A Patriot

[jsbhike]

Our founding principles are the same, and the idea that we should no longer be willing to fight for this country because it's not what it was in the past is a dangerous thought. The truth is, the country started changing almost immediately after its founding. Not even a generation had gone by when the first attempts to circumvent the Bill of Rights were coming out...and some were even passing and being upheld. The country has been corrupt for a long time. Power corrupts. The greatness of the Founding Fathers was not that they believed they could create a utopia, it was that they knew they couldn't. They knew man's greed and evil, and so they set up a system that would suppress it the best it could, and would give the people recourse when their rights were violated. It's not perfect and it doesn't always work, but the principles are the same. The country is still worth fighting for.

I don't think many of the founders intended to follow their own "rules" since none of them featured a punishment for violations. While they may have faced the death penalty if the revolution failed, not many of them were in active fighting and they had a better chance of escape than did some peon at the front.

[Nightvisionary]

I don't think many of the founders intended to follow their own "rules" since none of them featured a punishment for violations. While they may have faced the death penalty if the revolution failed, not many of them were in active fighting and they had a better chance of escape than did some peon at the front.

The British empire would have found them and executed them in a much less humane manner than they did the 15 leaders of the 1916 Irish Easter Rebellion.

[jsbhike]

The British empire would have found them and executed them in a much less humane manner than they did the 15 leaders of the 1916 Irish Easter Rebellion.

I am sure they would have tried, just the peons actively fighting would have faced a more certain fate.

And I still think the bulk of the founders were motivated more by wanting to attain power not available to them due to hitting the glass ceiling of Britain than they were individual liberties for the white trash beneath them.

[BoringGuy45]

I am sure they would have tried, just the peons actively fighting would have faced a more certain fate.

And I still think the bulk of the founders were motivated more by wanting to attain power not available to them due to hitting the glass ceiling of Britain than they were individual liberties for the white trash beneath them.

There would be no Bill of Rights if the bulk of them were like that. Among the many people who founded the country, there were of course those who were power hungry and jostled for position to become king of the United States. But the number of true believers in the new nation by, of, and for the people was large enough to put into place a legally binding bill. Again, nothing is perfect, and I think from the beginning, some of the founders immediately regretted making it the Bill of Rights as opposed to Privileges. And to this day, we have judges who basically rule that most of our "rights" are just guidelines and suggestions rather than legally binding obligations the government must follow. But I think the majority of the founders knew that would happen immediately if they didn't do something up front, and most didn't want to remain in office for life.

I spent time yesterday with a 72 year old mountain man who lives in the Sangre de Cristo range of the Rockies which extend into New Mexico. He was born on Long Island, New York, served two tours in Vietnam in the late 1960's, got a Masters in Cultural Anthropology, taught a while then just tuned out the rest of the world except for his wife and kids. He lives on 40 acres in the mountains with the Mrs. as a mountain man. He makes his own buckskin clothing, has a .54 caliber Hawken and a bolt action .303. He grows his own food and kills what he needs for food and clothing. He has no electric power or modern conveniences. He hates all politicians and politics and just wants to be left alone. Is he a Patriot? Hell, why not. He is loyal to his little piece of dirt on this earth and takes nothing from anyone else for his existence. I'd rather hang with a guy like that, than some mouthy kids who constantly want to be noticed as "Patriots". Just my 2 cents.

While if that's the life the guy wants, fine. Seems a bit lonely to me, but different strokes and all. I have trouble saying that kind of lifestyle is one of a "patriot" however. And I can't say that a guy like this who offers nothing to, and accepts nothing from, his community, is the type of man that American conservatives need to idealize. I think we seize so much on the idea of individual freedom, that we don't want to even fight for it, because doing so would mean bothering someone else. The thing is, the motto of the United States has never been "Everybody just leave everyone else the f**k alone". We are SUPPOSED to be a community; we're supposed to fight for our country and community and have each other's backs. I don't think the Founding Fathers envisioned a nearly anarchic nation of solitary hermits who only interacted with other humans in order to trade goods and be on their way. Yeah, if some people want to do that, fine. But that's supposed to be the gold standard of what an American is, as far as I can tell.

I think the right has largely turned into "Other than the 2nd Amendment, f*** the U.S., I'm looking out for me and mine!" And we're dead if keep that attitude.

[jsbhike]

There would be no Bill of Rights if the bulk of them were like that. Among the many people who founded the country, there were of course those who were power hungry and jostled for position to become king of the United States. But the number of true believers in the new nation by, of, and for the people was large enough to put into place a legally binding bill. Again, nothing is perfect, and I think from the beginning, some of the founders immediately regretted making it the Bill of Rights as opposed to Privileges. And to this day, we have judges who basically rule that most of our "rights" are just guidelines and suggestions rather than legally binding obligations the government must follow. But I think the majority of the founders knew that would happen immediately if they didn't do something up front, and most didn't want to remain in office for life.

The Bill of Rights was from the labors of the anti-federalists who were the minority, not the bulk. The ruling federalists apparently didn't mind putting it in since they had no intentions of adhering to any of it anyway.

[26 Inf]

While if that's the life the guy wants, fine. Seems a bit lonely to me, but different strokes and all. I have trouble saying that kind of lifestyle is one of a "patriot" however.

And I can't say that a guy like this who offers nothing to, and accepts nothing from, his community, is the type of man that American conservatives need to idealize. I think we seize so much on the idea of individual freedom, that we don't want to even fight for it, because doing so would mean bothering someone else.

The thing is, the motto of the United States has never been "Everybody just leave everyone else the f**k alone". We are SUPPOSED to be a community; we're supposed to fight for our country and community and have each other's backs. I don't think the Founding Fathers envisioned a nearly anarchic nation of solitary hermits who only interacted with other humans in order to trade goods and be on their way. Yeah, if some people want to do that, fine. But that's supposed to be the gold standard of what an American is, as far as I can tell.

I think the right has largely turned into "Other than the 2nd Amendment, f*** the U.S., I'm looking out for me and mine!" And we're dead if keep that attitude.

Bravo Zulu.

[jsbhike]

I will gladly take "Everybody just leave everyone else the f**k alone" over statists and hand wringers whims getting ascended to law.

[Uni-Vibe]

I don't think the concept of patriotism is dead. I think it has evolved.

When I was a youth, if a person dodged the draft, compared his sex life to combat, disrespected POWs, and mocked the families of army officers killed in combat, he would not be considered a patriot.

It's different now.

[BoringGuy45]

I will gladly take "Everybody just leave everyone else the f**k alone" over statists and hand wringers whims getting ascended to law.

How about everyone work together to preserve freedom? Neither statism or anarchy is a good choice. Everyone wants to be free, but nobody wants to lift a finger to defend it unless it specifically involves themselves.

[OH58D]

How about everyone work together to preserve freedom? Neither statism or anarchy is a good choice. Everyone wants to be free, but nobody wants to lift a finger to defend it unless it specifically involves themselves.

It seems that Patriotism requires a group effort - a community of like minded folks? It reminds me of the definition of a Church - a body of like minded believers, not a physical building. However, like the Mountain Man and his wife I interacted with, I still tend to think you can be a Patriot without anyone else around because why should your Patriotism need to be validated by another person? Do you have to find God in a Church, or can you find God on horseback in the middle of nowhere?