On The Declaration of Independence

With the fourth of July coming up, it’s a good time to review the Declaration of Independence.

The Two Best Paragraphs in the Declaration
The first two paragraphs in the document give you an entire philosophy of government in themselves:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Fundamental Principles of Government from the Declaration
A few of the principles of government that we see here are:

  1. All people are created equal.
  2. Therefore all people have certain unalienable rights. Chief among these rights are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the ability to own property (not stated here, but in the original draft).
  3. These rights are given by God.
  4. Therefore, our rights are not “privileges” granted or controlled by the government. They exist prior to and apart from the government, and the government must respect them.
  5. Therefore, government exists for the sake of the people, not the people for the sake of the government. Government does not have a right to lord it over the people.
  6. Instead, government exists to preserve and protect these rights. Government is not ultimately about control.
  7. The government cannot do anything it chooses. There are certain things that are wrong for a government to do, even apart from impressively stated arguments for their pragmatic value.
  8. The rights of the people are more important than the desires of the government.
  9. Government derives its powers from the consent of the governed; the people do not derive their rights from the will or choice of the government.
  10. People have the right to abolish their government when it becomes destructive of these ends.

This is simply radical. Really, we should be stunned and immensely grateful that our society came to recognize these truths. In a world where so many people seek after power, it is incredible that a government should come to exist which acknowledges that the power of government is not ultimate.

The Single Governing Principle of Government
We can roll all of these principles up into a single, governing principle of human government: the purpose of government is to protect and maximize the freedom of the people. And people have this freedom because they are all created equal (so people in government are not “more equal” than the private citizen — even when they are working for the “collective good”) and endowed with intrinsic rights that they hold simply by virtue of being human.

In order for government to accomplish this purpose, there are two necessary implications, both of which are embodied in our Constitution:

  1. Limited government.
  2. Separation of powers.

What True Liberalism Is
The principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence, by the way, are what “liberalism” really is. Today the term “liberal” is used to refer to policies that seek to expand the place of government and give it a greater role in people’s lives. That’s not liberal — that’s conservative.

It’s conservative because it seeks to conserve the way the world functioned for thousands of years before the American Revolution — namely, a world where government saw its power as ultimate, rather than the God-given rights of the people as prior to the power of government.

What today is called “conservatism,” on the other hand, actually used to be called political liberalism because it advocated for change from the government-first ideology that dominated for almost all of human history before that. It advocated for the principles that we see outlined in the Declaration. That’s why on my Facebook profile I put my political views as classical liberalism.

By the way, you can read the whole Declaration of Independence here.

No related posts.

July 2, 2009 | Filed Under Politics | 3 Comments 

Comments

3 Responses to “On The Declaration of Independence”

  1. kerrin on July 2nd, 2009 10:54 pm

    I’m completely with you. Have been for a while. Classical Liberlism is indeed the position of the Declaration and I would contend should be that of ever Christian.

    Only question is, in my study of the Enlightenment, all of the founders, especially Jefferson (author of the Declaration) saw Reason above revelation, do you see this? Agree with this?

    Rights, according to the Enlightenment thinkers were derived from Reason. Most founders thought Reason lead to God and revelation. Would you agree with this?

    Even Adams, considered the most religious of the founders, was an Enlightenment thinker who held Reason above revelation:

    “To him who believes in the Existence and Attributes physical and moral of a God, there can be no obscurity or perplexity in defining the Law of Nature to be his wise benign and all powerful Will, discovered by Reason.” – John Adams to Thomas Boylston Adams, 1794

    “Had you and I been forty days with Moses on Mount Sinai and admitted to behold, the divine Shekinah, and there told that one was three and three, one: We might not have had courage to deny it. But We could not have believed it.” – John Adams to T. Jefferson, 1813

  2. Matt on July 3rd, 2009 9:34 am

    Kerrin,

    To possibly over simplify here: I believe that there is natural law. Natural law isn’t sufficient to lead to faith, but does provide the basic principles of right and wrong, justice and injustice, and what it means to be a just nation. Reason is not above revelation, but I think it is possible to make a case for what is just on the basis of natural revelation. I wouldn’t say that our rights are derived from reason (they are derived from being created in the image of God), but everybody can come to understand by means of reason that we have them and they ought to be protected.

    I don’t know what Adams means in his second statement there, but if he really said that it reflects a pretty bad misunderstanding of the Trinity, and he should have known better. It is not that “one is three” and “three, one.” God is one in one sense (essence) and three in a different sense (person).

    Matt

  3. kerrin on July 3rd, 2009 11:08 am

    I should have included the full passage of Adams there. He wasn’t talking about the Trinity, but about the relationship of Reason to Revelation. This is the paragraph that precedes the quote I gave you:

    “…the human Understanding is a revelation from its Maker which can never be disputed or doubted. There can be no Scepticism, Phyrrhonism or Incredulity or Infidelity here. No Prophecies, no Miracles are necessary to prove this celestial communication. This revelation has made it certain that two and one make three; and that one is not three; nor can three be one. We can never be so certain of any Prophecy, or the fulfillment of any Prophecy; or of any miracle, or the design of any miracle as We are, from the revelation of nature i.e. natures God that two and two are equal to four. Miracles or Prophecies might frighten us out of our Witts [sic]; might scare us to death; might induce Us to lie; to say that We believe that 2 and 2 make 5. But we should not believe it. We should know the contrary.”

    I would agree with you that our Rights are not derived from Reason, but according to the Enlightenment and influential writers like John Locke, man in the ‘state of nature’ (prior to entering a society) possess his own Life, Liberty, is able to exercise this Liberty by means of Reason, and is able to possess property through his labor. Upon entering a society these become Rights to be protected by State. Prior to State they are not Rights, but possessions owned by the individual person in the ‘state of nature’ (or natural Law).

    My point is that the Enlightenment thinkers (the founders) did see Reason above Revelation. I don’t think they saw Rights as derived from being created in the image of God, but that through self-evident truths (Reasoned truths) the Creator (a Deity that was self-evident through Reason) gave them these possessions (Life, Liberty, and ability to own property) and upon the formation of a political society they become Rights. ‘Rights’ when used in the context of the Declaration, the formation of a political society, are self-evident Rights that must be protected by State.

    Jefferson’s rough draft of the Declaration is interesting:

    We hold these truths to be sacred [this simply meant unalterable] and undeniable; that all men are created equal and independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…

    Great post by the way! I love the way you think and I’m grateful I get to, in a small way, discuss these things with you.

    kerrin

Leave a Reply