Summary of John Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government
John Locke 1632-1704
Locke rejected all speculative metaphysics and believed that knowledge of the world could only be gained through observation, experience, and reflection on experience. He was familiar with the work of Sydenham, Boyle, Huygens, and Newton. His political philosophy contained in his Second Treatise on Civil Government published in 1689 was based on natural law and became the intellectual foundation of the Declaration of Independence written by Thomas Jefferson. Locke’s work exposed with finality the intellectual bankruptcy of hereditary monarchy and established the empirical basis of the free state.
Ch. 1
The Second Treatise on Civil Government presented an argument which suggested that Kings do not owe or receive their power of descent from Adam and the command of God that Adam subdue and take dominion over the earth. Since this is not the source of political power it must have another origin. Moreover, political power is a natural right of every man whereas all other forms of power are not.
Ch. 2
All men posses the right to restrain others from invading their rights and to punish offenders. The violation of any man’s rights is the violation against the whole of the species of man. It may be punished by any man sufficient to induce repentance in the offender. Natural laws are universally known and their violation rightfully punished. In addition to the right of any individual to impose retribution upon any offender for a violation of his natural law rights, the victim also possesses a right of restitution to obtain which he may enlist the aid of others.
The right of retribution is resident in every man. The right to restitution is only in the victim. The public magistrate may by virtue of executive authority bestow clemency in the execution of retribution, but only the victim can bestow clemency in the execution of restitution. The measure of punishment and its severity is determined by the severity necessary to cause the offender to repent and dissuade others from the same violations of natural rights.
The executive power of the law of nature is resident in every man. If it is unjustly enforced, he who has judged improperly is answerable to the rest of mankind. The executive power of the law of nature is already present in all the princes and rulers of independent governments. These laws of nature are absolutely binding on every man as all must seek from others that which is lacking in themselves, until by consent they combine in a political body.
Ch. 3
War is a state of enmity which, after careful reflection, may be declared against any man who threatens destruction (or who harbors enmity toward) his being. This is so because those who threaten destruction do not embrace the reason of natural law, but only the law of force and violence. He who would design or attempt to subject any other man under absolute power has declared a defacto or de jure war against that person by seeking to deprive him of life, liberty, or property. Moreover, the design of depriving another of any one thing is the same as depriving him of everything else as well. For this reason it is lawful for a victim to kill a thief, because the thief has declared himself in a state of war against his victim and in so doing has exposed himself to the hazards of war.
The state of nature differs from the state of war. Men living together according to reason and natural law is in a state of nature. Whenever anyone introduces force or the declared design of force upon another there is a state of war. In the absence of a common judge to remedy injury and prevent further harm, the state of war continues until the aggressor either offers peace or is utterly destroyed. But, if a common judge endorse the violence of some against others then it is still war which is made upon the victim. It is the avoidance of continuous warfare which is the main reason that mankind organize themselves into society.
Ch. 4
Liberty is the freedom of men to live under government which does not prescribe and in which mankind is not subject to the arbitrary rule of others, but only under the same restraints as the laws of nature. Liberty is not license. Government has no positive function at all. It does not compel, it only restrains from the violations of natural law. The freedom from arbitrary power is the same as the natural law of man’s preservation. No man may forfeit his own life or enslave himself. He may, however, by committing crimes against the natural law rights of others be worthy of death or an imposed slavery. Slavery is therefore, the continuation of the state of war. The state of war between a conqueror and captive ends when they have entered into a compact of limited power on one side and obedience on the other side.
Ch. 5
Mankind having a common inheritance of property from God, has come to have individual property rights. The earth and all it contains and produces are the common inheritance of mankind. Nevertheless, there must be a means by which the bounty is appropriated before it can be of any use. All inferior creatures and the earth itself are common to all men, but everyman has an individual property right in himself. Any aspect of the common property to which he applies his labor makes it also his property.
The common property of all mankind becomes the individual property upon the least application of labor to it because in its common state it has no value except by its removal from the commons. It cannot be that the explicit consent of every person is necessary to appropriation of any part of what is common. Thus, individual property begins with an application of labor to what is common. The property that any single individual may amass from the common is necessarily limited by one’s ability to collect it and his use for it. Whatever is not or cannot be collected belongs to others.
Title to land in the first instance is acquired in the same manner as any other form of property. As much land as a man can improve is his property, and he cannot enclose it without the consent of all mankind. The appropriation of any parcel of land by improvement does not prejudice any other man. God gave the world to men in common that through industry and reason they should make use of it and none have a cause to complain. The command of God to subdue is the command to appropriate. The needs of man compel his labor. Every man should have as much land as he can put to use. There is more than sufficient land for many more inhabitants had not the invention of money and the agreement of men put a value on land and introduced larger possessions.
He who appropriates land increases the common stock of mankind. Prior to the appropriation of land he who gathered more than he could use or need so that much went to waste violated the common law of nature and was liable to punishment for invading his neighbor’s share. Private property does not presume any private inheritance in Adam, but arises from the application of labor. The largest part in the value of anything is labor. The Americans are poor and have a low standard of living because they suffer a labor shortage and are unable therefore to fully exploit the available resources.
The value of manufactured products vastly exceeds the value of the raw materials whence they come. The employment of large numbers of mankind is preferable to the greater extent of domain. It is the goal of the wise prince to encourage the industry of mankind against the oppression and narrowness of party. It is labor which places the greatest value on land. Man by virtue of the self ownership of his person and his labor has inherent within himself the basis of private property. Labor gave a right of property in the beginning, but since the introduction of money this may no longer happen. The just possessions of a man consist in all those things not uselessly perishing in his possession.
The primary purpose in the rise of the use of money was to provide mankind with some lasting thing that might be kept indefinitely without devaluing, degrading, spoiling, or being wasted uselessly. Money is a store of value. It is the invention of money which gives mankind the opportunity to continue and enlarge possessions, and introduces the necessity of markets to increase wealth from the value of the products of labor. He who finds or makes something that has the use and the value of money will rapidly become wealthy. It is only the introduction of money in the form of hard commodities like gold and silver which permits the acquisition of land beyond that which one may reasonably use. It was labor not money that first attached a title to property.
Ch. 6
In the choosing of words it is best to speak of parental rather than paternal power or authority. Those who frequently argue for monarchy have improperly used the term ‘paternal power.’ The nature of equality among men is the quality of independence, i.e. without being subject to the will or authority of any other man. Children are not born into a full state of equality, but only obtain full equality at the age of majority.
From the first descendants of Adam all mankind are born without knowledge or understanding except for that of self preservation. There is no knowledge of man anterior to his observation and experience. Therefore, Adam and Eve were by the law of nature to preserve, nourish and educate their offspring. The law given to Adam was natural law: the law of reason. The end of this law is not to abolish, restrain, or punish. The end of the law is to preserve and enlarge freedom not to endorse license. It is the acquisition of knowledge and experience which liberates children. It is the knowledge of the laws of nature which liberates the father also.
Those who do not come to a state of reason and the knowledge of natural law are never set free from the governance of others. Knowledge is liberty, ignorance seeks power. In this manner all mankind acquire both reason to know natural law and freedom of action, and are not bound by monarchy. The freedom of action of all mankind is grounded in his capacity of reason and acquisition of the knowledge of natural law.
The temporary parental authority cannot be used as a basis to argue for the authority of monarchy. A father’s jurisdiction over his children is temporary and not an absolute or perpetual jurisdiction. Honor, respect, gratitude, and assistance are to be distinguished from absolute obedience and submission. The subjection of the child to the father terminates with the minority of the child, but the child’s obligation perseveres throughout his life. The obligation of younger children is more on the order of obedience while the obligation to parent on grown children is more on the order of honor.
Parental power is quite different from the sovereign power of commanding. That any person might owe an honor to any other does not empower him to make laws to compel honor. Political power is not parental or paternal power. Parental jurisdiction over children includes the power to distribute estates. No man has the power oblige his posterity to the same government to which he was obliged.
The executive power of nature resides in every man, but not by virtue of his paternal function. Forms of government are designed by the agreement of men as a matter of convenience. It is not impossible that mankind might have lived for a long time without any executive power in government at all. The first selection of executive government by men might have naturally been he who they had experienced in the role of a father. But, paternal authority is no more the foundation of political authority than it is the foundation of priestly authority.
Ch. 7
The nature of man as he is created is to be joined in society, and this is first evident between man and wife. Nevertheless, the society of the family is not fully that of political society. The purpose of the conjunction in the family is the continuation of the species. It is observed that in some animals the role of the male is limited. In other animals the role in the care and feeding of the young is more extensive.
The natural law imposes on mankind lengthier conjunction than any other creatures, by necessity of the extended dependency of children. There is no positive natural law which ordains the contract of marriage to be perpetual. Marriage is contractual. There is no absolute authority in either the husband or the wife as they are bound by natural law, and the power of the civil magistrate. Nor does the power of the civil magistrate extend beyond the resolution of disputes which may arise between them.
The chief end of civil society is the preservation of property. There are distinct differences between the society of the family and political society. Political or civil society arises when men have consented to surrender their natural rights in the preservation of life, liberty, and property. Before this is done mankind remain in the perfect state of nature. In civil society men have surrendered their rights in the preservation of property, in the punishment of offenses (domestic law), and in the punishment of offenses by those who are outside the political society (the power of making war). This is the beginning of both legislative and executive power of civil society.
That men by consent unite in delegating their executive power of the law of nature is necessary and sufficient to political or civil society. The governance of absolute monarchy is inconsistent with civil society because the monarch remains outside the civil society in a state of nature. The monarch cannot be the impartial judge between himself and others. The only foundation for one to govern others is the common consent of all. The nature of man is not inherently good.
Those who question the absolute power of the monarch are said to be authors of rebellion, but it is fatuous to suppose that a man in a state of nature would protect himself from the predations of all others except one. To the extent that any single man in civil society is exempted from its laws, civil society has ceased and the state of nature returned, and further that the state of civil society and the state of nature are not one and the same.
Ch. 8
Civil government arises by the consent of those who have chosen to leave the perfect state of nature and join themselves in a democratic body politic. Democratic process is necessary to the function of the civil society and the act of the majority must be understood as the act of the whole and possessing the power of the whole. Every person consenting to civil society obligates himself to all other members of that society and to the determination of the majority. The civil society cannot exist unless the act of the majority be accepted as the act of the whole. It is only the consent of men to form themselves together into society that is the beginning of lawful government.
The difficulties of living in a state of nature are so great that mankind must very early have formed themselves into society. The beginning of Rome and Venice were by the uniting and agreement of free and independent men. In many areas there are no forms of governance. Those who moved out from established societies formed a government over themselves by consent. Government does not arise from paternal authority. All of the governments of the world begun in peace were begun by the consent of men.
Men formed government in the first instance by consent. Monarchy prevailed until the heir was found incapable for some reason and then they would necessarily choose another. Even though Monarchy might be shown to be common, the beginning of monarchical governance was in the consent of the governed and not in paternal authority.
The first desire of men win choosing government was to provide themselves with protection from foreign force and little attention was paid to the dangers which they faced from each other.
In primitive societies the dominion of their rulers is largely limited to their role in warfare, but their exercise of executive domestic power is limited. The main function of early monarchy was to provide leadership in war. The formation of monarchies protected early societies from quickly perishing. It was the abuses of the prerogative of early monarchies that led mankind to look more carefully at ways of circumscribing power, principally by introducing legislative authority.
People were free from the beginning and by consent chose to be governed. Government was not handed down by paternal authority. If in the beginning anyone was free to begin a new monarchy then the freedom must have belonged to all. History is replete with examples of men withdrawing from existing jurisdictions and setting up new governments in other places.
Whatever obligations and compacts anyone made have made for himself, he cannot rightfully bind any of his posterity anymore than he can dispose of the liberty of any other person. Most of mankind are unaware that they posses the natural right to withdraw consent or remove themselves from the jurisdiction into which they are born. Everyman at the age of his legal discretion is at liberty to decide under which government he will put himself.
Mankind give either express or tacit consent of governance. Tacit consent of governance consists in the acceptance of a man’s possessions, enjoyment, or any part of a government’s dominion. Everyman submitting himself by consent to a government, submits also his property to the jurisdiction of the government. He who has given express consent is bound in perpetuity to be a subject of the government He who has given only tacit consent may at anytime go and incorporate himself into any other commonwealth. Only the express compact of consent makes anyone a member of any commonwealth. Tacit consent is insufficient to make one a member of the commonwealth.
Ch. 9
Although man in a state of nature is free, he subjects himself to society because he sees in it the benefit of the mutual preservation of his person, liberty, and property. The societies formed by men provide what is lacking in the state of nature. They provide common and established law, an independent and impartial authority to render judgment , and the power to enforce judgment and impose punishment.
It is in the earliest society that there is the origin of both executive and legislative power. In the state of nature all men have the right to self preservation and the right to the preservation of all others. It is only the corruption and degeneracy of man that brings about the need for civil society. When a man leaves a state of nature and joins society he surrenders a portion of the liberties which he formerly had and serves the community even as this is done by others as well. The power of society can never be supposed to extend beyond the equal protection of every one’s property. Whoever governs is bound to do so be established and known laws. He must rule with impartiality within the community and protect it from invasion from abroad.
Ch. 10
Once men have united in a society they may form any of a variety of forms of government: perfect democracy, oligarchy, monarchy, hereditary monarchy elective monarchy, etc. It is the manner in which the legislative power is assigned that determines the form of the commonwealth. The term commonwealth is used of any independent community.
Ch. 11
Laws are only made so by public approbation. The end of political power is the preservation of the life, liberty, and property of the who consent to its governance. It never has the right to destroy, enslave, or impoverish its subjects. Laws ordained to protect the commonwealth from external enemies presume the universal depravity of man.
The legislature of society may not assume to itself the power of arbitrary rule. The legislative power may not contradict any positive law of scripture. The condition of a man governed by arbitrary power is far worse than his condition in the state of nature. The arbitrary abuse of power to the detriment of any man’s property is more to be feared in absolute legislatures than in variable legislatures which dissolve and become the subjects of the common laws. The power of the government over property may extend to its regulation, but not to its seizure. The power of the government to levy taxes requires the consent of the people. The power of the legislative body may not be transferred to any others.
All government must be by promulgated established laws designed for no other end than the protection of the lives, liberties, and properties of the people. The government must not raise taxes without the consent of the people, and the legislative authority may not be transferred to anyone else.
Ch. 12
The legislative power and executive power ought not to be vested in the same hands. Beyond the legislative and the executive power there is the natural power in governance which is the power of every man prior to entry into society. It renders the society in a state of nature with respect to all other foreign states or persons.
The natural power of society may be called the federal power. It is the power of war and peace. The federal power is almost always united with the executive power. In its exercise it should not be interfered with by the legislative power. The executive and federal power should be exercised by persons in a relationship of subordination rather than by distinct persons so as not the engender disorder.
Ch. 13
The supreme power is the legislative to which all other must be subordinate even as the legislative must be subordinate to the people. The people always retain the supreme power of dissolving the government. In the absence of the legislative the executive is the supreme executor of the law. It is only in this capacity that he has any power and when he acts outside of it he has not right to obedience. Whenever the executive power is placed in a person outside of the legislative he is subordinate to it, but whenever the executive is placed in who is also a legislator he need not subordinate himself to it.
It is not necessary that the legislative body be continuously convened, but it is always necessary that the executive execute the laws that have bee made. Legislatures are usually either convened by the executive or by the requirements of their original constitution. Whenever an executive makes use of his authority to disband the legislative authority he declares a state of war against the people. The people retain the right to remove any force deployed without authority against them by force.
The power of the executive to convene the legislative does not give the executive an authority over the legislative. Constant or frequent meetings of the legislature would impose increasing burdens on the people. A solution must be found to the problem of the distribution of representation in the legislative power when it no longer reflects the distribution of population of society. Proportional representation must be periodically adjusted to account for the inevitable shifts in population over time.
Ch. 14
A certain latitude of prerogative in the executive must be assumed. The legislative or the people have by express laws placed limitations on executive prerogative. Limitations on the prerogative of the executive are not encroachments upon his independent power. The widest latitude in executive prerogative has been granted to the wisest and best of rulers, and circumscribed in the case of weak, ill, or self interested rulers. Princes who are demonstrated to be good and wise have been admitted wide prerogative. This has been dangerous to the liberties of the people to the extent that those princes have been succeeded by rulers who used the inherited or traditional prerogative to the harm of the people. When either the executive in his prerogative of the legislative act to enslave or harm men, the majority act to amend the authority.
Ch. 15
Paternal or parental power is separate and distinct from political power. Political power is that which everyman has in a state of nature and has by mutual consent surrendered to society.
Despotic power is not within natural law because no distinction exist between men.
He who exercises despotic power has abandoned reason and places himself in a state of war with others. In doing so he renders himself liable to destruction or capture and enslavement by those whom he has injured and indeed by the rest of mankind.
Despotic power, absolute power, and slavery end as soon as compact or covenant enters. Nature bestows paternal power. Voluntary consent, compact, or covenant bestow political power Forfeiture to the end of self-aggrandizement bestows despotic power. The nature and extent of these three powers shows that paternal power is less than that of civil society and despotic power exceeds the limits of civil society.
Ch. 16
All governments have originated in the consent of the people. The capacity to conquer of its execution bears no entitlement to the submission of the conquered. Those who serve the ruler in a just war cannot suffer by conquest. The ruler who conquers in just war obtains absolute power over the lives of those who waged an unjust war. He has no power of those who did not wage unjust war, nor even over the possessions of those who were combatants.
The conqueror’s power only extends over the lives of those who have concurred in the waging of unjust war. The conqueror is not entitled to the right and title of the property of the conquered. It is the unjust use of force that puts a man into a state of war with another. The conqueror in a just war obtains no power over right of the innocent. The lives of the vanquished who have waged an unjust war are made forfeit.. But the vanquished had no power in himself to forfeit the lives of his dependents or his posterity. Therefore, the conqueror only has just claim upon the property of the vanquished to the extent of restitution and his right to the property of the vanquished is not absolute.
No damage that mankind in a state of nature may do to each other can give the conqueror the power to dispossess the posterity of the vanquished. The innocent survivors of the vanquished country are free in a state of nature to form a new government. All mankind retain the right to all that has been removed from them by force rather than by consent. The conqueror has no absolute power over the innocent of the conquered.
Everyman is born with two rights. These are the rights to the liberty of his person, and right to inherit with his siblings the property of his parents. He loses the absolute right in the second of these if he disavows the lawful government made with his ancestors consent. Moreover, those who are descended from ancestors who were vanquished retain forever the right to alter or abolish the government forced upon themselves and form new government. Nothing can be taken from any man without his consent, except by forfeiture in restitution. Property is a natural right of every man. No ruler is exempt from the laws of God and nature. Rebellion against a power imposed by force without right is not an offense to God.
Ch. 17
Conquest is a foreign usurpation. Usurpation is a domestic conquest. If the usurper extends the exercise of power beyond that of the prince who is usurped, it is tyranny also.
The usurper has no right to be obeyed until his power is confirmed by the consent of the people.
Ch. 18
Usurpation is the exercise of power to which another had the right. Tyranny is the exercise of power to which no one has a right. A lawful king makes laws the limits of his power. A tyrant makes everything yield to his will and appetite. All forms of government are liable to tyranny. Wherever law ends, tyranny begins. Force is to be used for nothing, but to oppose unjust and unlawful force. Beyond this there is only the condemnation of God and man.
In some states the person of the prince is by law sacred and not set aside quickly. The privilege of the sacred consideration does not extend beyond the king to his subordinate officers, nor can such a king empower his subordinates to act against the law.
Force is only justifiably used in response to the threat or use of unjust force.
When tyranny goes beyond one or a few of the people to the majority, or appears by the majority as tangible threat against all of the people, the tyrant has place himself in danger of being overthrown. Tyrants use both pretenses and actions to elude the law, but eventually the people observe that the tyrant is ruling against their interest.
Ch. 19
There is a difference between the dissolution of the society and the dissolution of the government. Wherever society is dissolved government cannot remain. The legislative is the first and fundamental act of society, and when anyone takes it upon himself to enact laws in the absence of authority the people may resist with force and constitute a new legislative. Whoever introduces new laws apart from the appointed legislative overthrows its authority and establishes a new legislative.
When the prince prevents the assembly of the legislative or its function, he removes the legislative and ends the government. Whenever election rules are changed by arbitrary power a legislative is chosen other than that appointed by the people. Delivery of the people into the subjection of a foreign power represents a change in the legislative and a dissolution of the government.
Wherever laws cannot be executed there is no government. Whenever the chief executive neglects and abandons the charge of enforcing the laws, the society is reduced to anarchy and the government is effectively dissolved. Whenever a government is dissolved the people return to a state of nature and may form a new legislative. Whenever the executive or legislative reaches beyond its role determined by natural law and for whatever reason destroys the lives, liberties or properties of the people the right of governance is forfeit and the government is dissolved. The right of governance then devolves to the people whence it came and they are free to establish new government.
Some may object that the general ignorance or ill humor of people would make government exposed to certain ruin. This is not the case because mankind are more disposed to suffer than abolish forms to which they are accustomed. Men do not lightly replace governments, but only after a long record of abuses.
Whenever a legislative acts in force against the natural law and the right of the people, it is the legislative that is in a state of rebellion. The principle that when usurpations of government become intolerable men may dissolve it and form new government is far from being an invitation to anarchy, but is a warning to anyone who would abuse lawful authority.
It is better that rulers on occasion should be held accountable and liable to be opposed than that mankind should live in perpetual fear of the unlimited appetite of tyrants.
The violation of public trust by one acting beyond his authority is a greater offence than an unlawful attack by a foreign enemy. even those who argue most forcefully for the power and sacredness of kings admit that in some cases it is lawful for a people to resist their king.
After a long succession of abuses and usurpations directed to the same end betrays design to reduce the people to absolute despotism it is the right of the people to alter or abolish the government and to establish new government for their future security.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Were Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin Deists?
Were Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin Deists?
I submit for the review of anyone who might be interested in the question the following information available on the indicated site.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=58
Benjamin Franklin was frequently consulted by Thomas Paine for advice and suggestions regarding his political writings, and Franklin assisted Paine with some of his famous essays. This letter is Franklin's response to a manuscript Paine sent him that advocated against the concept of a providential God.
TO THOMAS PAINE.
[Date uncertain.]
DEAR SIR,
I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence, that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles, though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion, that, though your reasonings are subtile and may prevail with some readers, you will not succeed so as to change the general sentiments of mankind on that subject, and the consequence of printing this piece will be, a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits against the wind, spits in his own face.
But, were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantages of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security. And perhaps you are indebted to her originally, that is, to your religious education, for the habits of virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. You might easily display your excellent talents of reasoning upon a less hazardous subject, and thereby obtain a rank with our most distinguished authors. For among us it is not necessary, as among the Hottentots, that a youth, to be raised into the company of men, should prove his manhood by beating his mother.
I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person; whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a good deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it. I intend this letter itself as a proof of my friendship, and therefore add no professions to it; but subscribe simply yours,
B. Franklin
The content of this letter is quite significant since it reveals some specific theological views of both Paine and Franklin. The text of Franklin's letter suggests that Franklin objects to Paine's allowance of only a general Providence and not a particular Providence. Franklin suggests that the Deity should be worshipped, His displeasure feared, and His protection sought, and that this view brings benefit to the moral condition of mankind.
Deism as a theology denies both a general and a specific Providence as it portrays God as absent from his creation. No true and consistent Deist would believe in a general Providence much less a specific Providence, or that His displeasure should be feared, and His aid sought. Nor would the God of the Deist have the least interest in the virtue or moral exertions of any man.
Franklin is aware of his limitations in matters of theology and takes note of the hazards of theology...of which his view is that Paine also is not competent and urges that Paine's manuscript be burned with dispatch.
That Paine is clearly not a Christian is evident from his Age of Reason. What may be inferred from that work and from this letter is that he is unwilling to dispense with a concept of general Providence.
Although both Franklin and Paine were widely read, neither gives any evidence of being educated in matters of hermeneutics or theology. It is my considered opinion therefore, that neither Paine nor Franklin were theologically Deist in their personal beliefs.
The widespread negative reaction to Paine's Age of Reason suggests that many of these 'founders' were sufficiently 'Christian' to be deeply offended by Paine's work. The Age of Reason reflects an erroneous understanding of many major Christian doctrines including: special revelation, prophecy, incarnation, christology, canon, and many others . In Paine's work Common Sense, his treatment of I Sam 8 is limited by his understanding of the text as being merely anti-monarchical. In the Age of Reason he repeatedly demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the discipline of hermeneutics and contempt for theology as a discipline, (which he embraces only long enough to call himself a Deist).
I submit for the review of anyone who might be interested in the question the following information available on the indicated site.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=58
Benjamin Franklin was frequently consulted by Thomas Paine for advice and suggestions regarding his political writings, and Franklin assisted Paine with some of his famous essays. This letter is Franklin's response to a manuscript Paine sent him that advocated against the concept of a providential God.
TO THOMAS PAINE.
[Date uncertain.]
DEAR SIR,
I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence, that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles, though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion, that, though your reasonings are subtile and may prevail with some readers, you will not succeed so as to change the general sentiments of mankind on that subject, and the consequence of printing this piece will be, a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits against the wind, spits in his own face.
But, were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantages of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security. And perhaps you are indebted to her originally, that is, to your religious education, for the habits of virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. You might easily display your excellent talents of reasoning upon a less hazardous subject, and thereby obtain a rank with our most distinguished authors. For among us it is not necessary, as among the Hottentots, that a youth, to be raised into the company of men, should prove his manhood by beating his mother.
I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person; whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a good deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it. I intend this letter itself as a proof of my friendship, and therefore add no professions to it; but subscribe simply yours,
B. Franklin
The content of this letter is quite significant since it reveals some specific theological views of both Paine and Franklin. The text of Franklin's letter suggests that Franklin objects to Paine's allowance of only a general Providence and not a particular Providence. Franklin suggests that the Deity should be worshipped, His displeasure feared, and His protection sought, and that this view brings benefit to the moral condition of mankind.
Deism as a theology denies both a general and a specific Providence as it portrays God as absent from his creation. No true and consistent Deist would believe in a general Providence much less a specific Providence, or that His displeasure should be feared, and His aid sought. Nor would the God of the Deist have the least interest in the virtue or moral exertions of any man.
Franklin is aware of his limitations in matters of theology and takes note of the hazards of theology...of which his view is that Paine also is not competent and urges that Paine's manuscript be burned with dispatch.
That Paine is clearly not a Christian is evident from his Age of Reason. What may be inferred from that work and from this letter is that he is unwilling to dispense with a concept of general Providence.
Although both Franklin and Paine were widely read, neither gives any evidence of being educated in matters of hermeneutics or theology. It is my considered opinion therefore, that neither Paine nor Franklin were theologically Deist in their personal beliefs.
The widespread negative reaction to Paine's Age of Reason suggests that many of these 'founders' were sufficiently 'Christian' to be deeply offended by Paine's work. The Age of Reason reflects an erroneous understanding of many major Christian doctrines including: special revelation, prophecy, incarnation, christology, canon, and many others . In Paine's work Common Sense, his treatment of I Sam 8 is limited by his understanding of the text as being merely anti-monarchical. In the Age of Reason he repeatedly demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the discipline of hermeneutics and contempt for theology as a discipline, (which he embraces only long enough to call himself a Deist).
My Veterans Day Tea Party Speech
This was originally published on 10/30/09.
VETERANS DAY RECOGNITION 14 NOV 2009
Today is November 14th. Veterans Day was November 11th. Today is our local Tea Party celebration of Veterans Day. It is an important day made so by all of those who have ever served in the Armed Forces. It is appropriate for us today to reflect upon the purpose of the federal government, its constitutional powers, the nature and conduct of war, and the honor and respect earned by veterans.
When we survey the whole earth and every society and culture which exists we find a startling fact of which few will frankly speak. Poverty, suffering, squalor, and penury are found throughout the world. There are everywhere masses of humanity burdened by suffering. The cause of all this misery is government. The producers of all of this pain in the human condition are found to reside in the most local to the highest offices of every land.
Let me give a local example. None of us would spend eight million dollars on a soft ball field or fifteen million dollars on a sheriffs office building, or presume to know how to operate an asphalt plant. But, there are those in government who believe that which none of us would do individually we can be compelled to do corporately. The vision of these phony public servants is Utopian and their desires are insatiable. And so government become insensitive to human pain, to your pain, and far from becoming a benevolent shepherd becomes instead merely a well of ignominy. From time to time politicians have told you that they feel your pain, but that is only a convenient lie. They don't feel your pain, they cause it.
Today we have a federal administration which does not really like the Constitution. They want to change it. They want to change it to a document which enumerates the rights of the central state.They want to change the Constitution without using the amendment process.
They believe equally in English common law and shariah law and attach to them moral equivalence. They believe your cats,dogs, and other pets should have rights to legal representation. They want your children to chant and sing songs to the Supreme Leader in public schools. They think you spend too much money on health care. Rather than seeking treatment you should just accept the inevitable, take a pain pill and die. They want to tax and regulate away your guns and ammunition. They want you to buy your mandated public option health insurance at the Department of Motor Vehicles. They want to harvest human organs against the will of terminally ill patients. They want to tax and regulate the internet. They want to bring about a localism version of the fairness doctrine and limit free speech. They want to send a member of Acorn to your house to make sure that you are using the right kind of light bulbs. They want to increase your cost of energy by two or three hundred percent. They laud and admire the most bloodthirsty tyrants of history and celebrate the use of violence to silence dissent. From my perspective, worst of all, it's been reported that they want to end sport fishing in America. Their vision is strange, inexplicable, and Utopian. In the end they will exhaust the resources which can be stolen from you: the peasants. They are tutelary fascists and they are going to teach you how to live and make you like it, whether you like it or not.
All of this is quite foreign to the vision of the framers of the Constitution.
There are only two dominant world views. The Marxist, fascist, socialist, tutelary fascist, Islamo-fascist, the big government Republican, the big government Democrat, or statist of any kind, all embrace an ideology of punishment. It is the statist of any variety who believes in some form of theocracy. It is the statist who sees the state as acting in loco Deus, in place of God, however they define God. Their highest value and what they see as the fundamental existential truth of the universe is the punishment of man into submission. Anyone who has raised children or even trained a dog knows this observational truth: that reward works and punishment fails. This is why the people of every statist society languish while the people of every free society prosper.These fascists see you as a ride to the free meal ticket. The statist's view is that you serve no other purpose than to be ridden hard and put up wet.
The fundamental existential truth of the universe is not the punishment of man into submission. Ladies and gentlemen, the fundamental existential truth of the universe, the big truth of the universe, is the grace of God triumphant in the affairs of men. The ideology of punishment leads to servitude and finally slavery, and the ideology of the grace of God triumphant in the affairs of men leads to broad sunlit uplands of liberty. The corollary of this idea is that if anyone would insist upon freedom of action for himself, he cannot begin by denying the same freedom of action to others. Consider, for a moment, the vicious hypocrisy of your elected representatives who are busy deciding on a health plan for you from which they have specifically exempted themselves.
At its beginning the purpose of the federal government was to secure the liberties, rights, and independence of those who consented to its governance. The Declaration of Independence acknowledged the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God as the source of the rights of man. Yet, the purpose of the federal government was not to be God's partner or God's helper. The purpose of the federal government was not to enforce moral rectitude or punish moral turpitude. The purpose of the federal government was not to create a framework for peace in the Middle East. It was not to promote a New World Order of interdependence. It was not to protect European or Asian nations from the forces of invasion. It was not to go forth and make the world safe for democracy. The framers did not envision the President of the United States as the President of the World.
The purpose of the federal government was to secure the independence and the liberties of the people of the United States of America, and it was to protect our borders from the forces of invasion. Indeed the only legitimate function of any government is to secure the independence and individual human rights of all those who consent to its governance.
Warfare in defense of the nation has always been considered appropriate only as a last resort, when all other measures had been tried and failed. When we consider the many conflicts in recent years, they were not pursued as a last resort. Something else might have been done first. Something might have been done before the events of 9/11. The borders might have been secured. Yet, they were not. The attackers of 9/11 did not take off from Riyadh, Damascus, Cairo, Bagdad, or Islamabad. They took off from Boston. Indeed how shameful it is that almost a full decade after those attacks the borders have not yet been secured and no administration of either major party has any interest in doing so. They have not merely neglected their constitutional duty, they have resolutely refused to obey it. They have violated their oaths of office. For these reasons, September 11 should be recognized and remembered in perpetuity as "Open Borders Day."
American policy of huge legal immigration and unrestrained illegal immigration has led to a bad result, because it takes international problems and disputes and transforms them into domestic problems and disputes. This is observational truth. It was true yesterday. It is true today, and it will be true tomorrow. Whenever anyone dares make this observation they must brace for an onslaught of invective. They must be prepared to be called a racist or at least a nativist. Today every major city of western nations and most of their institutions have been infiltrated by Islamo-fascists. We may now examine the results of the policy. Hardly a week goes by without the report of domestic honor killings, or the exposing of domestic terror plots. Ladies and gentlemen, the results of the policy are in.
Sun Tzu in his great classic work, The Art of War, written almost two and one half millennia ago suggested that the highest form of generalship is to thwart the enemy's plans. The most skilled general defeats the strategies and plans of the enemy. He denies the enemy his strategic objective.Today the enemies of western civilization are busy conspiring to infiltrate our nation and other nations of the west, commit acts of terror, and destroy us and our culture from within, and establish an international caliphate. This strategic objective has been abetted by the connivance of western nations. Ladies and gentlemen, the highest form of generalship today would be to secure the borders.
The next best thing according to Sun Tzu is to prevent the junction of the enemies forces in the field. This means to deny the enemy the resources to form up in the field. Defund the enemy. Islamo-fascists of our day have four sources of revenue: petrodollars, drug money, income from piracy and other forms of extortion, and income from phony charitable organizations headquartered in western nations. Serious modifications in domestic policy of the United States would substantially defund the Islamo-fascists of our day, and largely prevent the junction of their forces in the field. But again, the junction of the enemies forces in the field has been abetted by the connivance of western nations.
According to Sun Tzu, the next policy is to attack the enemies forces in the field. And the worst policy of all is to besiege a walled city. So it is the perspective of Sun Tzu that if you thwart the enemy's strategic objective, and if you prevent the junction of his forces in the field, you may not have to fight at all because the victory has already been won. Sun Tzu says, "Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory." When we consider the conflicts of recent decades: Afghanistan, Iraq, the Balkans, Vietnam, Korea and so forth, we find that they meet Sun Tzu's definition of defeat because we fought first and only afterwards looked for a path to victory.
When a conflict is engaged today all the wise men and talking heads gather together and pretending to be smart ask, "what is the exit strategy?" when they should be asking, " how do we intend to achieve victory?" Ladies and gentlemen, the way to defeat the Islamo-fascists of our day is first to defeat their ideology on the battlefield of ideas, and then to secure our borders, and then by defunding him, and then only if necessary obliterating the concentrations of his forces on the battlefield, and utterly destroying the nations which he calls home.
From the beginning the blunt tools available to achieve the end of the security of the United States were the armed forces. Over the centuries the forces of the United States have become increasingly sophisticated. They have the capacity to achieve their constitutionally appointed role. When the nation is attacked it was the armed forces which were envisioned as imposing defeat upon our enemies and preventing them from ever attacking us again. When the nation was attacked Congress was supposed to declare war and the President as Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces was supposed to use the force at his disposal to lay waste the nations of our enemies. No consideration was ever given to the dubious idea of declaring war against a tactic, a human behavior, or a human condition. No thought was ever given to declaring war against terrorism, drugs, poverty, cancer, or drunk driving. War was envisioned as declared against nations.
The armed forces were not intended by the framers to engage in overseas contingency operations, police actions, or nation building. They were to be used to impose defeat upon our enemies after borders had been secured, and after the junction of the enemy's forces in the field had been substantially prevented, and after all other negotiations and measures had failed.
The framers were highly educated men. They had read the classics of antiquity. They had read Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero. They understood that the worst thing anybody could do was wage war. Far better to settle differences at a negotiating table than on any battlefield. In the end the armed forces were there as a blunt instrument. They would assure with finality the liberties and independence of the people whenever the nation was attacked. There comes a time in the life of any nation that it cannot avoid armed conflict. It must either surrender its sovereignty, its liberties and independence or fight to maintain them.
When one goes forth to defeat enemies of the nation one must have a clear idea of the limits of military power and how to achieve final victory. When war comes as it inevitably does, one does not achieve victory by standing around on street corners waiting to see who will shoot you in the back next week. One does not achieve victory by going onto foreign soil to sort good apples from bad apples. One does not achieve victory with political thumb twiddling and temporizing. The way that one achieves final victory is by laying waste the land of the enemy, destroying everything of value which he has, de-constructing his capacity to wage war, and killing enemy combatants in large numbers.
It is not moral to target the enemies innocent civilians purposefully, but in order to achieve victory one must place a higher value on the lives one's own combatants than on the lives of the enemy's innocent civilians. According to the law of war, it is each combatant force that is finally responsible for the lives of their innocent civilians. Final victory comes at the end when the enemy's land is decimated and the devastation and ruin is so complete that the culture of the few remaining survivors is changed. Far from being theoretical, this is what actually happened in Germany and Japan after the Second World War.
The job of imposing this defeat on the enemy belongs to the armed forces. It requires a special kind of person: one who is not merely willing to sacrifice and perhaps die for the nation but one who is willing to kill also. These special persons, who we call veterans, began by raising their right hands and swearing an oath, not an oath of loyalty to the temporary occupant of the White House, but to the Constitution, to protect and defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic. It is an oath which requires obedience of every lawful order and challenge of every unlawful order. The framers made it so, because they wanted a nation governed by law not by men. Unlike the functionaries and holders of public office today, the veterans kept their oath.
It is the oath which separates us from all of the nations and tyrants throughout the vast march of time. It is the oath which envisions the highest aspirations of our history and culture, and transcends the tawdry realities, ignorance and incompetence of the federal government. Those who took the oath, agreed that if necessary they would rush forward and stand in the breach. Some were fortunate and were never ordered over the top. Some were never deployed.
Winston Churchill once said, "there is nothing more exhilarating than being shot at without effect." I have never regretted having missed the opportunity of being shot at. There were the families as well. They also serve who only stand and wait. High honor belongs to those who, when the order came, stood and said, "follow me" and went forward into the fog and teeth of battle. None ever knew what would happen, if they would return in one piece or if they would return at all.
The nation must not waste this resource. It must not view the lives of those who have taken the oath as expendable for proximate ends. The way to honor the service and sacrifice of the veteran is by never committing these extraordinary persons to battle in the absence of an objective of total victory. As Douglas MacArthur is reputed to have once observed, "I have never in my fifty years of service learned how to bomb half a bridge."
Ladies and gentlemen, if the political will to achieve victory as I have defined it cannot be mustered first, the battle should not be joined. We owe this to everyone who has taken the oath and who has been willing to lay down their lives and even kill for our liberties and independence. We must honor the service and sacrifice with an objective of victory from the outset so that no one will ever say that they served, sacrificed, suffered, or died in vain. But rather that each one mattered. Each one made a difference. Each one heard an authentic call greater than himself or any other man and answered, "Here am I, send me."
So when you meet a veteran and thank him for his service to this nation and to its Constitution, apologize on behalf of your federal government for having committed him to battle in the absence of an objective of victory.
Thank you so much for coming today, and have a great Tea Party!
Power and The State
Power is the clothing of the naked state. Rip away the clothing and underneath is a fraudulent claim to authority.
The Definition of Government/Governance
Government and governance are identical. These two are both euphemisms for the exercise of power without authority.
Four Essays On America
The Moral Superiority of Liberty
Is liberty morally superior to servitude, and how do we know? This is a deeply profound question which admits of a limited number of potential answers.
1. Yes, liberty is morally superior to servitude.
2. No, servitude is morally superior to liberty.
3. Liberty and servitude are both without moral content, and of indifferent value.
Western civilization as expressed imperfectly in the documents, history, and institutions of the United State has answered this question with an appeal to principles of natural revelation and natural law. The Declaration of Independence cites the "Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God." The signers of the Declaration believed in a causal universe.
There are only two possible epistemological world views: the view of a causal universe, and the view of an accidental universe. Modern physics has eliminated the possibility of an eternal universe. It is in the accidental universe that liberty and servitude are without moral content and of indifferent value. This is a fatalistic view, a sort of accidental determinism. The fate of the slave is to accept the blows of the master without protestation. The fate of the master is to deliver punishments without reason. They live in an universe not merely without causation, but also without purpose.
Aristotle believed in a causal universe. From his viewpoint every effect had a cause, and every cause was the effect of some prior cause. One could therefore, reason back to a First Cause which is the Cause of all things. This First Cause is what mankind call God. Aristotle’s God was the Unmoved Mover, the First Cause. He was impersonal and pure intelligence. He was Nature’s God.
The Jew and the Christian also embrace a causal universe. They believe in naturally revealed truth as expressed in the soaring poetry of the Psalmist:
"The heavens declare the glory of God;
The skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech,
Night after night they display knowledge.
There is no speech or language
Where their voice is not heard.
Their voice goes out into all the earth;
Their word to the end of the world..."Psalm 19:1-4
This is what theologians call natural revelation. It is the belief that mankind can know, and do know the difference between right and wrong, between good and evil. Moreover, in this view the natural world is accessible to all who will allow the powers of observation to trump the powers of authority. In this manner, truth is discovered not postulated.
The modern atheist may accept natural revelation, not from a source of a transcendent God, but from other principles such as humanism or empiricism. It is natural law which prevents the scientist from bending over the lav sample of a failed experiment and shouting, "What, do you know who I am?" There are laws in the universe: laws of gravity, force, energy, light, etc. Mankind may ignore these laws at some peril or seek them out to learn and to advance his condition. Nature reveals itself. All that mankind need do is construct the right experiment, ask the right questions, and truth will emerge.
Which is superior, liberty or servitude? We are not the first to ask this question. The founding fathers asserted a number of self evident truths:
"that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
Created equality and liberty are inseparable. Any measure of servitude introduces duality or inequality in man. It is only with liberty that there can be any sense at all of universal human rights.
What is moral if not that which is truth? The truths of the founding fathers were self evident. They were known from the observable universe. Liberty was morally superior to servitude because it reflected the character of Nature’s God. It was not a matter of moral indifference of an accidental universe. It was an observable outcome of a causal universe.
These ideas are compatible with Christian theology which unites epistemology, ontology, and natural law. It was Jesus of Nazareth who made perhaps the most profound philosophical statement which has ever been made:
"και γνωσεσθε την αληθειαν, και η αληθεια ελεθερωσει υμαs." ("You shall both know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.")
For all of the arguments about whether or not the United States is a Christian nation, the fact is that the founding fathers embraced a Biblical epistemology. That epistemology was empiricist with the due consideration of experiential accounts of others.
At some future time libertarian thought may prevail, not through the abuse of power or the machinations of politics, but because truth prevails. It has the inexorable quality associated with every natural law. Natural laws may be ignored, denied, or ridiculed. Natural laws and their truths are never overturned. Merely knowing these truths will set the individual free.
A practical application of these ideas should be carefully considered. All recent efforts to revive the interventionism of Woodrow Wilson and march forth to "make the world safe for democracy" in the Islamic world must fail. Misadventures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iran
will sooner or later all meet with failure. The reasons for this are epistemological. Islam has a
truncated view of natural revelation which suggest that the observable universe is only a sign of the power of God in the act of creation. Islam’s anti-intellectual weltenschauung rejects entirely any concept of natural law. There are only four sources of law in Islam: the Koran, tradition, the consensus of the community, and individual thought. Without an idea of natural law, there is no basis in Islam for universal human rights, and no basis for liberty.
For these reasons, it is impossible for any Muslim society to produce what the west considers ‘civil society.’ For its stated purpose, the interventionism practiced by both political parties is a fool’s errand. Relations with such societies should be at arms length and cautious. Muslims should not be allowed to become US citizens. While this may seem bigoted, the reality is that no true Muslim may truthfully swear allegiance to the Constitution. If a Muslim does so, it can only be because he does not understand his own religion or he is prevaricating. A standard already exists that makes ignorance or prevarication disqualifying of citizenship. Of course, some Americans may not object to neighbors whose deepest religious beliefs are that non-Muslims have no universal human right to life. This practical case is presented here to show that epistemology and natural law matters.
The Theology of Thomas Paine in Common Sense and Executive Power
The Common Sense of Thomas Paine includes biblical ideas and even theological doctrines. His view is of powerful and triumphant natural revelation, natural law, and original sin. His broadest purpose is to make the case for independence. Although he begins with biblical ideas his vision is universal and applies to all mankind. He acknowledges in his short introduction that his ideas may not be supported by custom or tradition, but accepts that the passage of time will make more converts than greater exertions of reason.
"The cause of America is, in a great measure, the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances have, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all lovers of mankind are affected, and in the event of which, their affections are interested. The laying of a country desolate with fire and sword, declaring war against the natural rights of all mankind, and extirpating the defenders thereof from the face of the earth, is the concern of every man to whom nature hath given power of feeling; of which class, regardless of party censure, is THE AUTHOR."
The vision begins with an understanding of a broken universe filled with blessing and curse, and forever impaired by the former sin of man in Paradise.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of Paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver, but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest...."
Thomas Paine sees all of man and his institutions tainted by the stain of original sin, an imperfect world in which mankind perpetually weighs the choices before him and is compelled to choose among evils. There is for Paine a sliding scale, a sort of grading by a curve in the assessment of government:
"I offer a few remarks on the so much boasted constitution of England. That it was noble for the dark and slavish times in which it was erected, is granted. When the world was overrun with tyranny, the least remove therefrom was a glorious rescue. But, that it is imperfect, subject to convulsions, and incapable of producing what it seems to promise, is easily demonstrated."
He launches into a critical review of monarchy as a common form of governance in his own time and develops his criticism around a discussion of the scriptural account of the people of Israel demanding of Samuel that he appoint a king to reign over them (I Sam 8). The point of the text of I Sam 8 is to oppose the idea of executive power and authority in human governance.
It just happens that this takes the form of monarchy at the time. Nevertheless, Paine takes the view that this passage is "anti-monarchical." He is very clear on this point and does not restrain his condemnation of the hubris of men:
"Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind, their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests and when they succeed to the government , are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominion."
Paine’s treatment of I Sam 8 as merely anti monarchical serves his purpose, but does not adequately treat the text itself. I Sam 8 is effectively an endorsement of the governance of the existing amphictyonic league which was governance largely devoid of executive authority. At the time, judges provided judicial authority and tribal leadership provided mostly legislative authority, and only the most minimal executive authority. Paine too narrowly interprets I Sam 8 by applying it only to the concept of monarchy. For instance:
"Near three thousand years passed away, from the Mosaic account of the creation, till the Jews, under a national delusion, requested a king. Till them, their form of government (except in extraordinary cases where the Almighty interposed) was a kind of republic, administered by a judge and the elders of the tribes. Kings they had none, and it was sinful to acknowledge any being under that title but the Lord of Hosts. And when a man seriously reflects on the idolatrous homage to the persons of kings, he need not wonder that the Almighty, ever jealous of his honor, should disapprove of a form of government which so impiously invades the prerogative of heaven."
A comparison of the account of the introduction of sin in Eden with the perspective of the writer of I Sam 8 suggests that original sin is pride as many would have it, manifested by executive power in human governance. The meaning of the text is that the driving desire for empowerment, to lord one’s authority over others, or at the same time to submit to one human being who will do so, is the original sin of man. This is so because it reflects both the desire and the act of displacing the executive power of God with the executive power of man. In this sense, executive power in human governance is the original sin of man. Paine understated the case he could have made from I Sam 8. Nevertheless, he was eager to replace a system wherein the King was Law with a system in which the Law was King.
The biblical view of government has a far more skeptical view of executive power in governance than mankind have commonly accepted. The founders in drafting the Constitution envisioned a limited role for all three branches and the executive branch was no exception. Of the three branches of government the one which poses the greatest threat to the liberty of man may be the executive branch.
It is now clear in the wake of the election of President Obama that the views of even those who cast votes for him are of no account once he assumed office. There are no early signs of any effort to curtail enhancements of executive power put in place under the last Bush. If anything they appear to be expanding.
America: A Vassalage of Tutelary Fascism
The shape of America in which we now find ourselves at last must be reviewed in the stark and uncomfortable light of the facts as they are. One might attempt to enumerate and consider the wide variety of interferences and regulations which have been heaped upon our hapless and beleaguered citizens. The task is not simply daunting, but impossible. There is no corner of the universe of human action which has escaped their notice.
The federal government has already begun or will soon undertake all of the following:
They regulate wages, bonuses, voter registration rules, prices, air in tires, auto tail lights, air bags, truck safety, truck driver hours, water in toilets, toilet paper, gasoline mileage standards, cooking oils, appliance efficiency, tobacco, electrical standards, alcohol, air quality, non-prescription drugs, prescription drugs, illegal drugs, the levels at which thermostats are set, government schools, school curriculum, retirement plans, chemical plants, oil and gas exploration, coal mining, highway construction, water quality standards, transportation safety, air traffic control, railroads, customs, prisons, automobile colors, college and university grants and admissions, firearms and ammunition, farm production, ports, securities, insurance, mortgages, banks, security firms, power plants, nuclear plants, fissile material, carbon dioxide emissions, endangered species, forestry, racetracks, abortion on demand, euthanasia as required, eugenics for all, and rationed health care for the survivors.
Of course, this is not a complete list and can only barely be described as a representative list with a big stretch. In short, the government of the United States has either a fist or a boot in
just about everything. They have a plan to control, manage, supervise, and punish with impunity every aspect of the life of the common man. They have both figuratively and literally shot for the moon. Apologies are offered to those whose favorite source of irritation has inadvertently been omitted.
The perceptive observer will note that with so much activity they nevertheless seem unable to secure the borders, one the few responsibilities which the Federal government is assigned by the Constitution. Still, how may this form of governance be described? What words are adequate and accurate to convey the idea behind this governance?
Marxism was international socialism in an extreme form, an entire absence of private property universally imposed. It was a Kingdom of God without God. The state was God and required absolute obedience. The state owns everyone and everything which they do. In this sense there is no actual redistribution in Marxism. There is only distribution, from each according to his abilities and to each according to his need. All production is owned by the state which distributes the benefits equally. This is the vision of its realized eschatology which has never actually been achieved.
Socialism conveyed an idea not quite so extreme, and still the bulk of all means of production, or at least mass production was under state control. Socialism seems to focus more on the redistribution of benefits than on the actual state ownership of property as it is more willing to accept state control in lieu of state ownership. Socialism is about redistribution. Whatever remnants there remain of a free market are thought of as inequitably distributing benefits which the state must redistribute, because it is the ‘fair’ thing to do. Socialists eventually become dissatisfied with the uneven results of redistribution and become attracted to the simple distribution of Marxism.
Fascism was national socialism and it embraced national industrial policy (e.g. nationalized auto companies) and national commercial policy (e.g. nationalized financial sector) with huge component of state ownership of properties of heavy industry (e.g. steel mills, power generation, defense contracting, etc.) within the confines of national borders. It carried the additional twist of ethnic, racial, or religious scapegoat-ism, presumably not as an absolutely necessary component, but as a catalyst to achieve the rest.
Both Marxism and Fascism share a lack of respect for international borders and follow expansionist foreign policy as the extension of their ideology. What drives their missionary zeal is a mystery, but no deeper than the mystery embedded in every empire. It is driven by hubris.
The vision of governance embraced by the last Bush might be classified as near fascist. He introduced in a major way changes which would ultimately lead to a national commercial and national industrial policy. His successor has carried on with these policies, expanded them, and brought further forward the already incipient component of ethnic, racial, or religious scapegoat-ism. This kind of bigotry has now become popular around the world. Recently the President of Brazil lamented that the world financial crisis of 2008-9 was caused by white people with blue eyes. For some time anti-religious sentiment has permeated the federal government.
The financial crisis of 2008-9 was caused by every member of Congress who took campaign cash and turned a blind eye to the abuses at Fannie and Freddie. The fact that this took place
as the culmination of forty years of unwarranted monetary and credit expansion is what led to the collapse. These were all adjunct policies to support a vision of globalism, which suggested that Americans could borrow and consume indefinitely while the rest of the world could manufacture, produce, and invest indefinitely.
It is this vision which suggested that the American consumer and taxpayer could bring prosperity and growth to everyone in the world who lived in a cave and wore a loincloth. The imposition of individual and corporate income taxes contributed mightily to this vision as the net effect of such taxes is the exportation of a nations entire productive base. As American disposable income came under increasing pressure this model of globalism failed, because there were not enough customers with enough money in their pockets to support the productive capacity of the world. All of the failure associated with collateralized debt obligations, credit default swaps and so forth came about as the result of trying to keep the cheap or free credit flowing, by whatever mechanism could be invented.
The framers constructed a representative republic which bears almost no resemblance to what we now suffer. The state which they constructed began with a fundamental epistemological assumption: the existence of Natural Law emanating from Nature’s God. From this assumption they drew what they believed to be the knowledge of good and evil. Some things were good and others were evil. They made the claim of self-evident truth. It is a religious claim, a statement of faith. They believed that the universe, its laws, and its God were knowable.
They believed in a concept of original sin. They saw the universe as broken and flawed, and man in a state of imperfect stewardship and capable of great evil. This religious understanding was the foundational thought of the framers of the Constitution. Without a concept of Natural Law there can be no universal human rights. Without the radical evil of original sin man is perfectible and there is no need for a separation of powers.
In modern times few want to consider the idea of original sin, because it suggests a transcendental moral law to which they do not measure up. Nevertheless, it is the idea of original sin which made the framers anti-utopian. The modern atheist or agnostic may suffer some discomfort at this point, but may overcome it by thinking of the demonstrable propensity of mankind to choose submission and servitude rather than independence and liberty. It is this propensity which the religious attribute to original sin.
The framers had no illusions about creating the perfect state. They did not envision the establishment of a realized eschatology. For them, the world and man was broken and the task was to choose as best one could between manifest evils in an imperfect universe . The task was to protect the inalienable rights of man from the predations of others, whether individuals or government. Evil was that which violated the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God. The affirmation of slavery in the Constitution for some must have been a bitter pill indeed. Their error was trading away the rights of man in slavery to achieve a less noble end: unity.
The passage of two centuries have brought many changes, and we no longer have a representative republic. We no longer have even a democratic representative republic. We have
something entirely different. Alexis De Tocqueville attempted at the end of his work Democracy in America to envision what sort of despotism democratic nations have to fear. He struggled with this question:
"I think, then, that the species of oppression by which democratic nations are menaced is unlike anything that ever before existed in the world; our contemporaries will find no prototype of it in their memories. I seek in vain for an expression that will accurately convey the whole of the idea I have formed of it; the old words despotism and tyranny are inappropriate: the thing itself is new, and since I cannot name, I must attempt to define it."
The term suggested by the economist Robert Higgs is ‘participatory fascism.’ It is a good term. It is descriptive of some aspects of what America faces in the twenty first century. However, the term has a serious deficiency. ‘Participation’ is appropriate only in the sense that the ubiquitous Federal Government recruits millions of the common man as accessories to its crimes. For the vast numbers of victims it is not participatory. It places them in a state of suffocating vassalage.
The student of these matters is drawn to De Tocqueville and his near prophetic vision of modern man in his isolation and self absorption:
"I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men, all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest, his children and private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind. As for the rest of his fellow citizens, he is close to them, but he does not see them; he touches them, but he does not feel them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country."
The totally self absorbed condition of man is necessary to this new kind of despotism to exist. It is a widespread intellectual, spiritual, and social lethargy. It may be said to have reached a zenith in the United States during the decade of the 1960s, except that it has never retreated from its zenith. Indeed it seems as though the popular desire for the empty and the vacuous grows with each passing decade, and into this vacuum steps government.
"Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood; it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided that they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?....Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."
De Tocqueville takes the view that those who over such a lengthy period of time have become dependent on the supervision of the central power gradually lose the ability to think, feel, and act for themselves, and finally fall below the level of humanity. The end of such a state is that:
"The vices of the rulers and the ineptitude of the people would speedily bring about its ruin; and the nation, weary of its representatives and of itself, would create freer institutions or soon return to stretch itself at the feet of a single master."
It is certainly true that America of the early twenty first century is burdened by the vices of rulers and the ineptitude of its people. The financial situation of this period certainly looks like the beginning of ruin. But could America create freer institutions?
The modern model of American government is not a democratic representative republic.
It has morphed into a vassalage of tutelary fascism. Clearly, it is more vassalage than it is participatory. It is democratic only in the sense that the people, or a percentage of the people, periodically arise from their stupor to vote, and then only to assure their role as accessories to the crimes of the government. This vassalage has been created by the willing subservience of the people to what is presented and envisioned as an utopia. A concept of an utopia is only possible in the absence of an understanding of original sin or of the propensity of mankind to choose submission and servitude rather than independence and liberty. The moral laws of Nature and Nature’s God and the idea of original sin made possible the American nation at its outset. The recovery of those ideas which are anti-utopian is essential or its people will stretch themselves at the feet of a single master.
Why the Statist Fears the Cross
The statist has seldom been favorably disposed toward Christians. From the days of Nero, tyrants have seen the religious beliefs of Christians as a threat to their sovereignty and prerogatives of power. The Nazis, the Soviets, and Chinese communists have all believed that their power and authority was undermined by what they regarded as the despicable faith of Christians. They have feared the Cross as a symbol of the Christian faith. There is a reason why this is so.
For the Christian, the cross is a symbol of God reconciling Himself to man, a symbol sacrifice and restored relationship. It is mostly a symbol of God in a tangible way reaching out in search of man, offering grace and forgiveness.
For the statist, the Cross holds an entirely different meaning. For them, the Cross is a symbol to Christians of the power of the state capriciously employed to punish, torture, and kill the innocent. The Christian is well aware of his own failings. He knows that the justice of God requires sacrifice and that there is no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood. The sensitivity which Christians have developed in coming to knowledge of their own faults, enables them to easily recognize wickedness in government. This is dangerous knowledge, and is subversive of the schemes of arbitrary power. The power of the symbol of the Cross is greater than the symbolism of the Hebrew prophets, Socrates, Spartacus, Boudicca, and so forth. It stands at once as the sign of God’s mercy and the sign of man’s shame.
The one thing that a statist will not tolerate is a public whose thoughts of their government are overwhelmed with a sense of shame. The statist believes that his motives are pure and he only wants to help the poor ignorant citizen, who must be led, fed, and most of all punished. The Christian has been liberated and cannot be compelled to renounce his faith, and will never confuse his God and his State. He will embrace the One, and at best only tolerate the other.
The founders understood the general disposition of man and stated it frankly in the Declaration, "Mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
The statist must forever be measuring the extent of the Christian’s forbearance. He must be wary of the power of the Cross, because it stands as a symbol of the liberation of man.
Is liberty morally superior to servitude, and how do we know? This is a deeply profound question which admits of a limited number of potential answers.
1. Yes, liberty is morally superior to servitude.
2. No, servitude is morally superior to liberty.
3. Liberty and servitude are both without moral content, and of indifferent value.
Western civilization as expressed imperfectly in the documents, history, and institutions of the United State has answered this question with an appeal to principles of natural revelation and natural law. The Declaration of Independence cites the "Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God." The signers of the Declaration believed in a causal universe.
There are only two possible epistemological world views: the view of a causal universe, and the view of an accidental universe. Modern physics has eliminated the possibility of an eternal universe. It is in the accidental universe that liberty and servitude are without moral content and of indifferent value. This is a fatalistic view, a sort of accidental determinism. The fate of the slave is to accept the blows of the master without protestation. The fate of the master is to deliver punishments without reason. They live in an universe not merely without causation, but also without purpose.
Aristotle believed in a causal universe. From his viewpoint every effect had a cause, and every cause was the effect of some prior cause. One could therefore, reason back to a First Cause which is the Cause of all things. This First Cause is what mankind call God. Aristotle’s God was the Unmoved Mover, the First Cause. He was impersonal and pure intelligence. He was Nature’s God.
The Jew and the Christian also embrace a causal universe. They believe in naturally revealed truth as expressed in the soaring poetry of the Psalmist:
"The heavens declare the glory of God;
The skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech,
Night after night they display knowledge.
There is no speech or language
Where their voice is not heard.
Their voice goes out into all the earth;
Their word to the end of the world..."Psalm 19:1-4
This is what theologians call natural revelation. It is the belief that mankind can know, and do know the difference between right and wrong, between good and evil. Moreover, in this view the natural world is accessible to all who will allow the powers of observation to trump the powers of authority. In this manner, truth is discovered not postulated.
The modern atheist may accept natural revelation, not from a source of a transcendent God, but from other principles such as humanism or empiricism. It is natural law which prevents the scientist from bending over the lav sample of a failed experiment and shouting, "What, do you know who I am?" There are laws in the universe: laws of gravity, force, energy, light, etc. Mankind may ignore these laws at some peril or seek them out to learn and to advance his condition. Nature reveals itself. All that mankind need do is construct the right experiment, ask the right questions, and truth will emerge.
Which is superior, liberty or servitude? We are not the first to ask this question. The founding fathers asserted a number of self evident truths:
"that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
Created equality and liberty are inseparable. Any measure of servitude introduces duality or inequality in man. It is only with liberty that there can be any sense at all of universal human rights.
What is moral if not that which is truth? The truths of the founding fathers were self evident. They were known from the observable universe. Liberty was morally superior to servitude because it reflected the character of Nature’s God. It was not a matter of moral indifference of an accidental universe. It was an observable outcome of a causal universe.
These ideas are compatible with Christian theology which unites epistemology, ontology, and natural law. It was Jesus of Nazareth who made perhaps the most profound philosophical statement which has ever been made:
"και γνωσεσθε την αληθειαν, και η αληθεια ελεθερωσει υμαs." ("You shall both know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.")
For all of the arguments about whether or not the United States is a Christian nation, the fact is that the founding fathers embraced a Biblical epistemology. That epistemology was empiricist with the due consideration of experiential accounts of others.
At some future time libertarian thought may prevail, not through the abuse of power or the machinations of politics, but because truth prevails. It has the inexorable quality associated with every natural law. Natural laws may be ignored, denied, or ridiculed. Natural laws and their truths are never overturned. Merely knowing these truths will set the individual free.
A practical application of these ideas should be carefully considered. All recent efforts to revive the interventionism of Woodrow Wilson and march forth to "make the world safe for democracy" in the Islamic world must fail. Misadventures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Iran
will sooner or later all meet with failure. The reasons for this are epistemological. Islam has a
truncated view of natural revelation which suggest that the observable universe is only a sign of the power of God in the act of creation. Islam’s anti-intellectual weltenschauung rejects entirely any concept of natural law. There are only four sources of law in Islam: the Koran, tradition, the consensus of the community, and individual thought. Without an idea of natural law, there is no basis in Islam for universal human rights, and no basis for liberty.
For these reasons, it is impossible for any Muslim society to produce what the west considers ‘civil society.’ For its stated purpose, the interventionism practiced by both political parties is a fool’s errand. Relations with such societies should be at arms length and cautious. Muslims should not be allowed to become US citizens. While this may seem bigoted, the reality is that no true Muslim may truthfully swear allegiance to the Constitution. If a Muslim does so, it can only be because he does not understand his own religion or he is prevaricating. A standard already exists that makes ignorance or prevarication disqualifying of citizenship. Of course, some Americans may not object to neighbors whose deepest religious beliefs are that non-Muslims have no universal human right to life. This practical case is presented here to show that epistemology and natural law matters.
The Theology of Thomas Paine in Common Sense and Executive Power
The Common Sense of Thomas Paine includes biblical ideas and even theological doctrines. His view is of powerful and triumphant natural revelation, natural law, and original sin. His broadest purpose is to make the case for independence. Although he begins with biblical ideas his vision is universal and applies to all mankind. He acknowledges in his short introduction that his ideas may not be supported by custom or tradition, but accepts that the passage of time will make more converts than greater exertions of reason.
"The cause of America is, in a great measure, the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances have, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all lovers of mankind are affected, and in the event of which, their affections are interested. The laying of a country desolate with fire and sword, declaring war against the natural rights of all mankind, and extirpating the defenders thereof from the face of the earth, is the concern of every man to whom nature hath given power of feeling; of which class, regardless of party censure, is THE AUTHOR."
The vision begins with an understanding of a broken universe filled with blessing and curse, and forever impaired by the former sin of man in Paradise.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of Paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver, but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest...."
Thomas Paine sees all of man and his institutions tainted by the stain of original sin, an imperfect world in which mankind perpetually weighs the choices before him and is compelled to choose among evils. There is for Paine a sliding scale, a sort of grading by a curve in the assessment of government:
"I offer a few remarks on the so much boasted constitution of England. That it was noble for the dark and slavish times in which it was erected, is granted. When the world was overrun with tyranny, the least remove therefrom was a glorious rescue. But, that it is imperfect, subject to convulsions, and incapable of producing what it seems to promise, is easily demonstrated."
He launches into a critical review of monarchy as a common form of governance in his own time and develops his criticism around a discussion of the scriptural account of the people of Israel demanding of Samuel that he appoint a king to reign over them (I Sam 8). The point of the text of I Sam 8 is to oppose the idea of executive power and authority in human governance.
It just happens that this takes the form of monarchy at the time. Nevertheless, Paine takes the view that this passage is "anti-monarchical." He is very clear on this point and does not restrain his condemnation of the hubris of men:
"Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind, their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests and when they succeed to the government , are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominion."
Paine’s treatment of I Sam 8 as merely anti monarchical serves his purpose, but does not adequately treat the text itself. I Sam 8 is effectively an endorsement of the governance of the existing amphictyonic league which was governance largely devoid of executive authority. At the time, judges provided judicial authority and tribal leadership provided mostly legislative authority, and only the most minimal executive authority. Paine too narrowly interprets I Sam 8 by applying it only to the concept of monarchy. For instance:
"Near three thousand years passed away, from the Mosaic account of the creation, till the Jews, under a national delusion, requested a king. Till them, their form of government (except in extraordinary cases where the Almighty interposed) was a kind of republic, administered by a judge and the elders of the tribes. Kings they had none, and it was sinful to acknowledge any being under that title but the Lord of Hosts. And when a man seriously reflects on the idolatrous homage to the persons of kings, he need not wonder that the Almighty, ever jealous of his honor, should disapprove of a form of government which so impiously invades the prerogative of heaven."
A comparison of the account of the introduction of sin in Eden with the perspective of the writer of I Sam 8 suggests that original sin is pride as many would have it, manifested by executive power in human governance. The meaning of the text is that the driving desire for empowerment, to lord one’s authority over others, or at the same time to submit to one human being who will do so, is the original sin of man. This is so because it reflects both the desire and the act of displacing the executive power of God with the executive power of man. In this sense, executive power in human governance is the original sin of man. Paine understated the case he could have made from I Sam 8. Nevertheless, he was eager to replace a system wherein the King was Law with a system in which the Law was King.
The biblical view of government has a far more skeptical view of executive power in governance than mankind have commonly accepted. The founders in drafting the Constitution envisioned a limited role for all three branches and the executive branch was no exception. Of the three branches of government the one which poses the greatest threat to the liberty of man may be the executive branch.
It is now clear in the wake of the election of President Obama that the views of even those who cast votes for him are of no account once he assumed office. There are no early signs of any effort to curtail enhancements of executive power put in place under the last Bush. If anything they appear to be expanding.
America: A Vassalage of Tutelary Fascism
The shape of America in which we now find ourselves at last must be reviewed in the stark and uncomfortable light of the facts as they are. One might attempt to enumerate and consider the wide variety of interferences and regulations which have been heaped upon our hapless and beleaguered citizens. The task is not simply daunting, but impossible. There is no corner of the universe of human action which has escaped their notice.
The federal government has already begun or will soon undertake all of the following:
They regulate wages, bonuses, voter registration rules, prices, air in tires, auto tail lights, air bags, truck safety, truck driver hours, water in toilets, toilet paper, gasoline mileage standards, cooking oils, appliance efficiency, tobacco, electrical standards, alcohol, air quality, non-prescription drugs, prescription drugs, illegal drugs, the levels at which thermostats are set, government schools, school curriculum, retirement plans, chemical plants, oil and gas exploration, coal mining, highway construction, water quality standards, transportation safety, air traffic control, railroads, customs, prisons, automobile colors, college and university grants and admissions, firearms and ammunition, farm production, ports, securities, insurance, mortgages, banks, security firms, power plants, nuclear plants, fissile material, carbon dioxide emissions, endangered species, forestry, racetracks, abortion on demand, euthanasia as required, eugenics for all, and rationed health care for the survivors.
Of course, this is not a complete list and can only barely be described as a representative list with a big stretch. In short, the government of the United States has either a fist or a boot in
just about everything. They have a plan to control, manage, supervise, and punish with impunity every aspect of the life of the common man. They have both figuratively and literally shot for the moon. Apologies are offered to those whose favorite source of irritation has inadvertently been omitted.
The perceptive observer will note that with so much activity they nevertheless seem unable to secure the borders, one the few responsibilities which the Federal government is assigned by the Constitution. Still, how may this form of governance be described? What words are adequate and accurate to convey the idea behind this governance?
Marxism was international socialism in an extreme form, an entire absence of private property universally imposed. It was a Kingdom of God without God. The state was God and required absolute obedience. The state owns everyone and everything which they do. In this sense there is no actual redistribution in Marxism. There is only distribution, from each according to his abilities and to each according to his need. All production is owned by the state which distributes the benefits equally. This is the vision of its realized eschatology which has never actually been achieved.
Socialism conveyed an idea not quite so extreme, and still the bulk of all means of production, or at least mass production was under state control. Socialism seems to focus more on the redistribution of benefits than on the actual state ownership of property as it is more willing to accept state control in lieu of state ownership. Socialism is about redistribution. Whatever remnants there remain of a free market are thought of as inequitably distributing benefits which the state must redistribute, because it is the ‘fair’ thing to do. Socialists eventually become dissatisfied with the uneven results of redistribution and become attracted to the simple distribution of Marxism.
Fascism was national socialism and it embraced national industrial policy (e.g. nationalized auto companies) and national commercial policy (e.g. nationalized financial sector) with huge component of state ownership of properties of heavy industry (e.g. steel mills, power generation, defense contracting, etc.) within the confines of national borders. It carried the additional twist of ethnic, racial, or religious scapegoat-ism, presumably not as an absolutely necessary component, but as a catalyst to achieve the rest.
Both Marxism and Fascism share a lack of respect for international borders and follow expansionist foreign policy as the extension of their ideology. What drives their missionary zeal is a mystery, but no deeper than the mystery embedded in every empire. It is driven by hubris.
The vision of governance embraced by the last Bush might be classified as near fascist. He introduced in a major way changes which would ultimately lead to a national commercial and national industrial policy. His successor has carried on with these policies, expanded them, and brought further forward the already incipient component of ethnic, racial, or religious scapegoat-ism. This kind of bigotry has now become popular around the world. Recently the President of Brazil lamented that the world financial crisis of 2008-9 was caused by white people with blue eyes. For some time anti-religious sentiment has permeated the federal government.
The financial crisis of 2008-9 was caused by every member of Congress who took campaign cash and turned a blind eye to the abuses at Fannie and Freddie. The fact that this took place
as the culmination of forty years of unwarranted monetary and credit expansion is what led to the collapse. These were all adjunct policies to support a vision of globalism, which suggested that Americans could borrow and consume indefinitely while the rest of the world could manufacture, produce, and invest indefinitely.
It is this vision which suggested that the American consumer and taxpayer could bring prosperity and growth to everyone in the world who lived in a cave and wore a loincloth. The imposition of individual and corporate income taxes contributed mightily to this vision as the net effect of such taxes is the exportation of a nations entire productive base. As American disposable income came under increasing pressure this model of globalism failed, because there were not enough customers with enough money in their pockets to support the productive capacity of the world. All of the failure associated with collateralized debt obligations, credit default swaps and so forth came about as the result of trying to keep the cheap or free credit flowing, by whatever mechanism could be invented.
The framers constructed a representative republic which bears almost no resemblance to what we now suffer. The state which they constructed began with a fundamental epistemological assumption: the existence of Natural Law emanating from Nature’s God. From this assumption they drew what they believed to be the knowledge of good and evil. Some things were good and others were evil. They made the claim of self-evident truth. It is a religious claim, a statement of faith. They believed that the universe, its laws, and its God were knowable.
They believed in a concept of original sin. They saw the universe as broken and flawed, and man in a state of imperfect stewardship and capable of great evil. This religious understanding was the foundational thought of the framers of the Constitution. Without a concept of Natural Law there can be no universal human rights. Without the radical evil of original sin man is perfectible and there is no need for a separation of powers.
In modern times few want to consider the idea of original sin, because it suggests a transcendental moral law to which they do not measure up. Nevertheless, it is the idea of original sin which made the framers anti-utopian. The modern atheist or agnostic may suffer some discomfort at this point, but may overcome it by thinking of the demonstrable propensity of mankind to choose submission and servitude rather than independence and liberty. It is this propensity which the religious attribute to original sin.
The framers had no illusions about creating the perfect state. They did not envision the establishment of a realized eschatology. For them, the world and man was broken and the task was to choose as best one could between manifest evils in an imperfect universe . The task was to protect the inalienable rights of man from the predations of others, whether individuals or government. Evil was that which violated the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God. The affirmation of slavery in the Constitution for some must have been a bitter pill indeed. Their error was trading away the rights of man in slavery to achieve a less noble end: unity.
The passage of two centuries have brought many changes, and we no longer have a representative republic. We no longer have even a democratic representative republic. We have
something entirely different. Alexis De Tocqueville attempted at the end of his work Democracy in America to envision what sort of despotism democratic nations have to fear. He struggled with this question:
"I think, then, that the species of oppression by which democratic nations are menaced is unlike anything that ever before existed in the world; our contemporaries will find no prototype of it in their memories. I seek in vain for an expression that will accurately convey the whole of the idea I have formed of it; the old words despotism and tyranny are inappropriate: the thing itself is new, and since I cannot name, I must attempt to define it."
The term suggested by the economist Robert Higgs is ‘participatory fascism.’ It is a good term. It is descriptive of some aspects of what America faces in the twenty first century. However, the term has a serious deficiency. ‘Participation’ is appropriate only in the sense that the ubiquitous Federal Government recruits millions of the common man as accessories to its crimes. For the vast numbers of victims it is not participatory. It places them in a state of suffocating vassalage.
The student of these matters is drawn to De Tocqueville and his near prophetic vision of modern man in his isolation and self absorption:
"I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men, all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest, his children and private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind. As for the rest of his fellow citizens, he is close to them, but he does not see them; he touches them, but he does not feel them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country."
The totally self absorbed condition of man is necessary to this new kind of despotism to exist. It is a widespread intellectual, spiritual, and social lethargy. It may be said to have reached a zenith in the United States during the decade of the 1960s, except that it has never retreated from its zenith. Indeed it seems as though the popular desire for the empty and the vacuous grows with each passing decade, and into this vacuum steps government.
"Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood; it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided that they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?....Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."
De Tocqueville takes the view that those who over such a lengthy period of time have become dependent on the supervision of the central power gradually lose the ability to think, feel, and act for themselves, and finally fall below the level of humanity. The end of such a state is that:
"The vices of the rulers and the ineptitude of the people would speedily bring about its ruin; and the nation, weary of its representatives and of itself, would create freer institutions or soon return to stretch itself at the feet of a single master."
It is certainly true that America of the early twenty first century is burdened by the vices of rulers and the ineptitude of its people. The financial situation of this period certainly looks like the beginning of ruin. But could America create freer institutions?
The modern model of American government is not a democratic representative republic.
It has morphed into a vassalage of tutelary fascism. Clearly, it is more vassalage than it is participatory. It is democratic only in the sense that the people, or a percentage of the people, periodically arise from their stupor to vote, and then only to assure their role as accessories to the crimes of the government. This vassalage has been created by the willing subservience of the people to what is presented and envisioned as an utopia. A concept of an utopia is only possible in the absence of an understanding of original sin or of the propensity of mankind to choose submission and servitude rather than independence and liberty. The moral laws of Nature and Nature’s God and the idea of original sin made possible the American nation at its outset. The recovery of those ideas which are anti-utopian is essential or its people will stretch themselves at the feet of a single master.
Why the Statist Fears the Cross
The statist has seldom been favorably disposed toward Christians. From the days of Nero, tyrants have seen the religious beliefs of Christians as a threat to their sovereignty and prerogatives of power. The Nazis, the Soviets, and Chinese communists have all believed that their power and authority was undermined by what they regarded as the despicable faith of Christians. They have feared the Cross as a symbol of the Christian faith. There is a reason why this is so.
For the Christian, the cross is a symbol of God reconciling Himself to man, a symbol sacrifice and restored relationship. It is mostly a symbol of God in a tangible way reaching out in search of man, offering grace and forgiveness.
For the statist, the Cross holds an entirely different meaning. For them, the Cross is a symbol to Christians of the power of the state capriciously employed to punish, torture, and kill the innocent. The Christian is well aware of his own failings. He knows that the justice of God requires sacrifice and that there is no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood. The sensitivity which Christians have developed in coming to knowledge of their own faults, enables them to easily recognize wickedness in government. This is dangerous knowledge, and is subversive of the schemes of arbitrary power. The power of the symbol of the Cross is greater than the symbolism of the Hebrew prophets, Socrates, Spartacus, Boudicca, and so forth. It stands at once as the sign of God’s mercy and the sign of man’s shame.
The one thing that a statist will not tolerate is a public whose thoughts of their government are overwhelmed with a sense of shame. The statist believes that his motives are pure and he only wants to help the poor ignorant citizen, who must be led, fed, and most of all punished. The Christian has been liberated and cannot be compelled to renounce his faith, and will never confuse his God and his State. He will embrace the One, and at best only tolerate the other.
The founders understood the general disposition of man and stated it frankly in the Declaration, "Mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
The statist must forever be measuring the extent of the Christian’s forbearance. He must be wary of the power of the Cross, because it stands as a symbol of the liberation of man.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
