The Philosophy of Freedom

by Caleb Nelson

  Primary fault: No recognition of individual rights.

  Manifestation of fault: All at the mercy of the majority vote. Loss of freedom for the minority. “Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.”

  MONARCHY: All political power is carried by a single individual through family lines.

  Essential feature: The rule of one.

  Primary fault: No recognition of individual rights.

  Manifestation of fault: No objective law, no recourse for citizens, no guarantee of individual freedom.

  HEGEMONY/OLIGARCHY: Government is carried out by a small group of individuals.

  Essential feature: The rule of a few.

  Primary fault: No recognition of individual rights.

  Manifestation of fault: Similar to monarchy, but with more than one tyrant, so it’s less efficient—like an HOA.

  ANARCHY: Absence of government; lawlessness; no governing by any individual or group.

  Essential feature: The rule of none. No government at all.

  Primary fault: No protection of individual rights.

  Manifestation of fault: Immediately devolves into a dictatorship of the strongest gang. Mob rule.

  REPUBLIC: Citizens have a voice in governmental decisions through elected representatives.

  Essential feature: The rule of elected officials.

  Primary fault: No inherent recognition of individual rights.

  Manifestation of fault: Inherent possibility for tyranny is kept from growing only through an educated populace, constitutional restrictions, and honest officials.

  EMPIRE: An aggregate of kingdoms ruled by a monarch called an emperor.

  Essential feature: Monarchy over multiple kingdoms.

  Primary fault: No recognition of individual rights.

  Manifestation of fault: Inconsistent laws between kingdoms, fractious and unstable vassal states. Darth Vader could be your neighborhood sheriff.

  DICTATORSHIP: Strict rule by one or a few top leaders. Leadership is often aligned with the military.

  Essential features: One-party rule, executions without trial for political offenses, expropriation or nationalization of private property, and censorship.

  Primary fault: No protection of individual rights.

  Manifestation of fault: Widespread governmental violence both to seize power and suppress dissent. Decisions made by the whims of one leader.

  THEOCRACY: Government by religious leader(s).

  Essential features: Officials are regarded as divinely guided. Laws based on religious texts and “revelation” from leader.

  Primary fault: No recognition of individual rights.

  Manifestation of fault: Ethical and moral foundation of laws is subjectively religious. No rational foundation or explanation of laws: “Why must you do that? Because I say that God said to.” Historically, this has quickly led to oppression (e.g. Salem Witch Trials and Muslim Shariah Law).

  There are, of course, many other different and intricate types of governments, but none are widespread or historically significant. There are also many variations and combinations of these governmental methods.

  Some people might say America has a democratic republic or a representative democracy, and these statements are based in some truth. Some may cite the Constitution which does not mention any particular form of federal government and instead only guarantees to each State a republican form of government. Others may think of the Pledge of Allegiance and say that we “pledge allegiance to the flag . . . and to the republic for which it stands . . .” Some may recall that Benjamin Franklin is reported to have said, when asked what sort of government the Constitutional delegates had established, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.”

  [73]

  There are some democratic principles at work in our republic. Representatives, some officials, and some policies and laws are chosen through the use of majority-rule voting. But democracy is not the essential feature of our form of government. The most important feature, the one that is a primary source of this country’s success, is a Constitution based on objective law and a balance of power. We elect representatives as a republic, and they vote on laws and policies democratically. However, those laws, in order to remain long in effect, must not contradict a written, objective code of principles—a constitution.

  The most accurate description of American government as it was originally founded is a constitutional republic—which means: a state where officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government’s power. Abraham Lincoln said, “A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations . . . is the only true sovereign of a free people”

  [74]

  As Clinton Rossiter famously wrote, “[There is] no happiness without liberty, no liberty without self-government, no self-government without constitutionalism, no constitutionalism without morality.”

  [75] This sentence would serve as a brief outline of this book thus far. Happiness is the aim of existence. To pursue it we must have liberty. To protect liberty we must have proper government. A proper government is founded on true, moral principles such as the protection of rights.

  THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM OF LEFT VS. RIGHT

  The problem with traditional approaches to defining politics as Left vs. Right is that these approaches usually define their terms by non-essentials. What does it mean to define something by non-essentials? Every word we use is symbolic of a concept, and in order to make one concept distinct from another we have to make sure we include the essential qualities of the concept or else it loses its meaning. For example, we could define “love” as “a warm feeling you get inside.” It may be true that love gives you a warm feeling, but that is not the core—the essential—of what love is. Heartburn also gives you a warm feeling inside, and so does anger. To set love apart from other concepts requires defining love by its unique and essential characteristics. “Dog” might be defined as “a faithful, four-legged companion.” But that definition could include cats or any other animal possessing four legs and an attachment to you (and exclude any dog that is missing limbs). To make “dog” distinct from other concepts, it must have its core elements unique only to dogs, that is, any member of canis lupus familiaris.

  In the case of the typical Left vs. Right dichotomy, we often see communism, socialism, and modern liberalism on the “Left,” with fascism, conservatism, and capitalism on the “Right”:

  Grouping fascism, which is essentially the same philosophy as communism and socialism, together with capitalism is an absurd association. Conservatism also makes various calls for government to violate rights, and it makes no sense to lump it together with a social system of property rights, individual rights, and personal liberty. (We will discuss all of these “-isms” later in the book. For now, the subject is the nature of government.)

  Another poor approach is a spectrum based on the size of government. This spectrum puts 0% government and anarchy on one side, and 100% government and totalitarianism on the other side:

  This is accompanied with the idea that somewhere in the middle is the right amount. But the size of government is not the essential issue in politics. A large military may be needed to defend against foreign aggressors. A large court system may be needed to deal with the countless contracts and disputes in a free market.

  We can still use the Left/Right spectrum, but it must be redefined in terms of essentials. The essential issue in politics is not the size but the function of government—whether it protects rights or violates them. In this way, we can achieve a much clearer and more useful spectrum.

  On the far left would be the ideologies and systems which use or allow extreme force in the violation of rights (communism, anarchy, fascism, etc.).

  In the middle would be systems and ideologies that support various degrees of rights-violating force (modern liberalism, conservatism, progressivism, etc.).

  On the right would be all
ideologies and systems which prohibit the initiation of force and protect individual rights (classical liberalism, capitalism):

  The essential issue of politics is one of absolutes—either man is free or not free; his rights are protected or violated. Such a shift in portraying the political spectrum would accurately reflect this essential knowledge.

  [76]

  THE 3-PART AMERICAN REVOLUTION

  Here is what most people may know about America’s colonization and Revolution:

  1. Many of America’s first European settlers were searching for religious freedom for themselves.

  2. The original American colonies fought for political freedom and autonomy from England.

  For most individuals, knowledge of America’s revolution ends there. What they don’t recognize is that the Revolution of America was actually in three parts:

  POLITICAL FREEDOM

  This was the first significant transformation in America, and the easiest revolution to recognize in the history books. It was this revolution which involved armies and battles. The most obvious leaders for political freedom were George Washington and John Adams. Washington was General of the Continental Army, Chairman of the Constitutional Convention, and first President of the United States. Adams rallied the Congress to declare Independence and helped broker the Treaty of Paris to end the war. The Founders held sacred the idea that the rights and privileges of life belonged to no group, no collective, and no lone tyrant. Instead, they laid a political foundation upon the idea that each individual has sovereign rights. Among these rights is that of a people to establish their own rights-respecting government.

  RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

  The second transformation in America occurred in the religious world. Religious freedom was a long-running theme in America even before 1776. However, the goal of most religious groups coming to America was not freedom of religion, per se, merely freedom for them to practice their religion.

  The Founders ensured that preserving liberty of conscience and its corresponding personal liberties was an essential role of all government.

  In 1779, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom defending the right of any man to be free of compulsory religious involvement and financial support. Part of that Statute reads, “No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship . . . nor shall be enforced . . . or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion.”

  It is unfortunate, and a source of ongoing friction that legitimate religious freedom is still not a mainstream value in America. Religionists of all sects, as well as some atheists, still seek to use governmental power to enforce their beliefs and dogma on others, from liquor laws, to prohibiting gay marriage, to forcing businesses to close on Sundays. Many people of faith mistakenly believe that it is moral to do what their own God refuses to do—take away the freewill of mankind. It is puzzling to wonder how any perfect God could be satisfied with obedience born of force, motivated by fear of punishment rather than from the sincere desires of the heart. There are also groups that seek to infringe on religious liberty to support their own causes such as through forced coverage of abortions and contraception by businesses, or forced catering of gay weddings.

  ECONOMIC FREEDOM

  The third transformation, and least understood, was a shift in economic thinking. The Founders knew that power over a man’s sustenance amounted to power over his life in general. Economic freedom is essential to the protection and preservation of all other freedoms. Economic freedom is called capitalism or free enterprise today. This transformation revealed personal agency and self-interest as the source of all peace and prosperity for all people under all conditions.

  [77]

  The primary Founding Father of this economic revolution was not even American, he was a Scotsman named Adam Smith. In his book, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, published the same year as the Declaration of Independence and widely read by the Founders, Smith did what no philosopher had done accurately before: identify the cause of wealth—or the root of money—not merely its effects. He identified self-interest as the most powerful motivation for all men and the relationship between freedom and wealth creation. This volume had a profound effect on early American thought.

  THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

  Near the end of his life, Thomas Jefferson penned in a letter to Henry Lee, a description of the purpose, source, and design of his “Declaration”:

  “The object of the Declaration of Independence [was] not to find out new principles or new arguments never thought of before . . . but to place before all mankind the common sense of the subject . . . Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion. All its authority rests, then, on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, etc.”

  [78]

  Thomas Jefferson

  [vi]

  Jefferson drafted the Declaration in a relatively short time, only a few weeks, with no references or assistance. How was he able to do this? Through his magnificent preparation of education. Like many of the Founding Fathers, Jefferson first learned Latin and Greek so he could read classical works in their original languages. He studied the law, physics, agriculture, mathematics, philosophy, chemistry, anatomy, zoology, botany, religion, politics, history, literature, and rhetoric. By adulthood he could read Latin, Greek, Spanish, Italian, and French.

  So he could better study the laws of the ancient Anglo-Saxon freemen (early 5th century people in Britain), and learn about their “ancient principles,” he taught himself to read the Anglo-Saxon, or Old English, language as well. (How would the world be different today if Jefferson’s attitude instead had been, “Well, they don’t teach Anglo-Saxon at my school, so I guess I’m just out of luck”?) In fact, Jefferson was so impressed with the Freemen of early Britain that when he was appointed to be on the first committee to design a Seal for the United States, one of his suggestions included Hengist and Horsa, “the Saxon chiefs from whom we claim the honor of being descended, and whose political principles and form of government we have assumed.”

  [79]

  Hengist and Horsa

  [vii]

  Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence laid the foundational principles of America. Let us see how.

  “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.”

  Notice the reference here to the “Laws of Nature.” Basically, Jefferson was saying that he believed this Declaration to be based on, and made with the authority of the Natural Rights of Man; rights that man must have because of the nature of his existence. The rights stand on their own because they are objective. The reference to God could be removed, and the meaning and existence of rights would not change.

  John Trumbull’s Declaration of Independence placed in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda in 1826.

  [viii]

  “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.”

  The phrase “all men are created equal” is not intended to imply that everyone is born with equal abilities or opportunities, but to state the correct political principle that all men ought to be protected equally, and treated as equal before the law, independent of circumstance or ability.

  The pursuit of happiness means man’s right to set his own goals, choose his own values, and achieve them. It was a purely individualistic idea.

  The Founders discarded the traditional notion that the State was sovereign over the individual, who must submit to it. The Founders started with a new premise that the individual had primacy and sovereignty. Whether or not any social organization existed, each person had certain individual rights, which, as an early New Hampshire document stated, included “the enjoying and defending of life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; and in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness.”

  [80] John Dickenson, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, affirmed that rights were unalienable, “not annexed to us by parchments and seals . . . . They are born with us; exist with us; and cannot be taken away from us by any human power without taking our lives. In short, they are founded on the immutable maxims of reason and justice.”