Hear That Sound? It's Feces Hitting the Fan.

[Occhidiangela]

Agreed.  But, I think the State is also less tolerant of citizens standing against brigandry.
[right][snapback]100594[/snapback][/right]

If I may quote (a bit out of context) from the Declaration:

— 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

Granted, there are a ream of unexploited assumptions in the language of The Declaration, and I have quoted out of context, but let's proceed. :)

If "The State" is negligent, is it considered destructive? A quick look at how tort law has evolved over the past century provides the answer "Yes." (Check out the unrelenting "deep pocketes" suits against various public institutions and organs of government.)

What is "The State?" If it doesn't serve The Citizen, who and what does it serve? If "The State" is unresponsive to appeals to alter -- my preferred course of action and I think the Founders' as well -- what then? Either the citizens accept becoming subjects, or the citizens pursue their "Safety and Happiness" via other means.

In the process of alteration, who should get primacy of consideration "for Safety and Happiness?" In my lifetime, I have observed that a great deal of concern is showered on the scofflaws and criminals, with the law abiding citizen being taken for granted. It is one thing to assume the general population is law abiding (yes, pun intended) and it is yet another to take that habit for granted, to exploit it until a tipping point is reached. If The State fails to serve the citizen, it follows that the people making up the human infrastructure of "The State" have failed, then the exploitatin calls for alteration of infrastructure, either in structure (rules duties and authority) or in detail (specific persons removed from office/public service.)

It is my belief that citizens, and particularly law abiding citizens, whom "The State" allegedly is constructed to benefit, must accrue and be granted primacy of consideration, and that scofflaws and criminals be relegated to a lesser priority.

Civic virtue should indeed be both "its own rewarded" and rewarded by being granted primacy of consideration.

Occhi