Question #7: What are “legitimate foundation” and “legitimate authority” in political philosophy?
June 24, 2008 by Stephen Palmer · Leave a Comment
| 10 Foundational Questions | Introduction | Question #1 | Question #2 | Question #3 | Question #4 | Question #5 | Question #6 |
“The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of the consent of the people. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority. –Alexander Hamilton
Simply put, legitimate foundation means the will of the People at large, while legitimate authority is the express permission granted by the People to the government to perform some function.
Put together, they form the philosophical foundation of the powerful idea that man does not exist for the state, but that the state exists for man.
Legitimate Foundation
The idea that the government should exist according to the will of the People and solely to benefit the People at large was revolutionary in the 18th Century. Previously, governments primarily benefited those governing, or special interests.
The American Founders taught that the will of the People, as expressed through constitutional means, is the only solid, sustainable, and legitimate foundation of republican government.
This does not mean, however, that they were referring simply to the concept of majority rule alone, as we learn from Federalist Paper #51; the idea is to guide the nation by the will of the majority, while protecting minority rights (i.e. preventing the majority from taking private property).
Legitimate Authority
Thomas Jefferson spoke of legitimate authority in the Declaration of Independence when he wrote, “…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…”
The United States Constitution was the first (and to my knowledge the only) constitution to be instigated by, or to have originated in, the People, then ratified by the People. In other words, the People, through their colonial representatives, called for the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Representatives at the Convention represented the People within their respective territories–not the government itself.
They were authorized by the People to do the will of the People. Our Constitution was initiated and created from the bottom up, rather than dictated from the top down. Then, after its creation by the representatives of the People, the Constitution was taken back to the People–once again through their colonial representatives–to be ratified, or accepted.
Previously, the historical norm was for the government–whether through a monarchy, aristocracy, or other form of ruler’s law–to dictate from the top down the laws and constitutional forms that the People must obey. As David Hume wrote in 1752, “Almost all the governments which exist at present, or of which there remains any record in story, have been founded originally either on usurpation or conquest or both, without any pretense of a fair consent or voluntary subjection of the people.”
Why It Matters
To drive the point home with these critical concepts, think of Read more
Question #2: What are the differences between unalienable and civil rights?
June 5, 2008 by Stephen Palmer · Leave a Comment
| 10 Foundational Questions | Introduction | Question #1 |
According to Unalienable.com, “The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.
“By the ‘absolute rights’ of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the ‘absolute rights’ of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.”
In short, unalienable rights are the rights every individual has whether in or out of society. In other words, if you live alone in the wilderness, do you have an unalienable right to “free” health care? Obviously not. Do you have an unalienable right to till the ground and produce food, to build a house, to pursue your own happiness? Of course.
Civil rights are rights granted by the State that are not unalienable. Civil rights include such things as the right to drive and the right to vote. Civil rights are legitimately created (at least as long as they are aligned with Natural Law) by the society to maintain peace, order, and security.
Why It Matters
A person who believes that man’s rights come from human sources does not differentiate between unalienable and civil rights. To her, all rights are civil, meaning they are granted by the State. Without this fundamental understanding, no rights are sacred and unalienable–all rights can be revoked upon a majority vote or dictate. This is why we hear politicians claiming such things as “health care is a right.” A person who believes that health care is a right believes that the State can give and take away rights based on a majority vote or the whims of its leaders.
Question: Does taxation encroach upon unalienable rights?
Move the Cause of Liberty by (1) subscribing to the Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and (2) pledging your Life, Liberty, and Sacred Honor to the Cause by signing the Declaration of Dependence.
Email This Post
Copyright © 2008 by The Cause of Liberty. All rights reserved.
Palmer. Copyright 2008. All rights reserved.
America is NOT a democracy?!
January 25, 2008 by Stephen Palmer · Leave a Comment
Over the last century, politicians have exploited the word democracy to achieve misguided and subversive ends; we commonly hear our nation referred to as a democracy, which is self-evidently false.
The founders understood what Aristotle taught, that democracy is one of the worst forms of government. As James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper #10, “…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 deaths.”
To guard against the dangers of democracy, our Constitution wisely instituted a republic, a system of government that calls for a small number of citizens, elected by the citizenry at large, to represent the interests of the people by whom they are elected. The effect, according to Madison, is to “…refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.”
America is a republic, not a democracy, and understanding this one fact alone will help us to significantly transform and improve our culture.
Move the Cause of Liberty by (1) subscribing to the Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and (2) pledging your Life, Liberty, and Sacred Honor to the Cause by signing the Declaration of Dependence.
Email This Post
Copyright © 2008 by The Cause of Liberty. All rights reserved.
Sex & Meth Offender Registries: Unconstitutional & Misguided
January 24, 2008 by Stephen Palmer · 1 Comment
State sex and meth offender registries are clear indications that America is progressively forgetting its constitutional heritage and choosing legalistic security over freedom and virtue. In a recent USA Today article, Donna Leinwand reported that, “States frustrated with the growth of toxic methamphetamine labs are creating Internet registries to publicize the names of people convicted of making or selling meth, the cheap and highly addictive stimulant plaguing communities across the nation. The registries–similar to the sex-offender registries operated by every state–have been approved within the past 18 months in Tennessee, Minnesota and Illinois.”
Although the registries are almost universally considered to be expedient, they are clearly bills of attainder, which are Read more
-
Free Newsletter Subscription
Subscribe to The Sentinel, a free weekly newsletter boldly illuminating the principles of freedom in a darkening nation, and receive two free gifts. Your personal information will never be shared.
Subscribe To The Cause Of LibertyPolls
Loading ... Loading ... Loading ...