Friday, June 29, 2012
Declaration of Independence
Let’s read and discuss the Declaration of Independence together. I cannot help but notice that while it is not a legislative document like the Constitution, it continuously affects our thoughts and actions—our presidents, legislators, and judges repeatedly refer to it. What is the life force of the Declaration? Is it the fact that it says, “all men are created equal”? What do you think it did or says to sustain its relevance in modern-day America? On the other hand, do you even think the Declaration is still relevant? Is it no longer an important document for Americans to read and understand?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Created equal" unfortunately, has been taken as an excuse for the continuous decivilization of society. I believe that the beginning of ethics and morality is self-ownership followed by the recognition of private property. Democratic republics necessarily lead to the continuous violation of private property and the consistent creation of the moral hazards associated with the government being in the hands of temporary caretakers as opposed to owners who are more likely to preserve the value and protect scarce resources.
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing your comments, Javier. Your participation as an American anarchist speaks to the wide range of perspectives flourishing in the United States—a testimony to Carlin Romano's thesis in his recent book, America the Philosophical.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, one of your comments points to the depth and sagacity of the Declaration's understanding of and concern for humanity. For example, you say as an anarchist, "I believe that the beginning of ethics and morality is self-ownership followed by the recognition of private property." Wouldn't you agree that those sentiments are expressed in the Declaration?
It seems that you have identified two sources of the Declaration's continued relevance—"self-ownership" and "private property," Those two points create common ground for many other varying political and economic ideals in America. The ideal of "self-ownership" is suggested repeatedly. We should note that the Declaration itself treats "self-ownership" as a matter of fact; it was used as a performative speech act, in which the declared thoughts of the Declaration changed the social and political world of those that wrote and collectively believed in it. As for "private property," the reported abuse of rights regarding property incited the thirteen states "to dissolve the political bands” which connected them to George III. British America charged their King and Mother Country of "imposing Taxes on us without our Consent," among other indictments.
Javier, I have tried to make a modest claim that the Declaration of Independence shares the core of your concerns, as an American, as an anarchist and perhaps as a libertarian. In light of these comments, would you agree that the Declaration embraces some of your core values?
No.
ReplyDeleteMy core value as a (all the way) libertarian. Is the non-initiation of the use of force. The declaration of independence and the constitution are after all, pieces of paper. They have done nothing to prevent the monstrous growth and aggression of the American empire and the ever increasing spending and devaluation of our money (which they've hijacked as well).
"Imposing taxes on us without our consent" is a self-contradictory statement. No taxes are voluntary. If a 51% of people decided on a tax (if that's the way voting were) it would still not be voluntary for the other 49. If an elected official chooses the tax or taxes, it is necessarily not consensual. If taxes aren't raised literally but the government controls the money supply and prints new money to give to one or another, that's a tax and certainly not consensual.
To me, any piece of paper can at one point be law. But there really is no law if policy is continuously added and changed by government.
Javier, I respect your patriotism to libertarianism. However, at the expense of campaigning to demolish anything affiliated with the American government, you’ve trampled over your own perspective.
DeleteThe fundamental value of those who subscribe to libertarianism is self-ownership. Likewise, self-ownership is the fundamental value of the Declaration of Independence. Self-ownership is an “unalienable right” embedded in “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Every anarchist (e.g, Godwin, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Chomsky, etc.,) and every libertarian (e.g., Locke, Mill, Hayek, Mises, Nozik, etc.) believe wholeheartedly in those ideals. The issue, in short, is how best to realize those ideals, not the ideals themselves.
Secondly, you say, “The declaration of independence and the constitution are after all, pieces of paper.” Here again, you run the risk of shooting your perspectives down with your own arguments. In other words, to say the Declaration and the Constitution are merely “pieces of paper” overlooks unduly one of the fundamental building blocks of all societies and political ideas. The fundamental element I am referring to is intentionality. For example, I can say “libertarianism is just a thought; it has no ability to do anything in the real world.” The fact of the matter is that illocutions such as the Declaration, Constitution and libertarianism are not merely thoughts or words on pieces of paper. They are ideologies that determine how people view the world; they influence the actions of individuals and groups—essentially they are people’s intentions, worldviews, metaphysical dreams!
Lastly, your latter criticism of the Declaration is anachronistic. It is misdirected because the Declaration was declared in 1776 and the Constitution was ratified in 1789. During the 13 years in between the Declaration and the Constitution, the federal government did not exist, nor was it destined to exist. In fact, a huge fight occurred among Americans regarding the proposal of a federal government, and many of those Americans (the anti-federalists) who disdained the idea the Constitution would have chosen you to articulate their concerns.
Don’t you think that we have arrived at an interesting point: that the Declaration of Independence is common ground and a station of departure for anarchists, libertarians and liberals, democrats, republicans, conservatives, etc.?
You should take a look at how a libertarian adapted the Declaration to express libertarian sentiments at the Lugwig Von Mises Institute. I’m sure you would enjoy it: http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=310
I will clarify.
ReplyDeleteTo get very specific, I am against the idea of government. I will call it "the territorial monopoly of taxation, arbitration, and the initiation of the use of force." Why? Because none of the roles that government takes on (therefor legally excluding anyone else not holding the monopoly on it's functions) have to necessarily be territorial monopolies. So. . . is government the proper word to be used to my satisfaction as a (and this is my precise position because as you know not all anarchists are the same) Voluntaryist or Anarcho-Capitalist in the Declaration of Independence?
If membership is voluntary by the individual (as you know only individual act), it's not quite government. Do governments homestead? Individuals do/can. Can a government homestead me? Can I opt out and still stay where I am, and live by the non-aggression principle? If not, then it's no kind of independence.
Was the idea in the Declaration then, that we would establish our own territorial monopolies of taxation, arbitration, and the use of force to escape another? Does it really matter that the monopoly of government exists at a State or Federal level? Why not then a world level? In a voluntary society there is free entry and competition in security services, arbitration, defense against foreign invaders, etc. That's my moral position.
Javier, finally we have arrived at an affirmative answer to the initial questions of this thread by means of the two main values you’ve championed here, which unveiled the extent to which you share common ground with the Declaration of Independence and your point of departure from it.
DeleteYour first main point—“I believe that the beginning of ethics and morality is self-ownership followed by the recognition of private property”—is in fact the life-force of the Declaration; its primary author, Thomas Jefferson, could not agree with you more. Note here that Jefferson did demur from to applying John Locke’s ideal—“Life, Liberty, and Property.” Instead, Jefferson refined the notion of “private property” to “the pursuit of happiness.” This is a profound adaptation, about which you and I can discuss elsewhere. (Maybe we can start another post that targets the difference between the terms “private-property” and “the pursuit of happiness.” It is a distinction that everybody should make great efforts to understand.)
Your second main point from your most recent comment explains to what extent you share common ground with the Declaration of Independence. You say: “To get very specific, I am against the idea of government.” Okay—the bottom line is that you despise governments and the Declaration is against government in a qualified sense.
Nevertheless, it is evident that the Declaration, to varying degrees, expresses the sentiments for an array of citizens of our world, even for people such as yourself who do not subscribe to all its principles. I think our discussion thus far evinces the relevance of the Declaration of Independence, including sources of its life-force. Interestingly, your determination to prove it insufficient by your standards and even dismiss it supplied most of the Declaration’s fuel in this chat.
I enjoyed our exchange and would like to urge you to continue your critical search for political truths and moral normatives, with a docile mind of course.
Here is an afterthought. Javier and I during the course of our exchanges brought attention to two important concepts in the Declaration of Independence: “self-ownership” and “private property.” Are there other ideals lurking in the Declaration that are just as important? Or, are there concepts in the Declaration that are more important than or prior to “self-ownership” and “private property”? What do you think?
ReplyDelete