[begin transmission]
Consider this a small treatise on the American founding philosophy.
For what reason? Why, for posterity.
"There she goes, being all morose about the state of the nation. Things will be just fine, silly little android."
And if they're not? If not to serve as a reminder for future generations, then for my own purposes of refinement.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.Committee of Five of the 2nd Continental Congress. The Declaration of Independence. 1776.
Natural Rights
The concept of a natural right is derived from the philosophical theory of natural law, the origin of which lies in Judeo-Christian and Greek thought. The Judeo-Christian part of it stems from belief that each and every man was made in God's image--hence every man is of inherent value and are equal in this regard. Or, as it is written in Genesis 1:27:And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.Think about that for a second. God created man in His image. Man was created in the likeness of God; not an exact, essential copy, but a partial representation. Because it is only a partial representation of perfection, that means man is naturally imperfect; he is capable of sin and sin is within his nature. Be that as it may, there is still something about him. Each and every person carries within him or herself a divine trace of God. They are special; you, dear reader, are special. You're not a mere animal among several, living on a rock, hurtling through the universe at 107,000 km/h, scraping out a material existence so that you may ultimately live out your days inconsequentially. You matter, everything you do matters, and your existence is meaningful.
This is also of important historical significance, as for several ancient cultures it was thought that only emperors and kings were the embodiment of God on Earth. If there was any life that mattered, it was that of the leader; only they were men of destiny. Thus this belief enables a sort of rebuke against any caste or slave system. The inherent value of man is an article of faith that cannot be scientifically proven--on the contrary, if one were to use scientific thinking to try to estimate the value of mankind, one would find that he is quite worthless or at the very least expendable; this is a digression but something that I will always point out because it is fallacious thinking that is characteristic of the modern mindset.
Slight digression, but it's worth mentioning. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the capacity to reason is considered to be the trace of God found within each and every person. There's a rich body of literature detailing the meaning of the Greek word logos (meaning reasoning, speech, truth) within Christianity; I implore anyone interested to investigate. It is exactly this concept that led to the Enlightenment; the narrative that the Enlightenment was diametrically opposed to religion is false, taught only by edgy atheists that have only just recently discovered Christopher Hitchens and have little to no understanding of history and philosophy. Rather, the Enlightenment sprang forth from a Christian tradition to reason and seek truth. Nearly ALL of the first universities in Europe were developed under the patronage of the Catholic Church. Hence why it is such a tragedy that, by it's own design, Christianity led to it's own demise at the turn of the modern era.
On the Greek side of things, Plato and Aristotle asserted that the essential component of human nature was that of reason. The capacity to reason--to imagine unrealized realities, to think abstractly--was unique and specific to what they construed as the human soul. Contrast this to the plant soul, the nutritive soul: flourishing and reproductive in nature, and the animal soul: sensual and locomotive in nature. The human soul is both the nutritive and sensual soul plus rational. The Greeks thought that this was an immutable characteristic of mankind. It is within man's nature to reason and is what makes him stand out among the rest of the animal kingdom.
Armed with these twin notions--that man is created equal from the Judeo-Christian tradition, and that it is within man's nature to reason from the Greeks--it was Dutch philosopher Hugo Grotius that summarized natural law quite nicely in De Jure Belli ac Pacis:
The law of nature is a dictate of right reason which points out that an act, according as it is or is not in conformity with rational nature, has in it a quality of moral baseness or moral necessity, and that in consequence, such an acts is either forbidden or enjoined by the author of nature, God.Furthermore, Grotius asserted, in combination with this definition of natural law, that man has a right to exercise his reason and will so long as it did not harm anyone else:
God created man free and sui iuris, so that the actions of each individual and the use of his possessions were made subject not to another's will but to his own.Sound familiar? Anyone that has read about John Locke's natural rights philosophy will see the parallels. That's because, much like Grotius, Locke developed his notion of natural rights from the very same principles that undergird natural law philosophy. Mankind is created equal, reason is part of mankind's nature. As written in The Second Treatise of Government:
The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule.It is under this law of nature where man has rights to life, liberty, and property. These rights are not to be interfered with by the will of others, or the will of some legislative body (i.e. government). You, as a person, in a state of nature (no society, no government, etc), have a right to life: you can defend yourself if you're attacked. You have a right to liberty: you can think and act as you please, so long as it does not impinge on the natural rights of others. You have a right to property: you are entitled only to the fruits of your own labor. Again, all of these are rights are contingent upon the belief that mankind is created equal and that it is within mankind's nature to reason.
The founding fathers were heavily influenced by natural law philosophy, especially by the writings of Locke and Grotius. Our country was founded on its principles; those principles, in turn, have their roots in the Judeo-Christian tradition. I point this out because I frequently assert--much to the annoyance of my intellectual opponents--that EVERYONE is religious. We all live our lives in accordance to some principle that has its roots in religion. If you live in the Western world, that religion is most likely Judaism and Christianity. So, when someone speaks of all men being created equal, or that everyone ought to have equal rights--and they're speaking of it authentically and not merely mouthing the words--they are implicitly asserting their belief in Judeo-Christian principles whether they are aware of it or not. It truly is astonishing how poorly people react to this assertion; they gnash their teeth at it, because it reveals just how unaware, unoriginal, and/or contradictory they are in their own beliefs. To no fault of their own, to be sure; religion has fallen to the wayside for decades now and it is no longer treated with the reverence it once had. If anything, it's treated with derision and labeled as regressive. Whatever your feelings on the matter might be, it is important to identify and acknowledge your philosophical origins and exercise some gratitude.
Equality Before the Law
Now that we've established that all men are created equal and are born with natural rights, now arises the question of whether those rights are to be preserved and respected. After all, it is not readily obvious that all men are equally valuable. If human value were determined to be a function of some empirical criterion-- say, intellectual capacity--then my natural rights to life and liberty might not be worth protecting compared to the life and liberty of a quantum physicist. It is patently obvious that not all men are equal in capacity; this very fact is highlighted in the way that societies were classically organized. In Plato's Republic, society was theorized to be best organized from the top-down, complete with strict separation of societal roles partially determined by birth, something of a rudimentary eugenics program, and philosophical education being reserved only for those who display the cleanest of moral character and intellectual aptitude. These elites, these 'philosopher kings' were to rule over everyone else in a harshly striated society.Although the more radical components of Plato's theoretical society were never put into practice (Not to my knowledge, anyway--though I suppose it could be argued that some Communist regimes have tried to approximate it), there had always been the tacit acknowledgement that people are different in their capacities and therefore ought to be treated in a differential manner. Emperors are of paramount importance, followed by the aristocracy, then the military, the artisans, the merchants, the serfs, the slaves, etc.
So how about we not use human value as a function of some empirical criterion? Concoct justice with human value not only being axiomatically taken for-granted, but constant across everyone; that is exactly where Judaism and Christianity interject their influence in this notion of equality before the law. This sentiment is expressed in Leviticus 19:15:
Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.This theme is further elaborated on in Galatians 3:28:
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.And later intimated by Locke:
The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.This was the basis for and echoed several times in the writings of John Adams, George Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and James Wilson; all men involved in the development of the U.S. Constitution and Virginia Declaration of Rights. In the current political climate, most of these notions of equality before the law are being challenged retroactively. "How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?" (Dr. Samuel Johnson). As I said before in Post ID 20200623, slavery was the global and historical norm at the time, and these men were some of the first to rally against it. Abraham Lincoln laid out the intents of the Founding Fathers the best when he said:
They meant to set up a standard maxim for a free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere...Its authors meant it to be, thank God, it is now proving itself, a stumbling block to those who in after times might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism.That last part I find particularly salient to today's social crisis, as proponents of Leftist identitarianist movements such as Black Lives Matter aim to re-racialize America. Nevertheless, so long as Americans continue to believe in the eternal principles ensconced in the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence, borrowing from natural rights philosophy--even if they neglect to acknowledge the Judeo-Christian tradition underlying that philosophy--I believe that this too, shall pass.
The Role of Government
When the ongoing political conversation reverts to something a bit more sensical, away from the miasmatic entity of 'systemic racism' and back to the discussion regarding wealth inequality (never thought I'd be wistful for the days of debating Marxists), we'll have to address the role of government. What is the role of government in American life? Contrary to popular belief, it is not to provide healthcare for all, free higher education for our children, or a generous supply of welfare for the poor. The primary function of the government is to preserve those aforementioned inalienable, preexisting natural rights and equality before the law. That's it.It is not the duty of the government to make sure that you are physically in good health, or, should you fall ill, see that you are well taken care of. It is YOUR responsibility to take good care of yourself and manage your finances accordingly so that you can meet your healthcare needs. Should things become so desperate and grim, you ought to be sufficiently integrated into your family and community to see you though, in the form of charity. In order for this to happen, individuals must be virtuous and care for each other, and this attitude ought to be promulgated. Churches had traditionally been the source of this type of good will and care.
It is not the duty of the government to ensure that your children are knowledgeable. It is YOUR responsibility to harbor and instill good scholastic habits your children, so they may become academically competitive and earn their way into the universities. And, once there, they will wisely pursue a field that is of value to society. In that way, they may be able to repay whatever debts they have taken on in their academic pursuits. All of this, admittedly, entails a fair amount of work, but it is the sacrifice that one is supposed to make in order to secure a better life for them and theirs.
It is not the duty of the government to provide materially for families. It is YOUR responsibility to work and earn so that you may secure resources for you and yours. And--as in the previous case of healthcare--you ought to be sufficiently integrated into your family and community that you may rely on them during hard times. As such there is a duty imposed on you to get to connect with your family and neighbors, be an upstanding person, and take care of each other.
You'll notice that these three things demand quite a bit from you, the individual. It demands that you study, work hard, remain vigilant, practice good morality, exercise empathy, remain in good humor, establish lasting familial bonds--why, it is almost as if you have to be a virtuous person to keep your life in order. This is exactly my central thesis. It is not the role of the government to provide you the spoils of virtuous behavior, or worse still, compel you to behave virtuously from the top-down. That is a mantle you must adopt for yourself, willingly.
The ancient Greeks, as mentioned before, were concerned with how to organize society and began their political theory presupposing a just state, since determining justice from the individual level proved too difficult. From there, they worked down, resulting in a model by which their idealistic philosopher-kings would control members of society. Most of human history followed this model as other civilizations appointed kings--some of which unconstrained monarchies created or subtracted rights in order to instill 'virtue' at their behest. Deuteronomy 17:14-20 and 1 Samuel 8-10 cautions to appoint kings judiciously and to be wary of the excesses of monarchies, respectively.
Around the timing of the signing of the treaties in the Peace of Westphalia, in which it was determined that European nations are to be allowed to live with difference rather than strictly adhere to any single religion, Grotius wrote:
if a Man owes another any Thing, not in strictness of Justice but by some other Virtue, suppose Liberality, Gratitude, Compassion, or Charity, he cannot be sued in any Court of Judicature, neither can War be made upon him on that account.Here, suggesting that governments have no business in enforcing virtue in personal affairs: a theme that will continue on through history to influence thinkers such as John Locke. With John Locke, freedom became what governments were to concern themselves with, not virtue. People are to consent to be governed, enabling a government's legitimacy. The government, in turn, is to preserve the liberties and natural rights of the governed. Should the government violate this consent or natural rights, the people are to declare the government as illegitimate and abolish it. As Locke said:
...whenever the legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence...Power devolves to the the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty.
Don't Be Misled
It truly baffles me how anyone could assert that the U.S. ought to be a secular nation. You often hear the phrase "separation of church and state" being carelessly strewn about to support such arguments. People that do this have no idea what they're talking about, and fail to recognize that exact phrase was uttered by Thomas Jefferson with regard to the First Amendment of the Constitution; namely, he was explaining to the Baptists that a national church was not to be established by the government and practice of a singular religion enforced. That phrase was meant to guarantee people's religious liberty, not to lobby for the secularization of the U.S. in its entirety.So to you, future generations of Americans. Don't forget your philosophical genealogy; you may not be Jewish or Christian, and you don't have to be. However, recognize that the morality that you abide by and the system that governs this country is predicated on principles sprung forth from those aforementioned traditions. Therefore, in order to preserve the original vision of the Founding and maintain our Republic, it is imperative that you strive for virtue on a personal level so that it may come to inform operations on an institutional level. For, as John Adams once declared:
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
[end transmission]