I’m sorry - boy you are young, God bless you please try not to take offense because it isn’t meant that way, but you have history a little wrong. You said historically government wasn’t there to give things to people (true) that the King or whoever had limited role. Not true. Originally our small, then larger tribes, were definitely rule…
I’m sorry - boy you are young, God bless you please try not to take offense because it isn’t meant that way, but you have history a little wrong. You said historically government wasn’t there to give things to people (true) that the King or whoever had limited role. Not true. Originally our small, then larger tribes, were definitely ruled, and I do mean RULED, by chieftains (think Powhatan & his confederacy) then Kings, who were absolute rulers/monarchs. Think Vikings. Think Kings in England before the Saxons arrived and took over. Even after, when there were alliances of not just kingdoms/families, but when there was an aristocracy built (after say William the Conqueror- the Saxon king who came from France to England) for the purpose of building & controlling larger groups of people and territories, they were still absolute rulers. The chieftains, then Kings words were literally law. And they attained their position of chief/king through strength of arms. And they accumulated, expanded, and consolidated their positions through warfare. This is the real way it has always been with humans since the beginning of our time, like it or not. Some rulers were good, even beneficial, a few even established rule of law - they still made the law, but they were written down and considered the people’s interests to some extent. After all, as tribes grew larger, it became apparent that chiefs and kings must also keep their people ‘happy’ or they would have a rebellion on their hands. Chiefs and Kings could, and in fact sometimes were, replaced. In addition, religion/God(?) -depending which culture and epoch you are referring to- “anointing” kings helped them solidify their validity to power over so many people. However, people can still be killed, challenged, or replaced. Therefore, when the aristocracy of England wanted more power & stability, and less at the whims of an individual king, they went to war against the king and taking him hostage made him sign the magna carter. This wasn’t the first time that power-sharing happened among human “governments.” Such things had happened in Ancient Greece and ancient Rome and even in ecleastical Rome. Eventually England got a parliamentary system, with the House of Lords (aristocracy), and the House of Commons. We developed a different system, new at the time because up until then all subjects of Chiefs & Kings, etc were the people and property of their rulers. They were NOT viewed as independent individuals/people. They were the property of their King, and he could order them to do whatever he wanted and they had to or die. Again though a despot could be replaced if he pissed off enough people, or enough of the wrong people. So that usually kept some of it in check, sort of. Note the qualifications on that statement, it’s meant. By the time our founding fathers came along, it hadn’t been since Ancient Greece & Rome that philosophers and others had even considered the “independence” of fifes, of slaves, of people just generally. Oh there was talk periodically, but nothing was done about it until the Enlightenment period, which so heavily influenced our founding fathers who were living in the thick of it. The American revolution, and especially the constitution and bill of rights that it was based on, was at that time truly “revolutionary.” I’m paraphrasing and rushing through all of this, but basically the constitution didn’t grant people their rights and powers, not limit people and their rights and powers, revolutionarily it granted in writing limited powers of government (of the people, by the people, for the people) and reminded government that people are imbued with inalienable rights by their creator (not King, Chief, aristocracy, parliament, or any form of government) only. That was revolutionary! That was essentially “new” and creating a new form of government that started there, not in aristocracy or feudalism, or anything that had come before that didn’t recognize people as people (!) but as property of a king/kingdom was amazing!!
I’m sorry - boy you are young, God bless you please try not to take offense because it isn’t meant that way, but you have history a little wrong. You said historically government wasn’t there to give things to people (true) that the King or whoever had limited role. Not true. Originally our small, then larger tribes, were definitely ruled, and I do mean RULED, by chieftains (think Powhatan & his confederacy) then Kings, who were absolute rulers/monarchs. Think Vikings. Think Kings in England before the Saxons arrived and took over. Even after, when there were alliances of not just kingdoms/families, but when there was an aristocracy built (after say William the Conqueror- the Saxon king who came from France to England) for the purpose of building & controlling larger groups of people and territories, they were still absolute rulers. The chieftains, then Kings words were literally law. And they attained their position of chief/king through strength of arms. And they accumulated, expanded, and consolidated their positions through warfare. This is the real way it has always been with humans since the beginning of our time, like it or not. Some rulers were good, even beneficial, a few even established rule of law - they still made the law, but they were written down and considered the people’s interests to some extent. After all, as tribes grew larger, it became apparent that chiefs and kings must also keep their people ‘happy’ or they would have a rebellion on their hands. Chiefs and Kings could, and in fact sometimes were, replaced. In addition, religion/God(?) -depending which culture and epoch you are referring to- “anointing” kings helped them solidify their validity to power over so many people. However, people can still be killed, challenged, or replaced. Therefore, when the aristocracy of England wanted more power & stability, and less at the whims of an individual king, they went to war against the king and taking him hostage made him sign the magna carter. This wasn’t the first time that power-sharing happened among human “governments.” Such things had happened in Ancient Greece and ancient Rome and even in ecleastical Rome. Eventually England got a parliamentary system, with the House of Lords (aristocracy), and the House of Commons. We developed a different system, new at the time because up until then all subjects of Chiefs & Kings, etc were the people and property of their rulers. They were NOT viewed as independent individuals/people. They were the property of their King, and he could order them to do whatever he wanted and they had to or die. Again though a despot could be replaced if he pissed off enough people, or enough of the wrong people. So that usually kept some of it in check, sort of. Note the qualifications on that statement, it’s meant. By the time our founding fathers came along, it hadn’t been since Ancient Greece & Rome that philosophers and others had even considered the “independence” of fifes, of slaves, of people just generally. Oh there was talk periodically, but nothing was done about it until the Enlightenment period, which so heavily influenced our founding fathers who were living in the thick of it. The American revolution, and especially the constitution and bill of rights that it was based on, was at that time truly “revolutionary.” I’m paraphrasing and rushing through all of this, but basically the constitution didn’t grant people their rights and powers, not limit people and their rights and powers, revolutionarily it granted in writing limited powers of government (of the people, by the people, for the people) and reminded government that people are imbued with inalienable rights by their creator (not King, Chief, aristocracy, parliament, or any form of government) only. That was revolutionary! That was essentially “new” and creating a new form of government that started there, not in aristocracy or feudalism, or anything that had come before that didn’t recognize people as people (!) but as property of a king/kingdom was amazing!!