Over on Noodlefood, Greg Perkins describes an article by Ed Hudgins as:
"largely argued from mushy appeals to a toothless foundation in Enlightenment-era sensibilities back when rights were barely a tolerant gleam in philosophers' eyes."
I think he has his history wrong. Weren't rights a lot more than eye-gleams during the Enlightenment?
I don't quote Leonard Peikoff a lot, but what the heck, when he's right, he's right:
"Although the Enlightenment spread across Europe, introducing a liberalizing influence wherever its ideas were taken seriously (notably in England and France), there was no European country in which these ideas penetrated to the root. In Europe, the Enlightenment was in the nature of an intellectual fashion superimposed on antithetic and deeply entrenched sociopolitical structures. But the United States was a new country, a new country in a new world, and there was no such established structure to contend with. For the first and only time, the ideas of the Enlightenment became the root, the actual foundation of a nation's political institutions."
They laid this nation's