Common Sense (January 10, 1776) (Redux)

Belongs here.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Declaration Of The Second Continental Congress (July 6, 1775)

John Hancock.  In the beginning, our ancestors moved to America seeking to establish a new life for themselves, securing in the most radical way possible their own liberty.  The system worked for a long, long time, to the enormous benefit of those on both sides of the ocean.  And the benefit was never more obvious than during the recent French and Indian War, when the contributions of the colonists won the day for the Empire.  But since that moment, and the transfer of power to the new regime, we have struggled beneath a more and more oppressive yoke.

Long list of grievances:

• Monetary manipulation
• Foreign courts and deprivation of trial by jury
• Suspending local governments
• Restrictive trade rules
• Encouraging an enemy state in Canada [heh]
• Worst of all, for passing a a statue giving parliament the right to "make laws to bind us in all cases whatsoever," an unlimited assertion of power that cannot stand.

Our petitions have gone unheeded byt he Crown.  When we resisted, the Empire responded with military coercion and force.  The aggression has come to a head at the recent battles at Lexington and Concord, where the British soldiers were ultimately "compelled to retreat by the country people suddenly assembled to repel this cruel aggression." [Hells yeah]

Confiscation of arms and the establishment of martial law in Boston hasn't helped matters.

Our choice is stark: slavery, or resistance by force.

Our cause is just.  Our union is perfect.  Our internal resources are great, and, if necessary, foreign assistance is undoubtably attainable.  We gratefully acknowledge, as signal instances of the Divine favour towards us, that his Providence would not permit us to be called into this severe controversy, until we were grown up to our present streangth, had been previously exercised in warlike operation, and possessed of the means of defending ourselves.  With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverence, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves.

Note: we still pledge our allegiance to the Crown, if the current difficulty can be overcome.  We only fight for our rights as free men.

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death (March 23, 1775)

Patrick Henry.  Basically a response to the members of the Virginia Convention who urged restraint, patience, and prudence in dealing with the English.  Henry claimed that the English continually offered platitudes of concession while strenghening their grip on the colonies more and more.  Worse, this pattern had continued for ten years now, with no end in sight.  Worse yet, it was now obvious that the English were preparing militarily to put a stop to any colonial uprising once and for all.  With any delay, English subjugation of the colonies would be permanent.

Essentially, Patrick Henry is the hawk to end all hawks, and he's had it with the doves.

Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace.  The war is actually begun!  The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms!  Our brethren are already in the field!  Why stand we here idle?  What is it that gentlemen wish?  What would they have?  Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?  Forbid it, Almighty God!  I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

 Of course, he had practiced that line before.

Speech On The Stamp Act (January 14, 1766)

A rebuttal against the imposition of the Stamp Act on the American colonies, by member of Parliament William Pitt.  I'm reading it out of order with the others because this jerk from Georgia Tech told me it happened in 1775.

Standard boilerplate arguments at this point, focusing on the injustice of imposing taxes on colonial subjects without representation, and on the economic benefits of the trade relationship on its own.

I'd skip over it completely, except this passage is amazing:

I maintain, that the parliament has a right to bind, to restrain America.  Our legislative power over the colonies is sovereign and supreme.  when it ceases to be sovereign and supreme, I would advise every gentleman to seel his lands, if he can, and embark for that country.  When two countries are connected together, like England and her colonies, without being incorporated, the one must necessarily govern; the greater must rule the less; but so rule it, as not to contradict the fundamental principles that are common to both.  If the gentleman does not understand the difference between external and internal taxes, I cannot help it; but there is a plain distinction between taxes levied for the purpose of raising a revenue, and duties imposed for the regulation of trade, for the accomodation of the subject; although, in the consequences, some revenue might incidentally arise from the latter.

It's confusing because his audience already knows what he's talking about, and I can't tell the difference between the internal and external taxes, and the difference between the revenue tax and the regulation tax, and which one he's supporting.  But he seems to be saying that Parliament's power to regulate commerce in the colonies is unlimited, while its power to tax is restricted by constitutional restraints.  And he's encouraging Parliament, if they must get there hands dirty in the affairs of the Americans, to do it through the legitimate regulation channels instead of the illegitimate taxation channels.

My mind is reeling.

The takeaway is that power will find whatever justification is at hand for the aggrandizement of that power.  And those of us who think there are rules by which we can trust to avoid imposed mandates from our political representatives are mistaken.  The game is rigged.  There's always room for more.

Declaration Of The First Continental Congress (October 1774)

This is a legal document, which makes it a pain in the ass to read.  Essentially a listing of grievances and violations of rights, with a promise to return to peaceful and happy relations if the situation is rectified.  Perhaps most important, it reiterates the need for all Legislative power within the colonies to reside within the colonies-- as once again, true represenation in Parliament is currently lacking and impossible anyway.  The Crown would have the authority to dictate some international economic agreements, but that's it.  Independence is on its way.

Many of the complaints worked their way into the Bill of Rights-- specifically, the quartering of soldiers, the right to a fair and local trial by jury, and the right to peaceably assemble and petition for the redress of grievances.  Most complaints are referred to specific Acts of Parliament that must be redressed.

There were three acts specifically levied against the "province of Massachusetts-bay".  No wonder they moved the whole thing to Philadelphia.

And again, one of the complaints was the establishment of the "Roman Catholic Religion in the province of Quebec, abolishing the equitable system of English laws, and erecting a tyranny there, to the great danger, from so great a dissimilarity of Religion, law, and government, of the neighboring British colonies by the assistance of whose blood and treasure the said country was conquered from France."  Did we give Quebec back to France after the war as a consolation prize?  And c'mon, guys, we mean you no harm.  Simmer down.

The Rights Of The Colonists (November 20, 1772)

Ben Franklin, summarizing the current state of the colonies, as an introduction to the resolution for the English public at large:

The colonists have grown accustomed to being left alone, and so appreciated the flexible arrangement with the English Crown that they had adopted many English customs and adapted to many English requests.  The Stamp Act, however, ruined the comity, and the colonists responded with a general boycott.  The repeal of the Stamp Act, save for the tax on tea, was met with the end of the boycott, save on tea-- and even that was expected to be resolved soon.

The imposition of the English bureaucracy in establishing this one rule, however, grew so intrusive that more forceful responses were required.  An enormous black market developed whereby French and Dutch tea is drunk nearly exclusively in the colonies.  The loss of benefits to the Crown are enormous-- and for what?  Simply selling English tea to the colonists ought to be beneficial enough, and yet they are put upon to the breaking point.

This nation, and the other nations of Europe, may thereby learn, with more certainty, the grounds of a dissension that possibly may, sooner or later, have consequences interesting to them all.

Sam Adams:

The rights of the colonists begin with the natural rights of all men, as expressed (nearly word for word-- including the phrase "life, liberty, and property") by John Locke.  Civil society is a ceding of some of these natural rights-- with the consent of the governed-- to a civil authority.  And as long as men aren't complled to remain in the society against their will, this is all fine.

One of the most important natural rights that must in all cases be protected by civil society is the right to freely worship as one sees fit.  (Except in the case of the Papists, of course.  The problem there, apparently, is that when the religious authority excommunicated a political leader from the Church, it also forced his removal from civil office.  This cannot stand.  [I agree.])

The civil leaders work for the people.  They are very much like employees.  So the greatest injustice is done when one of these leaders aggrandizes himself financially or by usurping additional power, and thereby establishes tyranny.  He would do this thinking is has some special ability to exert civil authority that the entire remainder of the public lacks.  He is mistaken-- many, many others could do the job well.  There is no shortage of decent representatives.

This grand agreement has been codified in the Magna Charta for centuries.

In the case of the American colonies, they of course possess all the natural rights of man.  And this includes the right to establish for their own society a Legislative power-- including the restriction that the Legislature "has no right to absolute, arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people."

Given all this, the British House of Commons can have no legitimate authority over the colonists.  First, the colonists are not currently represented there.  And second, it is impossible that they could be properly represented there.  The population is too large for the tiny representation the House would be willing to allow.  Moreover, "[h]ad the Colonists a right to return members to the British Parliament, it would only be hurtful; as, from their local situation and circumstances, it is impossible they should ever be truly and properly represented there."  The situation, then, is ripe for abuse, and treachery.  "The Colonists have been branded with the odious names of traitors and rebels only for complaining of their grievances.  How long such treatement will or ought to be borne, is submitted."

-----------------------


The Revolution is already baked into the cake.  There is no getting around it.

The English bureaucracy charged with enforcing the Stamp Act/Tea Act are the SEC and EPA rolled into one.

It is still true that the Legislature "has no right to absolute, arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people."  But it apparently has the power to tax to its heart's content, so long as it remains representative.  Sigh.

The word Papists makes me giggle every time I see it.

Resolutions Of The Stamp Act Congress (October 19, 1765)

No taxation without representation!

-------------------------

The language is exceedingly polite, and the entire argument is delivered explicitly from their recognized status as subjects of the British Crown.  C'mon guys, flip the king the bird!

The seeds of independence are already sown, however, as they hint that representation in Parliament is nigh impossible.

That the people of these colonies are not, and from their local circumstances cannot be, represented in the House of Commons in Great Britain.

Even this early, all of the arguments are couched in terms of securing the "rights and liberties" to which they are entitled.  Idle thought: have we gone astray by bleating about freedom all the time instead of liberty?  "Freedom" has the connotation, for me at least, of a bird in flight, entirely unbound.  This is the image attached to FDR's invocation of positive rights: freedom from "the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment."  "Liberty", on the other hand, connotes self-direction, but makes no promises against the entirely natural slings and arrows of life.  "Pursuit of happiness" indeed.  These guys were good.

I like the argument that the Crown was already profiting enormously from their trade with the colonists, and that any taxation on that commerce would only lessen the benefits already enjoyed.  The Laffer curve lives!

The Secret Knowledge (David Mamet)

Interesting and enjoyable, though it wasn't exactly what I expected before I started reading. 

The beginning was very thought-provoking as Mamet presented his critiques of different aspects of modern political society-- and his criticisms of the education system were especially apt.  As the book progressed, though, I found it to jump around from topic to topic, and even from thought to thought, without landing on any one place or developing any one idea to its fullest.

After a few chapters of this, I realized what I was missing.  This is not a book that presents an argument of any kind.  It is simply one man's exploration of his own developing ideas of how society works, and relating those ideas to different specific examples from his own everyday experience.  Once I caught on, it was very effective-- because this is how we all actually think through these problems most of the time.  We don't sit down and logically work out a master philosophy.  Instead, different events grab our attention in different ways, and sometimes they grab us enough that we insert those experiences into an overall impression of the world.  Then we plow ahead with the rest of our lives.

In Mamet's case, his overall impression wasn't working anymore, so he sought new information to develop it further.  But the process is still the same-- some of the new information catches his attention more than others, and as a writer he gets to present it to the rest of us.  For the rest of us, we could, if we had the skill, write an entirely different exploration of our own ideas.  In the end, the important thing is that we all do have a different set of ideas, and that we all get the chance to explore and develop them independently.  The worst difficulty comes when an authority attempts to interrupt that exploration and impose a uniform approach on all of society.

As I said, the sections about education caught my attention more than any other.  We really do need a way prepare adolescents to take care of themselves by developing useful skills.  (And there's nothing wrong with those useful skills actually being the Humanities he rails against-- so long as they're actually useful-- meaning attractive to some customer somewhere.  And public funding alone doesn't count.)  A good start would be to explain to the adolescents that this needs to be the end result.  Following their dreams is not useful advice.  Coming up with strategies for self-sustenance, by following their dreams if possible, is useful.

One other passage was especially original: Mamet's discussion of the Monty Hall problem.  What was unusual was that he didn't treat the problem as a mathematical exercise.  Instead, he looked at it as an actual offer by a real person offering a deal, and developed a real insight out of it that I never would have come up with myself.

Essentially, he imagines that the game show host must offer the following bargain: After the contestant selects a door, the host must give the opportunity to switch to the remaining doors.  Backed into this corner (if that's the way the game is presented, he's screwed), the host ingeniously comes up with the only way to turn the odds back toward his own favor: by playing a con.  The host offers additional information, pretending to be helping the contestant with the next stage of the game.  The contestant, blinded by what he sees as a fatal mistake on the part of the host, overinterprets the information and pounces on the perceived advantage by standing pat.  The host then coasts away with the odds in his own favor once again.

In other words, the whole problem is a design on the part of a disadvantaged player in order to regain the advantage, camouflaged (as all cons are) by the wishful thinking of the mark.  And that's why everyone falls for it.

-------------------------

A couple other items of note: I took notes in pencil in the margins of the book, when Mamet's words (or rather, the gaps between his sentences-- this is consistent with the way he writes his plays) brought to mind examples that are rattling around in my own current perception of the world.  I don't know if these notes are helpful, or if I'll ever look at them again, or what, but it was a way to hold onto themes even as the reading of an entire book was spread over several days.

I purchased this book in July 2011, the same time I got my iMac and in the shopping spree that accompanied it.  It had been reviewed in, and Mamet had been interviewed by, all my favorite podcasts, including Ricochet and Uncommon Knowledge.  I couldn't pass it by.

And finally, I didn't consider this a sidelight from the rest of the project.  I have to mix in some modern (i.e. 20th-21st century) works with the others if I don't want to simply be cataloguing the past.  This is expecially true for political and economic works, so stay tuned for more to come.

Second Treatise Of Civil Government, XVIII - XIX

XVIII (Of Tyranny) - When those placed in positions of power use their authority to enrich themselves rather than directing their actions to the good of the people, that is tyranny.  It can be opposed, but make sure only to oppose by force actual injustice.  Things to watch out for: take care not to tear down an entire edifice of government, which might be saved, over the actions of a single bad actor; try to work through the law and the still-functioning parts of government to take down a tyrant; don't make things worse for everybody by invoking force.  But in extreme situations, bold action is indeed needed.  So...

XIX (Of the Dissolution of Government) - The actual dissolution of government does not necessarilly entail the dissolution of society.  It's possible, in the case of war, that the destruction be so complete that the remaining men are reduced to wandering or making their way by joining new societies.  But more often the dissolution of a government structure is actually the act of a functioning society, a society that maintains its identity and unity through the transition and into the future government to whom they give their revised consent.

Dissolution of government happens when the legislature is unable or unwilling to fulfill its duties; or when the executive absolutely refuses to be subservient to the legislature, and thereby does injustice to the people at large.

In such rare circumstances, when legal remedies within the existing government won't rectify the situation, rebellion is necessary.  It is not to be taken lightly.  It is in all cases a perillous position to be in.  It represents, in essence, a state of war between the people and those to whom they granted authority.  Often, we call those rebels to task for their actions-- but that rebellion is a two-way street.  It is equally legitimate to call the leaders rebellious who have exceeded their mandates, or forgotton their duties, or lost sight of the good of the people with which they have been entrusted.  In this state of war, when legitimately established, there is no supreme side with power over the subservient other; both parties are placed on an equal footing.  And in the end, it is always up to the judgment of the people as a whole which side will prevail, and on which principles the government will reestablish its footing going forward.

---------------------------

So don't play around with accusations of tyranny.  It's serious business.

Glad I read all this.  I don't think it hurt that I forced myself to read it so quickly.  There's a lot of background assumptions and principles it was good for me to see laid out so carefully.  I'm sure most of the political readings and writings I do will refer back to these principles, if only implicitly.  I do think Locke has a good, solid insight into human nature and how that informs political relationships.  (But I would say that.)

Second Treatise Of Civil Government, XVI - XVII

XVI (Of Conquest) - It is thought that the role of government is to wage war and conquer neighboring lands.  This is not so.  For starters, a government that conquers a people can never set up a legitimate ruling legislator, for they would surely act without the consent of the newly governed.

But in the case of a nation that wins a war lawfully against an aggressor, what are the obligations?  The conquerer gains no more authority over his own people than before-- no aggrandizement allowed.  Over the conquered people, he has no authority if they did not participate nor acquiesce in the aggression-- an illegal war perpetrated by leaders can't be assumed to be through the consent of the people.  It is true that the conquerer has a right to property to repair the injustice done to him.  But this right does not extend to depriving women and children of the property they inherit from their-- even their wicked-- husbands and fathers.  In these cases the men never had the power to risk their wives' and children's property to begin with, so it cannot be forfeited.

The conquerer does not have the right to impose a new system of government without the consent of the people, either.  It is true that they must impose some restrictions, to ensure justice for their own injury.  But this imposition has no force on the children in that nation, who retain the natural right to establish, through their own consent, their own system of government upon coming of age.  To prevent this is its own injustice.

XVII (Of Usurpation) - Domestic usurpation of governmental authority is simply conquest writ small.  If the usurper try to also change the form of government, we can add tyranny to his crimes.  This is because, in consenting to the government, implicit in that consent is the people's right to determine which members of society will wield the power they have ceded.  Any actions taken by a usurper do not have the force of law, until that time as the usurper actually wins the consent of the people.

------------------------

How does this discussion of the laws of conquest inform the Israel-Palestine situation?  Is Israel's occupation of the West Bank unlawful because the new generation of Palestinians has the right to self-determined government?  Or are they still acting against the previous generation of aggressors?  How does the continued strife, if perpetuated by the rising generation, affect Israel's obligations to them?

Sudden question: Was Woodrow Wilson' wife a usurper?  Was Elanor Roosevelt?  Or do these circumstances fall under the "prerogative" exception retained by the executive?  (But how does a non-executive invoke prerogative power?)

Second Treatise Of Civil Government, XIII - XV

XIII (Of the Subordination of the Powers of the Commonwealth) - The legislature has the highest power in the commonwealth.  But if it happens that they abuse their power, the people have the right to dissolve the government, for the people retain supreme power at all times.

The executive is in all ways subordinate to the legislature (excepting those cases where the executive has a hand in crafting legislation), for he can do nothing but what the laws of the legislature direct.  The executive does have the power, however, to administer and direct the selections of new legislative bodies from time to time, or on a fixed schedule.  In this role he is acting directly as a representative of the people, who naturally retain this power.

It is important to make sure the makeup of the legislature is flexible enough to adapt to changing popluations and demographics.

XIV (Of Prerogative) - At times, it is necessary for the executive to invent law on the fly, or even to violate the laws on the books, with a mind to preserving the fundamental Natural law.  There is nothing illegitimate about this, for it is possible and even likely that the legitimate written laws will, in certain unforeseen circumstances, lead to a greater harm to the community.  In fact, early governments probably operated under these circumstances most of the time.

As a protection against abuse, however, the legislature always has a power to check, through new laws, the decisions the executive has made through his prerogative.  Also, the people retain the right to check the executive's overreach.

The biggest danger for abuse is when a subsequent executive uses the previous executive's prerogative as a model for overall governance.  The whole point of prerogative is that it is not a rule-- it is invoked only to address immediate circumstance.

There is no body that can rightly and purely decide between the legislature and executive in these cases.  Life goes on.  What recourse do the citizens ultimately have against what they perceive as an abuse of prerogative?  All the aforementioned procedures and checks.  But in the meantime, pray.  [Seriously.]

XV (Of Paternal, Political and Despotical Power, Considered Together) - Recap.

-------------------------

Locke is suggesting that the rules of good government are not nearly as fixed as some would hope them to be.  Real governing occurs in the gaps between the established rules, and depends on the wisdom and rational judgment of all the actors and participants involved.  And so his vision of government depends on trusting that every man is rational, and could at all times fend for himself, only choosing not to out of a perceived benefit of ceding that power.  It's very optimistic.

Second Treatise Of Civil Government, X - XII

X (Of the Forms of a Commonwealth) - The community can choose to design a pure democracy, an oligarchy, a hereditary or elective monarchy, or mix and match these pieces at will.  The most important element in the design of a commonwealth is the form of the legislature, which ultimately gives the commonwealth its character.

XI (Of the Extent of the Legislative Power) - The power of the legislature is not unlimited.  Indeed, it has precisely those limits that each man in the state of nature was limited to unto himself.  That man had no authority to compel the life or property of any other.  Nor does the legislature have the authority to seize the property of any citizen without his due consent.  (Otherwise, how could a legislature of such power have earned the consent of that citizen to begin with?) 

The laws emanating from the legislature must be written and clear, never arbitrary.

How important is this limitation?  Even in the case where a superior military officer does have the authority to risk the life of his subordinate, he does not have the authority to compel his subordinate's money or other property.  So there.

To that end, it is better to design a legislature so as to prevent long-serving members from thinking themselves as having the power over the estates of the remainder of the citizenry.  This is especially a danger when that legislator believes himself to doing so for the improved good of the community-- in fact, this is the ultimate danger of any commonwealth.  It is always illegitimate, for it directly deprives the citizens of the nature rights they would have possessed under the state of nature, which are inalienable, no matter the good intent.

Of course, it is necessary for there to be a power of taxation.  But it must always occur through the consent of the taxed.  Period.

It is also illegitimate for the legislators to cede any ounce of legislative power to any other person or body-- for this is not the original agreement of the members of society, and deprives them of their original rights.

XII (The Legislative, Executive, and Federative Power of the Commonwealth) - The legislature need not continually meet-- in fact, it's better if it doesn't.  It only needs to quickly write the law, then return to live among the citizenry under that same law.  Therefore, it is important that the same body not actually administer the law.  Instead, the continually operating part of the government is the executive.

A third function of government is the regulation of affairs with other societies-- called the "federative" powers.  The state of affairs between separate commonwealths is not unlike the state of nature between individual men.  Accordingly, these affairs cannot always be administered under previously established rules; more flexibility is required, often instant flexibility.  In practice, it is very likely that the federative powers will be wielded by the same exective as administers domestic affairs.

-------------------------

OK, but what kind of consent is needed for the legislature to legitimately take the property of the citizens through taxation?  The process ought to be spelled out in as much detail as is feasible-- probably nothing else in the design of government is as important.

Second Treatise Of Civil Government, VIII - IX

VIII (Of the Beginning of Political Societies) - So once men come together, giving up the autonomy they enjoy in the state of nature, the society must function as a whole.  The only way this works is for all to aquiesce to the decisions of the majority-- resistance on the part of any minority means they are asserting their own decisions in the place of the whole, which by definition is the breakdown of the society.  This instability cannot possibly last for long.

Objections.  First, it might be said that we have no evidence for men coming together, mutually agreeing to cede authority to the group.  Is this all simply myth or fantasy?  Answer: it's not surprising that early societies have no records of this action, but it simply must have taken place.  Most of our societies are so long-lasting that the moment of origin is long in the past.  And in fact, we do have evidence of just these kinds of decisions-- breakaway groups that strike out on their own.

Next: But these societies commonly are ruled by a monarch.  Doesn't this work against your argument?  Answer: Not at all.  It's entirely plausible that early societies would grant final authority in an individual deemed wise.  It's entirely unsurprising that they would allow authority to carry through the wise family-- everything's easier that way.  What we do see, though, is interruption of the hereditary line when things get beyond the patience of the society-- exactly what I've been saying.  Improvements to the design of the system can come incrementally.  When they do, they come through the consent of the majority.

Finally: But what actually happens is men grow up in a society, and feel bound to that society, right?  Where's the moment of rational consent?  Answer: Not surprising that most stay in the society with which they are familiar.  That society often confers many advantages that a man would not want to forego.  But always, the decision to stay is an act of will; the society has no power to compel participation and residence.  The society only has authority over those who grant it authority; a return to the state of nature is always an option, and is often taken, to no penalty from the society that is left behind.

IX (Of the Ends of Political Society and Government) - So why would a man give up the state of nature for a more restricted life?  In a word, security.  First, security in his private property; second, security in neutral and impartial judgment; third, security that the execution of justice will actually be completed.

Man possesses two great powers in the state of nature.  The first is the right to set his own course of action in all things.  The second is to exact valid force over those who interfere with his liberty.  The first he cedes to the legislature in a society; the second he cedes to the executive.

------------------------

Not much documentation of the creation of a new civil society, eh?  Wait a hundred years or so, John.

Key note: Locke repeatedly refers to the fundamental rights of man as life, liberty and property.  Ultimately, this means that econonomic freedom is of the same importance as political freedom.  How did the New Deal Supreme Court screw that up so badly?  To be continued...

Second Treatise Of Civil Government, VI - VII

VI (Of Paternal Power) - It is the duty of parents-- both mother and father-- to raise, care for, and teach their children, who are unable to comport themselves with the civil laws and the law of reason while they have still not reached the age of reason.  Until that time, the parents must show what it is to act within the bounds of rules by setting up rules for their children.  It is the duty of children, upon reaching adulthood, to continue to honore their parents, but this does not mean they are duty-bound to continue to follow their parents' directives.  After grown children are able to live according to their own reason, parents can no longer legitimately exercise that kind of restraint.

The authority parents have over their children is not a model for the authority monarchs could have over their subjects.  So don't even go there.

VII (Of Political or Civil Society) - Marriage for life developed in mankind because each child born to a woman arrived before the previous had grown old enough and rational enough to care for himself.  Since the duty of the father to each child continued over long stretches of time, it was important that the mother and father of each child be tied to one another for the duration. 

Civil, or political, society comes into being when each citizen gives up the right he has within the state of Nature to exact punishment for crimes.  When all instead cede this power to a governing authority, the better to avoid poor or extreme application of the law of Nature, those men have established a real society.  Note that a monarchy government is incompatible with this definition, for it allows a single man, the monarch, to continue to possess the same powers over life and death that all possessed within the state of Nature.  And one more point about that: if other men witness the monarch exercising that right, it is likely they will conclude that the right can be exercised against the monarch as well-- even if only for self-preservation-- and we're right back to the state of Nature anyway.

Second Treatise Of Civil Government, V

V (Of Property) - A right to self-preservation means an automatic right to the things necessary for self-preservation: food and shelter, at least.  But where does the concept of "property" come in?

First, we might consider the wild of Nature to be there for public consumption.  But if anyone is actually to make use of, say, the fruit of a tree, he necessarily makes use of it to the exclusion of anyone else's use of it.  Each man naturally has a property claim also on his own body, and so his own labor.  And when his labor adjusts Nature for the purposes of satisfying his needs, he acquires property rights over that portion of Nature to which he applied himself.  Simply put, the man who gathers acorns owns the acorns the moment he gathers them-- common law will get us this far (otherwise he would need the consent of everyone else before claiming possession over so simple a thing.)

These property rights are not unlimited, of course.  A man has no right to possess that which he will not make use of, and so will subsequently go to waste. 

OK, so what about land?  Still simple: working the land confers possession.  And there is plenty of land for each man to find his own parcel to work.  The only exception is that land which has been preserved for public use by the legitimate public authority.  "Subdue the earth and have dominion over it" are a cause and effect.

This could probably have worked forever-- there's plenty of land!  Hell, just use America if it comes to that.  But at some point, this natural development was interrupted by the use of money, to assign the possession of larger pieces of land to fewer people.  This is entirely natural, the fruit of man's cleverness.  Overall, it's a good thing.  At this point, our civilization has developed to the point that 99% of the goods we get from nature are already infused with some kind of human labor to make them happen.  Proof: look at how the native Americans live-- surrounded by as much land as they could care to use, but not living well on it.  And look: we eat bread, not acorns; we wear silk, not skins.  V.43:

It is labour, then, which puts the greatest part of value upon land, without which it would scarcely be worth anything; it is to that we owe the greatest part of all its useful products; for all that the straw, bran, bread, of that acre of wheat, is more worth than the product of an acre of as good land which lies wasted is all the effect of labour.  For it is not barely the ploughman's pains, the reaper's and thresher's toil, and the baker's sweat, is to be counted into the bread we eat; the labour of those who broke the oxen, who digged and wrought the iron and stones, who felled and framed the timber employed about the plough, mill, oven, or any other utensils, which are a vast number, requisite to this corn, from its sowing to its being made bread, must all be charged on the account of labour, and received as an effect of that; Nature and the earth furnished only the almost worthless materials as in themselves.  It would be a strange catalogue of things that industry provided and made use of about every loaf of bread before it came to our use if we could trace them; iron, wood, leather, bark, timber, stone, bricks, coals, lime, cloth, dyeing-drugs, pitch, tar, masts, ropes and all the materials made use of by any of the workmen, to any part of the work, all which it would be almost impossible, at least too long, to reckon up.

And the development of money, which made all this industry go, is easy enough to explain.  A man who did gather more than he could use before it perished would be wise to trade away his surplus for something of a more permanent enjoyment-- even if that thing be a merely aesthetically appealing rock.  Without the possibility of some item or object or material acting as the storage of value, such surplus would never happen-- for it would merely represent wasted effort and labor.

We're watching the re-development of all this in America as we speak.

----------------------

I'm having ideological whiplash reading this against 21st century mores.  Suck on this, luddites, eco-warriors, and Gaia worshipers.

Locke is clearly working off of a primitive labor theory of value.  That's good as far as it goes, but without further development it devolves into a disastrous theory and wasteful make-work programs.  But Locke doesn't consider the possibility of non-useful labor at all.  In fact, such a thing could only happen after piggy-backing on an established system of money.  Man, this stuff gets complicated in a hurry.

Love the quoted paragraph, a precursor to the "I, Pencil" essay I discovered sometime last year.

Locke's perspective of the American continent is fascinating.

Second Treatise Of Civil Government, III - IV

III (Of the State of War) - When one is in a declared or open state of war with another, that other automatically has, through the natural right of self-preservation, the right to kill the first.  It is known that he who is at war with me desires to capture or enslave (literally or otherwise) me.  With that knowledge and expectation, I can do nothing else but try to prevent that from happening.

IV (Of Slavery) - Liberty in society consists in the freedom to act within the rules and laws established a legislative system that has the consent of the governed.  Liberty is not the ability act according to one's own raw desires.

Man cannot enslave himself to another, for the same reason that he cannot give up his own life.  [Because it's contrary to man's drive to self-preservation?]  The most that can be done is that a man, legitimately punishable by death for a crime, could instead be enslaved by the injured party.  Even in this scenario, the "slave" could despise this state and seek the death he deserves instead.  Other situations that approach slavery should be viewed instead as labor compacts-- and the difference is, the "master" does not have absolute power at any time, and couldn't legitimately, say, kill him or otherwise interfere with his natural freedom at all.  In fact, doing so would instantly break the compact.

--------------------------

Tons of stuff in here.  Right off the bat, there's a response to extreme libertarianism.  Freedom really is bounded by legitimate legislative authority.   We'll see what the limits of that authority are though-- how do we preserve property rights, and curtail abortion right, through the same civil authority?  (One answer: we elect lawmakers who follow through on such a plan.  It's a huge problem that the courts interfere with legitimate lawmaking ability.  Maybe.  Hmm.) 

Interesting anwer to advocates of assisted suicide here.  According to Locke's view of our fundamental self-preserving nature, we don't have the authority to seek our own deaths.  To do so violates our fundamental nature, without which... none of the other individual rights hold up, because there's nothing fundamental within ourselves that we would have to respect in any other.  Even the sick owe it to the rest of society not to open that door.  (It is not a fundamental part of our nature to be free from pain.  But it is, naturally, a part of our nature to try to flee pain.  Hmm.)

Completely unexpected discussion of the problems of slavery.  From this brief chapter, it seems the violations of justice present in the American system of slavery were: a) the capture of African men and women from their homeland, and b) the claim of slaveowners of absolute power over their "property", which is impossible.  The labor itself wasn't inherently an injustice (?).  Hmm.

Second Treatise Of Civil Government, I - II

I - Even if the hereditary divine right of kings was initially established by God and imbued into Adam, in the intervening years we have lost complete grasp of how that line of succession should be followed.  Hence, we must answer this question anyway: What does it mean for a figure to have authority over another, in many different contexts.  In the specific case of political authority, it consists in the right to make laws, mete out punishment (up to and including lawful death), defending the population from foreign injury, and all done with an eye to the public good.


II (Of the State of Nature) - First, recognize that we possess freedom within the bounds of the Laws of Nature.  Second, within that Law is each man's direction to self-preservation and thriving.  Third, for the aforementioned reasons, men born into the same community are at the same station in life-- that of subordination to their Maker.  Given all that, every man has the right to execute punishment on another who interferes with or disrupts his own Natural rights. II.6:

Every one as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he as much as he can to preserve the rest of mankind, and not unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.

Evidence for this: otherwise, by what right can a nation such as ours execute punishment upon a foreigner-- who, having not participated in the legislation of law, is not bound to live under it?

Contraposed to this universal right, there is also the individual right of the aggrieved to extract satisfaction from the wrongdoer or injurer.  Some will say this is going too far, that placing this power within the individual opens the door to exaggeration of injury and improper punishment.  Keep in mind we're discussing justice in the state of Nature-- of course in a mature government it would be good to move this power into formal courts and within the people at large.  But then, how is that an argument for investing supreme power in a single individual monarch?  If we are to design safeguards for the meting out of justice, we'd better do so more carefully than that.

--------------------------

Looks like the origin of what we call human rights really does depend upon human nature as infused in us by God, our Creator.  And not entirely because every aspect of those rights is individually programmed into every human being-- that would be quite a trick to try to prove, working out the mechanics of God's creation of Man.  Instead, Locke's point can be boiled down to a much simpler argument: it is our subordination under God that puts us all at essentially the same moral level, and it is from that perspective that we have the responsibility to ensure that no one can interfere with at least the basics of another's nature.  It is only if we are not all born into an identical station under God that it would be possible that some are born to a higher station, and can claim for themselves authority and power over the others.  Nietzche's Superman?

Don't forget though, at the moment, we're only talking about Man actually living in an undeveloped state of Nature.  The consequences of all this may change as society is built.

Second Treatise Of Civil Government (John Locke)

Along with Montesquieu, Locke is cited as the most vital influence on the drafters of the Constitution.  Might as well find out what all the fuss is about.

I was surprised I didn't already own this, but it looks like the only Locke I collected in my philosophy days was the Essay Concerning Human Understanding-- and that more than once.  So once again the library provides.  (The pictured copy is not the one I'm reading.  Same publisher, though.  Mine is a nondescript hardbound blue book by Everyman's Library from 1949.)

According to the introduction, the First Treatise is entirely outdated and not worth the time.  I'll skim through it, but the Second Treatise is where all the action is.  Note: Full title is "An Essay Concerning the True Original, Extent and End of Civil Government".

Keeping my fingers crossed that this doesn't turn into another Montesquieu situation.

The Spirit of Laws, Book XIII - Of The Relation Which The Levying Of Taxes And The Greatness Of The Public Revenues Bear To Liberty

Section 1, quoted in full

1.-- Of the Public Revenues

The public revenues are a portion that each subject gives of his property, in order to secure or enjoy the remainder.

To fix these revenues in a proper manner, regard should be had both to the necessities of the state and to those of the subject.  The real wants of the people ought never to give way to the imaginary wants of the state.

Imaginary wants are those which flow from the passions and the weakness of the governors, from the vain conceit of some extraordinary project, from the inordinate desire of glory, and from a certain impotence of mind incapable of withstanding the impulse of fancy.  Often have ministers of a restless disposition imagined that the wants of their own mean and ignoble souls were those of the state.

Nothing requires more wisdom and prudence than the regulation of that portion of which the subject is deprived, and that which he is suffered to retain.

The public revenues should not be measured by the people's abilities to give, but by what they ought to give; and if they are measured by their abilities to give, it should be considered what they are able to give for a constancy.

Discussion of the Laffer curve.

Argument in favor of progressive tax rates.

Argument in favor of consumption tax at the point of sale, the better to disguise the tax from the consumer.  Possibility of a progressive consumption tax (VAT?).

Long discussion of use and abuse of taxes in various types of regimes, and the danger of gaming the system for private advantage.

------------------------

That was a fun chapter.  Good to end on a high note.

One thing I've discovered from wrestling with this book-- this project needs to stick to genuine literature as much as possible.  The technical stuff is awful.  (I don't know if that will put The Wealth of Nations in danger or not.)  Of course, crossover works like Plato's Republic (and hopefully Thucydides) will still make the cut.

The Spirit of Laws, Book XII - Of The Laws That Form Political Liberty, In Relation To The Subject

The previous concerned conditions of liberty in government itself.  The liberty of an individual is a different story altogether.  Philosophically, it involves the ability to exercise one's will.  Politically, it concerns the sense of personal security that is necessary for any such exercise to take place.

The laws that impinge on the individual ought to have that aim in mind.  That requires judicial procedures that are fair, predictable, and modest.  Proportional punishment for wrongdoing; fair rules and procedures for evidence; fair accusations-- no bringing ridiculous, but undefensible, charges like witchcraft.

Crimes against the government are especially tricky to define and fairly prosecute, for they always carry the potential and temptation for abuse.  Too often they are charged merely for political revenge.  They are cast onto bystanders or acquaintances too easily.  They impugn mere passing thoughts, or careless actions, or even satirical writing.

The people's sense of security against loss of liberty is improved by punishment for those who hurl false accusations.  It is improved also by laws against terrible abuse of debtors by owners.

[Long discussion of proper behavior on the part of monarchs.  Booooooring.]