The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewAndrew Napolitano Archive
The Values Underlying Independence Day
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The Declaration of Independence — which was signed on July 3, 1776, for public release on July 4 — was Thomas Jefferson’s masterpiece. Jefferson himself wrote much about the declaration in the 50 years that followed.

Not the least of what he wrote offered his view that the declaration and the values that it articulated were truly radical — meaning they reflected 180-degree changes at the very core of societal attitudes in America. The idea that farmers and merchants and lawyers could secede from a kingdom and fight and win a war against the king’s army was the end result of the multigenerational movement that was articulated in the declaration.

The two central values of the declaration are the origins of human liberty and the legitimacy of popular government.

When Jefferson wrote that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, he was referring to the natural law. The natural law teaches that right and wrong can be discerned and truth discovered by the exercise of human reason, independent of any commands from the government. The natural law also teaches that our rights come from our humanity — not from the government — and our humanity is a gift from our Creator.

Even those who question or reject the existence of the Creator — was Jefferson himself among them? — can embrace natural rights, because they can accept that our exercise of human reason leads us all to make similar claims. These claims — free speech, free association, free exercise or non-exercise of religion, self-defense, privacy, and fairness, to name a few — are rights that we all exercise without giving a second thought to the fact that they are natural and come from within us.

The view of the individual as the repository of natural rights was not accepted by any governments in 1776. In fact, all rejected it and used violence to suppress it. To the minds of those in government in the mid-18th century, the king was divine and could do no wrong, and parliament existed not as the people’s representatives but to help the king raise money and to give him a read on the pulse of landowners and nobility.

Jefferson and his colleagues had no difficulty breaking from this type of ancient regime. Unlike the French, who destroyed their monarchy, the American colonists seceded from theirs — and they did so embracing natural rights. Regrettably, they did not recognize natural rights for African slaves or for women. We all know and profoundly lament the sorry history of those errors.

The idea that each human being possesses inherent natural rights by virtue of one’s humanity is not just an academic argument. It has real-life consequences, which Jefferson recognized. Those consequences are implicated when government seeks to curtail rights for what it claims is the protection of another’s individual rights, the common good or the good of the government itself.

Jefferson recognized that you can consent to the curtailment of your rights but you cannot consent to the curtailment of mine. To Jefferson, government can take away your rights without your consent only if you have violated someone else’s rights.

ORDER IT NOW

Surrendering rights is also implicated in the second radical idea that underscores the Declaration of Independence. It is the concept that no government is valid unless it enjoys the consent of the governed. This, too, was unheard of in 1776, because British kings did not claim consent of the governed as the basis for legitimacy.

Yet consent of the governed is perfectly consistent with natural law. Under natural law, what is yours is yours and what is mine is mine. If I attempt to take your land or car or cellphone, you can stop me, either directly or through the government we have both consented to. If one of us has not consented to the government’s existence, it can still enforce natural rights as the agent of the person whose rights are being violated — just as it does for bank depositors when it captures a bank robber.

This idea of consent of the governed was a serious issue in the days and years following July 4, 1776, because about one-third of the adults living in the United States in the last quarter of the 18th century remained loyal to the king of England after the Revolution, and they did not consent to the new popular form of government that took the British government’s place. The new government was thrust upon them without their consent.

The last letter Jefferson wrote was to his enemy-turned-friend John Adams, in anticipation of the 50th anniversary of the declaration — a day on which both Jefferson and Adams would die. In that letter, Jefferson argued that the greatest achievement of the declaration was its arousing men to burst free from the chains imposed upon them by superstition and myth by bringing about a recognition of their individual rights and an embrace of self-government.

Today the Jeffersonian ideals of individual natural rights and government’s legitimacy’s being conditioned upon the individual consent of the governed have themselves become myths.

In Jefferson’s day, the voters knew all that the government did, and it knew nothing about them. Today government operates largely in secrecy, and it knows our every move and captures our every communication.

In Jefferson’s day, the government needed the people’s permission to tax and regulate them. Today the people need the government’s permission to do nearly everything.

Do you know anyone who has consented to the government? Do you know anyone who could avoid the government by not giving consent? Do you consent to the government by voting? Do you consent to the government if it is run by those you voted against? Did you consent to a government that steals liberty and property and prosperity and gives them away?

Happy Fourth of July.

Copyright 2018 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by Creators.com.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Constitutional Theory 
Hide 9 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Biff says:

    Do you know anyone who has consented to the government?

    Practically every American like sheep to the wolves. It’s all freedom baby!

  2. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:

    And just who declared independence? Thirteen specified colonies that, although convened in the Second Continental Congress, made plain that they were henceforth 13 sovereign and independent states.

    But Mr. Napolitano, as has become clear around here, serves those trying to run this country and the world from Washington. That’s why he obscures the history and text of the document.

    • Replies: @Svigor
  3. Svigor says:

    One thing I’ve been thinking about is how, if the Founders had believed that “indivisible” scheisse in the socialistic statist “pledge of allegiance,” we’d still be part of Britain.

  4. Svigor says:
    @anonymous

    Just another Yankee running dog. Nothing new there.

  5. Miro23 says:

    In that letter, Jefferson argued that the greatest achievement of the declaration was its arousing men to burst free from the chains imposed upon them by superstition and myth by bringing about a recognition of their individual rights and an embrace of self-government.

    The problem today, is that self-government is hard work. The self-governed (i.e. the public) have to dedicate time to studying issues, get unbiased information and paid time off work + attend local meetings with voting in specially prepared and funded local venues with real local power. In other words, Washington needs to support and enable a reduction of its own power through the acceptance of local voting, taxation and spending.

    It’s not going to happen because 1) the US public is too lazy 2) the US Deep State will attack real US Democracy in every way possible to protect its own central power.

    The conclusion seems to be that either the US breaks up into separate political units (US Confederation) , converts into a Neo-Bolshevik PC dictatorship (Soviet) or descends into violent anarchy with an economic collapse (Weimar). The first option is obviously the best but I doubt that US citizens have the ability to organize themselves locally.

  6. Meh! The Declaration is a propaganda piece, designed to win adherents to the overthrow of overlords who were taking too much of a cut of money that should have stayed local. After 1783, meet the new boss, in 1787 same as the old boss … there was nothing revolutionary about the Constitution.

  7. We’ll use the Libertarian’s working definition of consent, as they apply it to employee-employer relationships.

    Libertarians say that if you stay at a place of employment, as long as you’re free to leave, you’re consenting to the rules of the employer.

    Likewise, if you stay in America, as long as you’re free to leave—which you are, America isn’t North Korea or Cuba keeping people from leaving—you’re consenting to the rules of the government.

  8. The Mexicans enjoy the 4th. I think it’s the fireworks.

  9. I don’t know who I would prefer being lectured by concerning muh Values, muh Constitution , muh Founding Fathers, muh Declaration of Independence– Andy Napolitano or Dinesh D’Souza.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Andrew Napolitano Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.