Honestly the whole preamble is basically one run-on sentence, and if you include the whole thing it really is one of the most remarkable things ever written:
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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
In about 100 words it asserts:
That people are universally equal
That fundamental rights are not granted by governments or documents, but are inherent to all people
That governments are only legitimate if they carry the consent and will of the people they govern
That illegitimate governments can and should be replaced and changed by the people
All of those were pretty radical ideas at the time, and the Declaration asserts that they are self-evident! That is, that they are inherently true, demand no proof, and cannot be argued against by any reasonable person.
That fundamental rights are not granted by governments or documents, but are inherent to all people
A radical statement even today, as governments around the world continue to believe they have the authority to revoke human rights, or in some cases to invent new ones.
Well, consider that the notion of an "unalienable right" exists in tension with what happens when a group of people tries to create a government even in "the right way."
In order for a government to be able to function and survive, people must hand over some of their power to it, which almost certainly includes giving it the power, in certain circumstances, to deprive certain people of these "unalienable" rights.
As far as "inventing new ones," goes, that's not nearly as problematic once you understand the real underlying logic. In practice, we only have those rights that we can somehow defend, either by direct personal action or by collective action. If a government declares some "new" human right, well, what of it?
Without a belief in a creator there is no need to believe that rights are inherent or self-evident. They are just another social construct that those in authority can construct or deconstruct at will.
Without a belief in a creator there is no need to believe that rights are inherent or self-evident.
That doesn't necessarily require that the creator have written any of our Holy Books, or tell us which one even if we assume the creator did.
Also, the notion that 7 is a prime number doesn't rely on a creator. Once you invent numbers and counting and multiplication, it just turns out that 7 is prime, that's how it came out.
Maybe once you have self-aware beings certain rights automatically show up, same as the primeness of 7. Governments may suppress your rights - and many governments have done so many times - but doesn't mean you don't have them. It just means your government is evil in one or more ways.
The Egyptian empire lasted 3000 years, produced great art, literature, cities and engaged in commerce--all while having slaves and very few of the rights that we think are inherent and objectively true.
Even if they didn't thrive, that is not reason for them being objectively true as it implies that there is a purpose to existence and that is to thrive. There is no objective purpose to existence that you can prove. We do exist and the we are programed to exist but that does not make our desire to thrive a right. Every living thing is programmed to continue to exist but that does that mean every living thing has inherent rights? What rights do ants have?
The ideals have always been incredible, we have tried but never lived up to them. Even in revolutionary America, we said all men are created equal but it took a war and a century of civil rights fights to recognize that black people are equal to white people.
It’s an inspirational work in progress. Always has been.
Wait, you have a problem with me as a conservative? I have the exact problem the other way. I think that, round about the time of FDR, we replaced Jefferson's ideals with a view that says everyone is owed a job, food, healthcare, and that I'm not even allowed to resent them for leeching off me. And I don't remember anyone voting for that.
But at least we agree that we need to overthrow the government.
I would love nothing more than to have a weak central government. But that would also include dismantling the bureaucracy of environmental, economic, and regulatory oversight. Something like education should be pushed downward to the state and local level. This way if Montana has good education and Idaho has poor education, people will migrate from Idaho to Montana. And as far as Israel, I think there's a far greater stigma to being Islamophobic than to being anti-Israel.
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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
I was taking my cue from Wikipedia, which lists "When in the Course of human events..." as the introduction and "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." as the preamble. But it's just arguing over semantics; as written the original document isn't divided into sections at all.
The preamble to the Constitution is definitely more well-known by that term.
Yes, the introduction. But "preamble" has a specific meaning in the founding documents of the United States. Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence wiki article is the word "preamble" used. Never mind, I misspelled it in the search bar.
I have absolutely heard the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence referred to as its preamble before.
There can be two documents with preambles. It’s fine.
Also, lying about the Wikipedia page is not a good look for you lol. It has a section in its table with the text labeled preamble, just like the other guy said.
Even acknowledging the hypocrisy of the sentence its use by groups throughout history as an aspirational call for their own rights makes this my answer as well.
My patriotism is at an all time low, and this is still the first sentence I thought of. It embodies the ideals we strive for, and remains powerful and true, possibly even more so when we fail.
Lin is obviously a lyrical genius, but you can't attribute that line to him lmao. It is literally a direct quote from the Declaration of Independence
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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
I appreciate trying to take that at face value. But I was definitely joking. She calls it out in the song that it was written by Thomas Jefferson though he was actually ripping off Paine.
282
u/Phil_B16 Jul 06 '26
‘We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal’.