Suffer, while evils are sufferable...

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Click to expand...

Could someone please explain when the line is crossed from "light and transient" to insufferable. When do evils become insufferable?

Nevada carrier said:

Could someone please explain when the line is crossed from "light and transient" to insufferable. When do evils become insufferable?

Click to expand...

I think many of the things we experience today would be insufferable to the founders.

Like sticking your foot in a hot tub and saying "wow that's way to hot" but if you endure it long enough it doesn't feel that hot anymore.

Draw your own line and decide for yourself.

My lines have been drawn.

Could someone please explain when the line is crossed from "light and transient" to insufferable. When do evils become insufferable?

Click to expand...

You are relating two things in the quote you provided that are not related to one another the way that you have interpreted, and incorporated them.

In answer to your question - 'evils', 'become' as well as 'insufferable' are subjective. At what point 'evils' 'become' 'insufferable' are relative, and temporal to the individual. What makes a 'thing' evil? At what point does evil 'become' a 'thing'? What 'thing'? An 'insufferable' thing.



A.

“Prudence,
indeed,
will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed
for light and transient causes;

B.

and accordingly
all experience hath shewn,
that mankind are more disposed to suffer,
while evils are sufferable,
than to right themselves
by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

I broke the quote into two parts, A., and, B. I think that the most important thing is to first establish the meaning of the words being used within the quote. Here we go:
[FONT=&quot]
Prudence[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [ˈpruːdəns][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]n[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] caution in practical affairs; discretion or circumspection[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] care taken in the management of one's resources[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] consideration for one's own interests[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] the condition or quality of being prudent[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]in·deed[/FONT][FONT=&quot]/inˈdēd/[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Adverb[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. Used to emphasize a statement or response: "“Do you realize this?” “I do indeed.”".[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. Used to emphasize a description, typically of a quality or condition: "it was a very good buy [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Dictate[/FONT][FONT=&quot]noun[/FONT][FONT=&quot] /ˈdikˌtāt/ [/FONT]

1. [FONT=&quot]An order or principle that must be obeyed[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]tran·sient[/FONT][FONT=&quot]/ˈtranSHənt/[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Adjective: Lasting only for a short time; impermanent.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Noun: A person who is staying or working in a place for only a short time.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]ac·cord·ing·ly[/FONT][FONT=&quot]/əˈkôrdiNGlē/[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Adverb[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]In a way that is appropriate to the particular circumstances.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]shewn[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]shew - prove: establish the validity of something, as by an example, explanation or experiment; "The experiment demonstrated the instability of the compound"; "The mathematician showed the validity of the conjecture"[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]sufferable[/FONT][FONT=&quot] [ˈsʌfərəbəl ˈsʌfrə-][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]adj[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]able to be tolerated or suffered; endurable[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]suf·fer[/FONT][FONT=&quot]/ˈsəfər/[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Verb[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1. Experience or be subjected to (something bad or unpleasant).[/FONT]

A.
“Prudence,
indeed,
will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed
for light and transient causes;

One must be cautious, and not just cautious, but the writer emphasizes that caution must be made by the use of the word ‘indeed’. Caution ‘will’ or ‘should’(?) “dictate” some ‘thing’? The writer of the quote wrote ‘will’, so the assumption is that “prudence” ‘will’ ‘dictate’ – assumptive? Or are they asserting that ‘prudence’ somehow ‘will’ ‘dictate’, that it is somehow a foregone conclusion that ‘prudence’ naturally dictates some ‘thing’.
What ‘thing’ will ‘prudence’ ‘dictate’? Prudence will dictate that Governments that are “long established” should not do some ‘thing’. What should Governments not do? Governments should not be changed for “light and transient causes.” Who 'changes' Government? Individuals 'change' Government. Are the individuals who are 'changing' the Government 'prudent'? Is their judgement about what is, and is not 'evil' sound?

So, what we know the writer to be asserting is that “prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments should not be changed for light and transient causes;”. The writer is asserting that Governments are entities that should be handled in a manner which keeps the Government intact, but alterable. But that the alterations to Government should not be done at a whim, nor taken lightly. Individuals should take care in any 'changes' they wish to make of Government, even if it is for the purposes of relieving 'suffering'.

B.
and accordingly
all experience hath shewn,
that mankind are more disposed to suffer,
while evils are sufferable,
than to right themselves
by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

I am going to stop here. I agree with A. And B. is obvious. Duh, yes, individuals are more disposed to suffer while, and particularly if evils are sufferable. Another way put, a ‘better’ way put could have been, “individuals suffer through insufferable evil.” Circular B.S. as far as I am concerned. If individuals are suffering (we should probably establish what the hell ‘suffering’ even is, and what constitutes ‘suffering’), then the individuals should take steps to alleviate their perceived, or actual ‘suffering’.

This quote is just a fancy way of stating that if individuals are suffering under a Government , the individuals should cautiously take steps to alleviate the suffering. The key components are that Government is not a bad thing, but can cause individuals to suffer. Also, that the suffering might be at the hands of ‘evil’ that has crept into the lives of the individuals through the Government.

Then again the writer might be pointing out that 'evil' which is utilized in such a way that the 'evil' is bearable, disposes individuals to greater suffer, because the individuals are acclimated to suffering over time.

I am sorry, but I gave some thought to the quote, and it is one of those Biblical (without being from the Bible) statements that sound good to the ear, and look nice on a banner, but really people, not worth the consideration that I gave it.



Yes, I am kind of bugged about it!

When they begin eroding "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

In short, while we have luxuries galore, we also have evils which are at present eroding that for which our founding fathers fought with their lives.

Nevada carrier said:

Could someone please explain when the line is crossed from "light and transient" to insufferable. When do evils become insufferable?

Click to expand...

Evil is ALWAYS insufferable to awake, aware, and moral people.

The real question isn't when does "evil" move from being "light and transient" to "insufferable". The question is how do you define "evil"?

Is it "evil" that a government sets up "public safety" programs which result in revenue enhancement EVEN THOUGH such programs are a direct violation of State Law?

Is it "evil" that a government would extort money from property owners under threat of force in the form of "taxes"?

Is it "evil" when school administrators lie to the parents of students by telling them there is no way to opt out of vaccinations--even if they have a religious objection--DESPITE the fact that state law specifically makes provisions for such exemptions?

First we must define--on a continuum--where a specific liberty-infringing act lies. Then we can decide whether it fits the definition of "evil", or is just an inconvenience, or is just greed or corruption, or is immoral or illegal (but perhaps not necessarily "evil").

"Evil is a strong word. It should be reserved for describing the intentional infringement of fundamental human rights, or the intentional causing of pain, suffering, enslavement, or degradation.

The truth is, that MOST government action that attempts to regulate or modify non-malevolent behavior fits this description, if not in action, then at least in it's origin.

Now, the question we need to ask isn't whether or not most governmental action is "evil".

We know that this is in fact the case, especially today, with most high positions in government--from top to bottom--being infiltrated by the TINY percentage of our population (less than 4%) that are certifiably sociopathic individuals.

What we need to be asking is how can these untreatable, irredeemable sociopaths be dealt with in a manner befitting a lawful, humane society without running the risk of adopting their wicked ways in pursuit of freedom, love, and peace.

And THAT is the big question before freedom-loving individuals today....

since9 said:

When they begin eroding "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

In short, while we have luxuries galore, we also have evils which are at present eroding that for which our founding fathers fought with their lives.

Click to expand...

Luxuries are distractions; they take the edge off of the B.S. all around. Luxuries = Consumerism.

Beretta92FSLady said:

Luxuries are distractions; they take the edge off of the B.S. all around. Luxuries = Consumerism.

Click to expand...

And as a corollory, "Austerity" = Feudalism.

I mean really, let's be honest here...

Which side are you on, boys (and girls), which side are you on?