The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence of the thirteen united States of America opens with these much quoted words…
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.–
At the time Thomas Jefferson penned these words, this world was a much different place and the accepted criteria for the term ‘man’ was also different. Mr. Jefferson, you see, was writing for and about his peer group, Caucasian men of business who by their own talents, business acumen, and management skills, had created a certain amount of wealth and standing in their respective communities here in the New World. So when he wrote the words ‘all men are created equal’ he did not literally mean ‘all’ at all. The footmen who served at his and his peers tables and the coachmen and gardeners who serviced their estates were not under consideration here. Succeeding generations seem to have missed this very salient point. This constitutes the Error of Equality.
The people in these men’s communities appointed these business leaders to hammer out the political semantics by which they could all prosper according to their individual lights. All the fifty-six signers of the document were such men. There were no second footman, coachmen, or apothecaries assistants asked to sign this document. It was not written to express the opinions of the servant class in the colonies, and while the above mentioned were certainly male, they were not considered men in the public sense of the word. Servants, along with women and slaves, were considered dependents, and it was understood by all that they would be considered and provided for by the men who employed them or stood as father, husband, or owner.
The men of the British Isles were accustomed to have a say in public affairs through the process of voting and this custom was imported to the colonies. What American’s today do not remember or have never been taught is that not all men could vote, not even back then. Voting was a privilege earned through sound business practice, it was never considered a “Right” granted automatically upon coming of age to just any old body. A man had to be a property owner at a certain pre-determined monetary value in order to be allowed to vote in his community. This was true on both sides of the Atlantic. Since the colonies were populated at their beginnings by men and women who came to this country expressly to create their own properties it was generally and universally accepted that all voters in the colonies were experienced business people and at the beginning of this country, this held true. As the colonies prospered and filled with immigrants from Europe and the British Isles, this standard came under assault simply from the press of an increased population of immigrant workers with their immigrant worker mentality. When Women’s Suffrage came into play, a butt-load of feminine emotionalism was added to the immigrant worker mentality so that the sensible business standard upon which America got it’s start was totally overwhelmed by the touchy egotism of women and under servants, and now every political decision made in America today is based on lower class egotism and feminist emotionalism rather than good sound business practice. Is anyone out there still wondering where the national deficit came from?
This is a true and accurate account of our financial history, simply put, for the edification of the average reader. It is capable of almost infinite refinement for the more advanced but I will leave that to those who can lay legitimate claim to such advancement.
In a word, it has not been a good or a productive idea to give the management of this country over to women, children, and day laborers via some grandiose idea of voter equality rights. I remember during the Vietnam police action the antiwar “activists” made a big stink about drafting boys to fight at the age of eighteen but not allowing them to vote until they were twenty one. Anyone else remember that? Oh My God! That was soooo unfair! I do not remember anyone bothering to answer these dilettantes at the time but I do remember thinking—it doesn’t take any brains to kill someone, it does take some multilevel thinking to guide a family, city, state, or nation on a stable, prosperous path. A quality you will not find prominent in eighteen year olds of either gender. Using the antiwar activist standard of public fitness, we might have saved a certain state millions in legal costs and incarceration fees and simply elected Ted Bundy as President. He killed lots of people.
Alieff Farwell
contact-form][contact-field label='Name' type='name' required='1'/][contact-field label='Email' type='email' required='1'/][contact-field label='Website' type='url'/][contact-field label='Comment' type='textarea' required='1'/][/contact-form]
Like this:
Like Loading...
Read Full Post »
The Error of Equality
Posted in American Politics 101, tagged American sociology studies, business acumen, caucasian men, conservative commentary, finance, gender issues, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, national deficit, social issues, sound business practice on August 8, 2013| Leave a Comment »
The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence of the thirteen united States of America opens with these much quoted words…
At the time Thomas Jefferson penned these words, this world was a much different place and the accepted criteria for the term ‘man’ was also different. Mr. Jefferson, you see, was writing for and about his peer group, Caucasian men of business who by their own talents, business acumen, and management skills, had created a certain amount of wealth and standing in their respective communities here in the New World. So when he wrote the words ‘all men are created equal’ he did not literally mean ‘all’ at all. The footmen who served at his and his peers tables and the coachmen and gardeners who serviced their estates were not under consideration here. Succeeding generations seem to have missed this very salient point. This constitutes the Error of Equality.
The people in these men’s communities appointed these business leaders to hammer out the political semantics by which they could all prosper according to their individual lights. All the fifty-six signers of the document were such men. There were no second footman, coachmen, or apothecaries assistants asked to sign this document. It was not written to express the opinions of the servant class in the colonies, and while the above mentioned were certainly male, they were not considered men in the public sense of the word. Servants, along with women and slaves, were considered dependents, and it was understood by all that they would be considered and provided for by the men who employed them or stood as father, husband, or owner.
The men of the British Isles were accustomed to have a say in public affairs through the process of voting and this custom was imported to the colonies. What American’s today do not remember or have never been taught is that not all men could vote, not even back then. Voting was a privilege earned through sound business practice, it was never considered a “Right” granted automatically upon coming of age to just any old body. A man had to be a property owner at a certain pre-determined monetary value in order to be allowed to vote in his community. This was true on both sides of the Atlantic. Since the colonies were populated at their beginnings by men and women who came to this country expressly to create their own properties it was generally and universally accepted that all voters in the colonies were experienced business people and at the beginning of this country, this held true. As the colonies prospered and filled with immigrants from Europe and the British Isles, this standard came under assault simply from the press of an increased population of immigrant workers with their immigrant worker mentality. When Women’s Suffrage came into play, a butt-load of feminine emotionalism was added to the immigrant worker mentality so that the sensible business standard upon which America got it’s start was totally overwhelmed by the touchy egotism of women and under servants, and now every political decision made in America today is based on lower class egotism and feminist emotionalism rather than good sound business practice. Is anyone out there still wondering where the national deficit came from?
This is a true and accurate account of our financial history, simply put, for the edification of the average reader. It is capable of almost infinite refinement for the more advanced but I will leave that to those who can lay legitimate claim to such advancement.
In a word, it has not been a good or a productive idea to give the management of this country over to women, children, and day laborers via some grandiose idea of voter equality rights. I remember during the Vietnam police action the antiwar “activists” made a big stink about drafting boys to fight at the age of eighteen but not allowing them to vote until they were twenty one. Anyone else remember that? Oh My God! That was soooo unfair! I do not remember anyone bothering to answer these dilettantes at the time but I do remember thinking—it doesn’t take any brains to kill someone, it does take some multilevel thinking to guide a family, city, state, or nation on a stable, prosperous path. A quality you will not find prominent in eighteen year olds of either gender. Using the antiwar activist standard of public fitness, we might have saved a certain state millions in legal costs and incarceration fees and simply elected Ted Bundy as President. He killed lots of people.
Alieff Farwell
contact-form][contact-field label='Name' type='name' required='1'/][contact-field label='Email' type='email' required='1'/][contact-field label='Website' type='url'/][contact-field label='Comment' type='textarea' required='1'/][/contact-form]
Rate this:
Share this:
Like this:
Read Full Post »