Assignment Four

"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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

  This quote states that all people have the right to be treated equal in a government. These rights were given by God and should be taken away by any government. Included in these rights are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Governments are created to preserve and protect these rights and to protect the people that it governs. If this government becomes hurtful to the people or is not protecting the people's rights then the people should be able to get rid of it. Once the people do get rid of this government them the people have the right to create a new government that protects the peoples rights.

I picked this quote because for one it is one of the most famous quotes from its time, but I don't believed that it was taken seriously. It does sound like a good thing to say but at this time there were slaves that didn't have any rights at all. So I don't understand that anyone can say that all people are equal and during this time there was a whole group of people that were considered property. Moreover I find it unbelievable that this quote mentions that God gives people certain rights and again slaves were still without anything. If all have the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness, then that should indeed included slaves of the time, but it didn't. Is is hard for me to understand that slaves weren't considered as people, humans or anything. Animals had more rights to liberty then slaves did at the time. I also find it ironic that the same people that wrote the Declaration of Independence had slaves themselves. I think that it is unimaginable to think that a whole group of humans were not considered to be citizens or people. What happened to their rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness. It is impossible for people to have these rights when they didn't have any say and had "masters" that controlled every aspects of their life. If a slave did try to change or overthrow their "maters" and/or the government they and maybe even their family would have been killed or badly hurt. I also can not believe that it took 87 years after this document for the Emancipation Proclamation to be written and then another hundreds of years for African American to have equal rights. So in theory this document was good for the people, but in reality it didn't do what it stated for everyone in America.

Assignment Three

"The natural liberty of man, by entering into society, is abridged or restrained, so far only as is necessary for the great end of society, the best good of the whole."

"In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defense of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave."

 The first quote basically states that if a society does take away anyone's natural rights, it should only be to protect or ensure the greater good of the people in that society or just to ensure a good civil government in general.
The second quote states that it is absurd to accept that a society can take anyway anyone's natural rights just because a person enters that society. The point of civil government or society is to preserve and support a person's natural rights instead of taking them away. Moreover Adams states that man should also have the right to life, liberty and property within a society and civil government should be there to protect these rights not take them away. He also believed that a person's natural rights was a gift from God and therefore should not be taking away. Furthermore since these natural rights are a gift from God only God has the power to take them away or judge them. Lastly Adams states that it is absurd to voluntarily become a slave by giving up one's natural rights due to a society or civil government. He felt that no one should every have to do that in any civil government. Overall Adams doesn't believe that government should have the power to do anything that will infringe on anyways natural rights as it is a part of everyone that should never be removed.

The reason why I picked this quote was because i fully agree with what Samuel Adams states. I believe that government should only allow others to be safe. In this allowing the people of that so city to be safe it shouldn't interfere with anyone's natural rights. Government should also be in place to allow every person in that government to practice there natural right freely and safely, without the worry that someone else would interfere. I believed that Adams didn't seem to have the fear of people's natural rights such as the puritans and John Winthrop did. They both believed that a person's natural rights were evil and had to be tamed and diminished by government in order to have a good society. Contrary to the puritans and Winthrop, Adams believed that that a person's natural right was a gift from God instead of a curse. As Adman's did, I believed that it is absurd to thing that all men are evil and only government can make a man righteous, moral or good. Civil government isn't something that has always been around and somehow during that time people were still able to co-exist and prosper. So it may be necessary, but only to a certain extent. As Adam's says a necessarily evil for the greater good.

Assignment Two

"For the other point concerning liberty, I observe a great mistake in the country about that. There is a twofold liberty, natural (I mean as our nature is now corrupt) and civil or federal. The first is common to man with beasts and other creatures. By this, man, as he stands in relation to man simply, hath liberty to do what he lists; it is a liberty to evil as well as to good. This liberty is incompatible and inconsistent with authority and cannot endure the least restraint of the most just authority. The exercise and maintaining of this liberty makes men grow more evil and in time to be worse than brute beasts: omnes sumus licentia deteriores. This is that great enemy of truth and peace, that wild beast, which all of the ordinances of God are bent against, to restrain and subdue it. The other kind of liberty I call civil or federal; it may also be termed moral, in reference to the covenant between God and man, in the moral law, and the politic covenants and constitutions amongst men themselves. This liberty is the proper end and object of authority and cannot subsist without it; and it is a liberty to that only which is good, just, and honest. This liberty you are to stand for, with the hazard (not only of your goods, but) of your lives, if need be. "

           This quote states that there are two types of liberty. The first type is natural liberty. According to Winthrop natural liberty is the liberty that man is born with and is evil and immoral. Nature liberty is what allows man to be evil or good, just like beasts or animals. He states that even though natural liberty includes both good and evil, evil will shine through more then good. So if man has a choice, they will naturally turn to evil and only get more evil as time goes on. This natural liberty is also what prevents peace and truth and is what God has man fight against. The second type of liberty that Winthrop speaks on is Civil Liberty. This liberty is the kind of liberty that is moral, good, just and honest. This is the liberty that man and society should follow in order to live in peace and justice. This is also the only liberty that God wants man to live by. Without this form of liberty man will eventually become worse then beast. 

      

         This reason why I picked this quote is because I found it interesting that Winthrop thought man was naturally evil. I don't completely agree with the quote, especially the part where he says man will become worse then beast if they follow their natural liberties. I do agree that man has the power to do both good and evil, but it doesn't mean that evil will always prevail. Some people try to live their lives around was morally good no matter what a law tells them to do. Then there are who no matter what a law may say, tend to do what they want. And then there some who don't even care about good or evil, but about the consequence that may arise from disobeying a civil law or law in general. I believe that man would have been able to coexist without any civil laws if it was necessary. If anything common sense would have stepped in and made man come to some sort of agreement, so they we can live in relative peace. Even all types of beast know a way to coexist with their species and others species on earth. I don't think that man would be any worse off. If anything they should be better off then beast. Due to the fact that man has some concept of what is good and evil, compared to beast. Moreover sometimes man's laws are not moral, just, good or honest. There have been many laws within this country that have stop the progression of man and have taking away ones natural liberty without giving a better alternative. If someone was to break a civil law that was unjust would that make them a immoral beast or evil? I don't believe it would but, I think Winthrop would say it might. I believe he thought that not one civil law could be unjust or dishonest, which we know isn't true.

Assignment One

"Travel ought to combine amusement with instruction; but most travelers are so much amused that they refuse to be instructed. I do not blame them for being amused: it is perfectly natural to be amused at a Dutchman for being Dutch or a Chinaman for being Chinese. Where they are wrong is that the take their own amusement seriously. They base on it their serious ideas of international instruction."

 This quote states that when one travels they should be able to learn from their experience and not just focus on the comedic differences in cultures. That it is natural and not wrong for people to find new customs and cultures comical, but that shouldn't stop a person from trying to understand these differences. This amusement should remain as amusement and not be confused with an understanding or fact. Once a person seriously starts to analyze these differences in culture, they may not seem so strange or comedic after all.

The reason why I picked this quote was because laughter was my first responds when I first moved to San Diego, CA. A lot of things are different in San Diego compared to New York City. The cultures and customs  in San Diego are mostly surround around Mexican culture. New York City has many cultures that blends together to make its own. San Diego is also a slow moving town or as the natives say "laid back". An example of this would be I was the only one who jaywalked there. After a while I started to think of why these differences were and things seem to make more sense. Honestly I did still find it funny when a person would wait for the light to change before they crossed the street or how there was a taco shop on every corner, but this comedy had turn into more of a understanding. With this understanding the taco shops of San Diego have a similar appearance to having a pizza or Chinese restaurant on every corner in New York City.