

Now there are peripheral crimes that can happen because of taking drugs such as those associated with acquiring the drugs, acquiring the money for the drugs and actions undertaken while under the influence of the drugs. You steal to fund your habit, you drink or drug up and you behave like an ass, then tough. You freely took the substances that made you behave that way. As citizens, we must be responsible for our own actions.

It's a common defense for the outlawing of drugs to say that drug taking leads to these other crimes. Well sure, it can do. It doesn't always but often it does. That doesn't matter because we already have laws covering those other crimes. We don't need the extra law that says you can or cannot take this substance just in case other things might happen.

We are all adults here. We have to have the right and the duty as citizens to make these responsible decisions for ourselves. The state currently has the power to do this for us, but it clearly does not have the moral right.

Don't Blame Stupid

So...

Teresa Lewis was executed today by the State of Virginia. Those protesting against the death sentence cited her low IQ as a contributing factor in her defense.

I call BS on this.

The law must be blind. It has to apply equally to anyone regardless of status: men or women, Christian or Muslim and the intelligent and the stupid.  The law cannot be applied only to the intelligent.

If the argument sticks that you are too stupid to know any better, then its implications can be far reaching.

What is the cut off point for stupid?  If you have a good day on an IQ test and get 72, you're culpable and frying tonight. You have an average day and get 69, then good for you, you're staying alive.

If you are too stupid to be killed by the State, what other implications are there?  Can a low IQ person enlist? Can a low IQ person own a gun?  Drive? Vote?  If they can, should we not be taking these rights away?  They are clearly unreasonable and do not know the difference between right and wrong and cannot be trusted with these things.

And yet we allow them to operate in these arenas. Because they are citizens. They have equal rights with the rest of us.  If we stop allowing low IQ people to function as citizens and talk about "protecting" those too stupid to know better, we are essentially taking away their responsibilities as a human.

So, if a person is low in intelligence should they still have a place in society?  Should not low IQ people be removed for our protection?  As they know no reason and can't be trusted to know the difference between right and wrong, then they are clearly time-bombs ready to kill at the drop of a cliche. They should all be rounded up, have their rights removed and locked up.

That's the conclusion that we must draw if we accept the argument that people cannot be held responsible for their actions if they are not too smart.

Citizenship is essentially about the rights and responsibilities of the individual in a society. It is not a shopping basket to pick and choose as we please. We're in or we're out. There is no in between. If you're fit for society, then you're in - all in - and you must be subjected to all the rules and laws as everyone else is. If the law provides exceptions, then that law is not just and equitable and should be removed.

If you are convicted of a murder in a society that has the death penalty for murder then you risk being executed by the state. Teresa Lewis broke the law and had to face the commensurate punishment for that crime. Under a democratic and equal society, she had to die.