“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.  Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”

–Benjamin Franklin (attributed)

Thanks to the decay in our public schools and colleges, many Americans now believe that democracy is synonymous with liberty.  Most Americans also believe that our nation is and was founded as a democracy.  Unfortunately, none of this is true.  If we are going to revive our cultural understanding and embrace of the foundational principles upon which individual rights and liberty are built, it is essential that we correct this misunderstanding.  Correcting this misunderstanding starts by understanding that democracy is one of the most lethal enemies of liberty.  Allow me to intentionally use an historic event that has become emotionally charged because of the horror which grew from it.

Suppose we live in a democracy and I have just been elected the leader of the nation.  Suppose our nation is facing some sort of crisis and people are suffering.  Now suppose I come to you with the results of a new scientific study which purports to “prove” that individuals with blue eyes and blond hair are superior to all other humans and, thus, deserving of holding a higher place in society and special protections under the law.  What’s more, this same study “proves” that individuals with brown eyes and black hair are inferior and, thus, undeserving of any protection under the law.  Finally, suppose I use this “scientific” study to show that the cause of our national troubles is due to one group of people, all of whom have brown eyes and black hair and I propose that we vote to declare them to be non-humans – based on science, mind you.  And suppose that we vote and 51% of our nation votes to agree with me and make my proposal into law.  If this happened, we would have just voted to make people with brown eyes and black hair into non-humans with no rights or protections under the law.  Now you say, “People would never vote to do that,” and I agree.  But what if, after I was elected, I pointed to the crisis that was causing most of the nation to suffer and I declared an emergency and granted myself emergency powers to deal with the crisis?  And what if I then used these emergency powers to declare people with brown eyes and black hair no longer had legal rights or protection under the law, and I used my scientific study to support my action?  Either way, the “will of the people” – democracy — would have been directly responsible for taking away the rights of people with brown eyes and black hair.

Now, if you do not recognize my example, you need to research Hitler’s “Master Race,”  “Eugenics,” and the Holocaust, because this is essentially what I just described.  Now, if we equate democracy with liberty, how could we object to a vote that makes people with brown eyes and black hair into “non-humans?”  The problem becomes insurmountable if our society doesn’t pin its understanding of rights and morality to the Creator.  If that is taken away, then it is possible to create a very powerful argument that is sound, valid and rational which will also justify a vote to make people with brown eyes and black hair into non-humans.  In fact, such an argument already exists.  It is a group of philosophical ideas collectively known as Utilitarianism, and one of its primary founders, John Stuart Mill, developed one of the strongest forms of Utilitarian theory.  Mill’s moral and political philosophy is extremely tight logical reasoning, and it can easily be used to argue that Hitler’s actions were morally justified for his nation at that point in history.  It is important that we understand the influence Mill and Utilitarianism have had on the struggle to preserve man’s freedom, but we will have to address them later.  What is important to the point at hand is that you understand, unless we appeal to the Creator and Natural Rights, there is no way to argue against voting to make a brown-eyed, black-haired person into a “non-person.”   Logic can be used to show that such a vote can be viewed as totally reasonable and even moral for a given situation and time (for a fuller explanation of why this is true, please see The Limits of Logic).

Now, this is not to say that the will of a community has no role in how it governs itself because it does.  We have already determined that the willing participation by every individual within a society is what creates and defines the limits of government and its authority over that society.  Remember, Natural Rights is all about free will, and Natural Law is about how we act toward each other in regard to restricting or infringing on the free will of others.  But we also determined that there are limits on how far we can exercise our free will, and nothing can extend or suspend these limitations.  This is especially true of democracy.  In fact, in many respects, we should look at the notion of democracy as a man-made or artificial creation designed specifically to justify the violation of Natural Rights and Natural Law.  Our founders understood this threat, so they were adamant in their warnings that the popular will must be chained down so that it could not extend past its just limits under Natural Law:

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

— John Adams

“Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy; such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man’s life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable [abominable] cruelty of one or a very few.”

– John Adams  

“It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”

–Alexander Hamilton, June 21, 1788

 “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

 – Thomas Jefferson

“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.”

–James Madison

“Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths… A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”

–James Madison, Federalist Papers, the McClean Edition, Federalist Paper #10, page 81, 1788

[There is another very famous accounting of democracy condemning a man to death who had been found guiltless by the governing authorities.  It can be found by reading John 19:1-16.]

So, whenever you hear someone telling you that democracy assures individual rights and liberty, you can know that you are either listening to an ignorant person who does not understand what they are saying, or you are listening to someone who is intentionally trying to deceive you for the purposes of their own hidden agenda.  Therefore, you would be wise to hold such people and everything they tell you about democracy and liberty under suspicion.  Skepticism is often a prudent position to hold – especially where the protection and preservation of your individual rights and liberty are concerned.

[NOTE: This is the seventh in a series of posts intended to work out the principles of Natural Law. It builds off of the posts that have come before it.  If you have not already read The Natural Right to Contract, I strongly suggest that you do so before reading this post, as this post is a continuation of the former and everything that comes before it.  I also ask that you understand, while this is not technically a formal argument, neither is it a casual argument.  Thus, it is not necessarily the easiest thing to read, but then, this is because I am trying to explain some difficult concepts in a manner as easily understood as I know how.  I trust that you will bear with me.  In return, I will break the whole into smaller, more easily digested posts.]

Now that we have established a definition for Natural Rights; learned how to extrapolate them from our primary Natural Right of free will; discovered that how we act toward each other regarding these rights creates universal morality; and discussed how our natural right to contract cannot be used to give up our Natural Rights or demand that others give up theirs; and discovered how willingly agreeing to do something for another can create a personal duty to the person with whom we contracted; now we have to deal with a reality of life – there will always be people who chose to violate the Natural Law governing individual Natural Rights.  This is why we create communities, States and Nations: so that we can help each other protect our individual Natural Rights and liberty from those who would otherwise trample them.  When we do so in accordance with Natural Law, the communities, States and Nations we form are created by an extension of our individual Natural Right to contract with each other.  Taken together, we call this the Social Contract.

The Social Contract is that agreement to which every individual belonging to a given community willingly agrees in order to benefit from a collective effort which can justly be aimed at serving only one purpose: the equal protection of the individual rights and liberty of every individual party to the contract.  Essentially, a person grants the community (i.e. government) the authority to exercise certain aspects of their free will on their behalf.  Instead of exercising the individual right of self-defense, by agreeing to the Social Contract, individuals agree to set up a cooperative system of laws, courts and associated enforcement systems.  It is from this willing agreement to limit our individual free will and to grant limited authority to exercise and protect it on our behalf that all just government derives and maintains its authority over a community.  Should the government abuse its authority, the individuals who created that government retain the authority to alter, replace or abolish it through the inalienable nature of the Natural Rights.

Now, a person need not agree to the terms of the Social Contract, but that individual needs to understand that, should they choose not to agree to it, they are not entitled to any of the benefits of the contract.  They are not entitled to the benefit of whatever courts that community creates; to the mutual protection of the police, fire fighting services or any other civil assistance; to any military defense the community may organize: they are not entitled to anything that community has promised to each other as a term of the Social Contract which formed and governs it because they are not Party to the contract.  That means they have no rights under it.  At the same time, every member who agrees to the Social Contract that forms and governs their community willingly creates a Natural Right for the rest of the community against which they can justly demand the individual comply with the terms to which they agreed.  Harkening back to our last post on the Natural Right to contract, we also see that the individual creates a duty for themselves toward every member of the community as an extension of their act of free will that made them Party to the Social Contract.

In other words, if I agree to join a community, I have agreed that I will willingly do everything the contract demands of me – so long as they are in accordance with the limitations of Natural Law.  What’s more, when I agree to be Party to the Social Contract governing a given community, that act of my free will extends a Natural Right to each member of the community against which they can justly demand and even force my compliance.  This is how I become subject to the laws of that community: because I agreed to subject myself to them as part of the contract (remember, there are limits on what the contract can demand).  Finally, as an inherent part of my agreeing to be part of the Social Contract, I also create a personal duty to each member of the community.  I am bound – by Natural Law – to perform these duties to the best of my ability, whether the rest of the community does the same or not.  This is part of what it means to be a citizen: to be a self-governing equal in the maintenance and operation of a free and self-governing community and to conduct one’s self according to the Natural Law governing the behavior of every individual within that community at all times.  And, when called upon to do so, to defend the individual rights and liberty of every individual in the community, be it by participating in the civil and criminal justice system, or the community’s military organization.

Now, just as there are limitations on the Natural Right to contract, there are limitations of the Social Contract.  One cannot grant an authority through the Social Contract that an individual does not possess.  In other words, you can only give the government authority to do on your behalf that which you have an individual Natural Right to do on your own.  Nor can you agree to give up, or demand that others give up their Natural Rights as part of the Social Contract.  And most important, the whole can never become greater than the sum of its parts.  In other words, the community which is created by the Social Contract is the equal creation and servant of each individual that agreed to create it.  It owes an equal duty to every individual in the community, and is equally bound to every individual.  It can never become greater than any one person, or even the sum of every individual within the community.  The community is nothing more than the function of the Social Contract.  It is not and can never become an entity in itself, and allowing it to even be thought of in this manner is a violation of Natural Law.  When it is allowed to actually function as a living being, then that is an abomination to Natural Law which will devour Natural Rights and Liberty to feed itself.

This is the essence of the Social Contract which forms a society and grants just authority to that society’s government, and the limitations which govern the extent to which this Social Contract can reach.  In our next post, we will discuss the glue that binds this all together.

[NOTE: This is the sixth in a series of posts intended to work out the principles of Natural Law. It builds off of the posts that have come before it.  If you have not already read The Pursuit of Happiness Under Natural Law, I strongly suggest that you do so before reading this post, as this post is a continuation of the former and everything that comes before it.  I also ask that you understand, while this is not technically a formal argument, neither is it a casual argument.  Thus, it is not necessarily the easiest thing to read, but then, this is because I am trying to explain some difficult concepts in a manner as easily understood as I know how.  I trust that you will bear with me.  In return, I will break the whole into smaller, more easily digested posts.]

Now, going back to the work we did in earlier posts, we can extend our Natural Right to our free will to include a Natural Right to contract with other individuals.  Essentially, this is an extension of our free will because it is an agreement we willingly chose to make with another or other individuals who willingly agree to the same agreement in return.  Thus, the mutual agreement is entirely based on a choice freely made; on an act or exercise of free will.  But there are conditions that restrict that to which we can and cannot agree.   A failure to understand these restrictions will inevitably lead to the creation of many avoidable problems, the same sort of problems from which our society now suffers.

First, we must remember that our Natural Rights are inalienable.  Because they are a gift from the Creator and are as much a part of who we are as individuals as anything else, we can never agree to surrender our Natural Rights.

“If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of Almighty God, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.”

–Samuel Adams

If your will is the essential element of who and what you are as a person, how can you agree to give up your will?  That is impossible.  Even if you were to sell yourself into slavery, your will would remain yours and yours alone.  Even if you kill yourself, your will would still remain (albeit, it would remain in whatever condition it may be subject to after we depart this world).  Therefore, it is a violation of Natural Law to agree to give up something that is not yours to give up, and which you couldn’t give up even if it were.  Conversely, you cannot require another individual to give up their Natural Rights for the same reason.  To do so is not only as impossible for them as it is you, but also a claim against their Natural Rights, which would be a twofold violation of Natural Law.

Now that we have established that we cannot willingly agree to give up our Natural rights, nor demand that another individual give up theirs as part of an agreement, there is something to which we can agree: to willingly limit the extent to which we will exercise those Natural Rights.  As long as we agree – before hand – then we can voluntarily agree to limit the extent or degree to which we will exercise our Natural Rights in relation to another group or individual in return for something we find to be of equal or greater value than the full limits of our Natural Rights.  This is the foundation of all human interaction and economic trade.

But notice the primary requirement for a contract to be in agreement with Natural Law: it must be a willing agreement freely entered into by all parties to which it applies.  If there is any coercion on the part of any party involved, it is a violation of Natural Law.  Any time an individual is forced to do something against limits of their will as defined by Natural Law, it is a clear violation of that same Natural Law.  In other words, if I am forced to agree to limit the extent that I can grow food to sustain my body and life, and thus my free will, then this is a violation of Natural Law.  However, since I cannot use my free will to force another person not to grow their own food, if I was forced to leave that person alone so they could grow the food they need, this application of force against my will would not be a violation of Natural Law because I do not have a Natural Right to trample on the Natural rights of others.  This is the foundation of universal morality, from which the understanding of all human justice is derived.

Finally, after when two or more individuals willingly entered into a contract, they create an obligation for themselves to fulfill the terms of that contract – even if the other party or parties do not.  Once you have agreed to do something that does not involve giving up or demanding the Natural Rights of another person, you have given the other parties of that agreement a just claim to whatever you agreed to do, and they have given a similar claim to you.  However, you may not exercise that right to claim whatever you agreed to unless or until you have met your part of the obligation.  It is only by meeting your part of the obligation that you cement your claim.  Once you do so, it then becomes a Natural Right because you have used your free will to direct your labor to the purpose for which it was agreed.  Once again, your labor – as an act of your free will – is the means by which you obtain a Natural Right to your part of the agreement.  This is a crucial point that we need to understand, but it is a difficult point for many of us to understand because we have not been taught to think in these terms.  So I will try to illustrate it for you.

Suppose you agree to grow pineapples for me if I will make hoes for you in return.  We both agree to the exchange and enter into the pact of our own free will.  At that point, I have a claim to the pineapples you agreed to grow, and you have a claim to the hoes I agreed to make.  However, until I actually make a hoe for you, I do not have a Natural Right to the pineapples I promised: all I have is a just claim to them.  But once I use my labor to make the first hoe, then I have a Natural Right to the pineapples you promised in return because I used my labor to do something intended to sustain my life.  Furthermore, because I willingly entered into an agreement – as an act of my free will – I imposed an obligation of myself to make the hoe.  Even if you break your end of the deal and do not grow any pineapples for me, or you refuse to trade them in return for the hoes I make, when I willingly agreed to our contract, and I did so with the understanding that you were making the agreement to help sustaining your life.  So, because our Natural Rights are ultimately the property of our Creator, whether you keep my part of the contract or not, once I agree to do something to help you sustain your life, I am obligated to do so by my duty to our Creator and because I agreed to help you in a way you intended to sustain your life.  Not to do so would be a threat to your life and, therefore, a threat to your free will.  This would constitute a violation of your Natural Rights and Natural Law.  This is why we should be careful to make sure we understand what we agree to do for one another and why, if we do agree — no matter what the other party does or doesn’t do — we must do what we promised: because we gave them a Natural Right to our part of the agreement by exercising our free will and agreeing to do so.

This is a complicated point, and I will write a supporting post to help clarify it more because it is essential we understand the Natural Right to contract.  It is the foundation of any free society because it is the foundation for the Social Contract, which will be the subject of my next post.

With my recent post on the RNL, I thought it might be appropriate to post a quick welcome to those of you just finding my blog.  This blog page is dedicated to teaching the fundamental principles of individual rights and liberty: Natural Rights, Natural Law and the Social Contract.

Unless it is cited otherwise, everything you find on this page is my original work.  It builds on and off of the work done by far greater thinkers than I, but it contains is based primarily on my own reasoning and understanding of the concepts I discuss.  I plan to keep building on this page.  The hope is that, eventually, this will not only become a useful place to learn about the principles of liberty, but also a trust resource for doing further research into our nation’s history and heritage.

I hope you will find some value in my efforts.  If you do, then I ask that you please help me spread the word by sharing this page with your friends and family.  Please, feel free to comment and, if you like, re-post anything you find here.  All I ask is that you cite the source and, if you wouldn’t mind, link back to this page.  Thanks 🙂

[NOTE: This is the fifth in a series of posts intended to work out the principles of Natural Law. It builds off of the posts that have come before it.  If you have not already read Rights Bubbles: the Origin of Universal Morality, I strongly suggest that you do so before reading this post, as this post is a continuation of the former and everything that comes before it.  I also ask that you understand, while this is not technically a formal argument, neither is it a casual argument.  Thus, it is not necessarily the easiest thing to read, but then, this is because I am trying to explain some difficult concepts in a manner as easily understood as I know how.  I trust that you will bear with me.  In return, I will break the whole into smaller, more easily digested posts.]

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.—

To this point in our construction of Natural Right and natural Law, we have been able to deduce that we have a Natural Right to our Life and our Liberty, as Jefferson so eloquently stated in the Declaration of Independence.  But what did he mean by “the pursuit of happiness?”  If he intended this phrase to mean we have a Natural Right to pursue emotional pleasure, then, according to the principles we have developed thus far, this would contradict with the Natural Rights of others to their Lives and Liberty.  So we shouldn’t be too quick to assume this is what Jefferson and our founders meant.  Rather, we should go back in history and look closer at what these men understood this phrase to mean.  But first, let’s look at a couple definitions, because they will be key to understanding Jefferson true intention.

Let’s start with:

Definition of MORALITY

2a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct

b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct

3: conformity to ideals of right human conduct

4: moral conduct : virtue

That last definition for morality holds the key to understanding what Jefferson was saying:

Definition of VIRTUE

1a : conformity to a standard of right : morality

b : a particular moral excellence

3: a beneficial quality or power of a thing

4: manly strength or courage : valor

5: a commendable quality or trait : merit

Therefore, a virtuous life is a life spent in the pursuit of building a moral character; of pursuing what is right; doing the right thing – especially when it is difficult or comes at a personal price.  This was considered to be the highest aspiration one could hope to achieve in life by the Greeks, and by many of the men who so heavily influenced the thinking of our founding fathers.

To better understand this, we need to understand that “the pursuit of happiness” – in this sense, the sense of pursuing a moral and virtuous life – was actually a legal concept in our founders’ time.  I wrote about it in more detail here, but the foundation of this legal principle can still be found in the writings of the most respected and most influential legal mind of our founders’ time, Sir William Blackstone.

From Blackstone’s Commentaries:

When the Supreme Being formed the universe, and created matter out of nothing, he impressed certain principles upon that matter…  When he put that matter into motion, he established certain laws of motion…  If we farther advance to vegetable and animal life, we shall find them still governed by laws;…  [The operations of inanimate and organic processes] are not left to chance, or the will of the creature itself, but are performed in a wondrous involuntary manner, and guide by unerring rules laid down by the Creator…  Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his creator, for he is an entirely dependent being…  And consequently as man depends absolutely upon his maker for every thing, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his maker’s will.  This will of his maker is called the law of nature.

Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765)

 The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures…  These precepts…are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature,…  As then the moral precepts of this law are indeed of the same original with those of the law of nature…the revealed law…is the law of nature expressly declared to be so by God himself;…  Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws…the law of nature and the law of God…

Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765)

In this context, the pursuit of happiness is the pursuit of the moral and virtuous life; a life lived in agreement with Natural Law.  As only the moral and virtuous life leads to a deep and lasting happiness that can pierce through even the temporary pains of emotional trouble or distress.  It is the life of putting duty to others and to society before one’s personal desires; of seeking truth and wisdom; and of reaching above, of transcending our base animalistic nature to become the best than humans can be.  This is in perfect agreement with the understanding of Natural Rights and Natural Law that we’ve developed so far, and I contend that this is what Jefferson and our founding fathers actually intended when they wrote those words (I write a bit more about the value of the virtuous life here).

[NOTE: for an excellent exposition of the historic development of this and other related concepts, please see Chapter 2 of Gary T. Amos’s book, “Defending the Declaration.”]