Liberty Lost: America's History of Slippery Slopes

Table of Contents

Author’s Notes: Foreword

Preface

Philosophical Musings

--Pilgrims & Capitalism

--The Enlightenment

----John Locke

----David Hume

----Adam Smith

--Extrapolation: Individual Rights & Government

----The Nature of Man

----Rights, society and Government

--Quotes

Prologue – 1754 to 1789

--Birth of a Nation

----War of Independence

----Articles of Confederation

----United States Constitution

----The Ratification Fight

----Bill of Rights

----Federalist Papers

--Quotes

The Plan: Blueprint of Destruction

--Hearts and Minds

--The Ideals

--The Goals

--Plan of Attack

--The Tools

----Constitutional Ambiguities

----Democratic Government

----National Treasury

----People – Religion

----People – Class Struggle/Envy

----People – Altuism

--Strategy

--Quotes

Implied Powers – 1791 to 1836

--The Plan: Goal

--Course of Events

----General Welfare Clause

----Necessary and Proper Clause

----Commerce Clause

----Early Conflicts

----Later Conflicts/Problems

--The Plan: Result

--Quotes

The End of Federalism: Physical Enforcement – 1828 to 1877

--The Plan: Goal

--Course of Events

----Cultural Divide: North vs South

----Population Divide: North vs South

----Taxation Divide: North vs South

----Early Conflicts

------Abraham Lincoln and The Republicans

----Birth of a Nation: The Confederate States of America

----The War Between the States

----The Assassination of President Lincoln

----Reconstruction

----Later Conflicts/Problems

--The Plan: Result

--Quotes

Direct Taxation Tyranny – 1861 to 1913

--The Plan: Goal

--Course of Events

----Constitutional Federal Taxation

----Early Conflicts

----Sixteenth Amendment

----Later Conflict/Problems

--The Plan: Result

--Quotes

The End of Federalism: Constitutional Enforcement – 1913

--The Plan: Goal

--Course of Events

----Steady Erosion

----Election of Senators

--The Plan: Result

--Quotes

The Plan: Mission Accomplished?

--Philosophical Musings

----The Warriors

------Ludwig von Mises

------Friedrich Hayek

------Isabel Paterson

------Rose Wilder Lane

------Ayn Rand

----Liberty and Capitalism: Inseparable Virtues

--The Plan: Adaptation

Antitrust Madness – 1890 to 1920

--The Plan: Goal

--Course of Events

----Early Conflicts

----Sherman Antitrust

----Later Conflicts/Problems

------The Clayton Act

--The Plan: Result

American Progressivism – 1901 to 1941

--The Plan: Goal

--Course of Events

----The Last of the non-Progressive Presidents?

----Progressive Theory

----Political Beginnings

------Theodore Roosevelt

------William Howard Taft

------Woodrow Wilson

------Harding-Coolidge-Hoover

------Franklin D Roosevelt

----Later Conflicts/Problems

--The Plan: Result

--Constitution for the New Deal – Satire

Federal Inflation Machine – 1910 to 1978

--The Plan: Goal

--Course of Events

----Federal Reserve Bank

------History

------Inflation as Policy

----Later Conflicts/Problems

--The Plan: Result

--Quotes

Socialism and Security – 1935 to 1979

--The Plan: Goal

--Course of Events

----Social Security

----Medicare

----Later Conflicts/Problems

--The Plan: Result

--Quotes

American Conservatism – 1950 to 1988

--The Plan: Goal

--Course of Events

----American Conservatism vs Classical Liberalism

----Transitions

----Later Conflicts/Problems

--The Plan: Result

--Quotes

The Plan – Secret Revealed

--Moral Relativism

--Moral Hazard

Total Meltdown – 1960 to Present

--Ideals and Morals revisited

--Moral Relativism Examples

----Hate Crimes

----Americans with Disabilities Act

----Public Education

----Public Transportation

----Federal Housing

----Growth of Government Unions

----Personal Responsibility

----Economy

------Budget ... We Don’t Need No Stinking Budget

--Moral Hazard Examples

----Welfare (Individual)

----Welfare (Corporate)

--Quotes

Foreign Entanglements – 1940 to Present

--Entangling

----Pre-Cold War

----Cold War: Pre-Vietnam

----Vietnam

----Cold War: Post-Vietnam

----Interests vs Friends; Pragmatism vs Emotions

--American Empire

----Worldwide Presence

----Worldwide Protector

----Empire-Like Costs (and Deceptions)

--The Plan: Result

The Plan in Perspective

Author’s Notes: Conclusion

Acknowledgements and References

Author’s Notes: Foreword

I harbor several wishes in regards to this manuscript.

First, I wish to present my case that many of the perceived problems in our nation are simply symptoms of larger systemic issues that have developed over the course of decades and sometimes centuries. Two reasons this is so critically important are:

* Expending energy and political capital on symptoms tends to use up finite resources that might better be expended battling the root problems.

* Securing victories over symptoms can satiate the desire to confront the root problems.

Second, I wish to present my case that solving our national ills requires widespread societal changes and not just simplistic victories at the ballot box. It makes no difference whether Republicans or Democrats control the Federal Government, for they both equally oversaw the creation of our problems. To believe otherwise is to ignore historical truths. In fact, a good case can be made that the best situation would be if both parties were rejected

I further intend to help Americans to understand the history of their nation’s faults as well as its virtues. Obviously we’ve made plenty of mistakes, but unless we understand those mistakes it is meaningless to say we can fix them.

Finally, I wish to explore the concept behind the United States of America. It is not enough to say that this nation is special—one needs to have a concept of what special qualities it was meant to represent. And if those qualities are not understood … then how would one ever know if we have wandered from them or if we are rediscovering them.

My goals are:

* To present my interpretation of the concepts behind the United States of America.

* To identify what I see are systemic, root problems in the American system. Their origins will be examined both in relation to history, when they first manifested themselves, and philosophically, what it is about the concepts that are being eroded.

* To put forth ways to address those root problems in a manner that is consistent with the concepts I will be presenting.

Along the way I can assure you of several things.

* I will alienate many who choose to believe the myths about the perfection of the Founding documents and the sainthood of the Founders themselves.

* I will not stick with established history-book platitudes about great American Presidents.

* I will surely draw criticism from Democrats and Republicans due to the equal disdain shown for both major political parties.

* I will most likely draw criticism from Conservatives and Liberals due to the equal disdain shown for both these ideologies, at least the ‘modern’ versions of them.

* I promise to be honest in my criticisms and always try to get my facts straight. I am not claiming to be a scholarly historian or a constitutional lawyer, and there certainly may arise legitimate questions about dates I refer to or some judicial interpretation. I can assure you I have tried to be accurate with such details.

As with most books of this genre, events are chosen to bolster the opinions I am trying to get across. Do I dwell on the multitude of choices which have made America the envy of the world? Not really. My goal is to identify and explain the causes of our national ills. There is an expectation, certainly by me, that America is supposed to be great and her people are supposed to act morally. It is the other times, the times we as a nation have really messed up, that need to be understood. Those events need to be understood before we can learn from them and hopefully try to correct them. All the good things; we should be expecting those as a matter of course. Whether—in hopes of reversing our national ills—it is of more benefit to dwell on the good or the bad is a question I’ll leave for others.

Gary W Brown

March 2011

P.S. The saying may be trite, but I think it is worth remembering: If you don’t stand for something you’ll tend to fall for anything.

If you waste your time a-talkin' to the people who don't listen,

To the things that you are sayin', who do you think's gonna hear.

And if you should die explainin' how the things that they complain about,

Are things they could be changin', who do you think's gonna care?

There were other lonely singers in a world turned deaf and blind,

Who were crucified for what they tried to show.

And their voices have been scattered by the swirling winds of time.

'Cos the truth remains that no-one wants to know.

To Beat the Devil

Kris Kristofferson, 1970

Preface

This book is the first in a series presenting ideas aimed at what will hopefully inspire an American Resurrection. Such a Resurrection will have to involve sweeping political, societal, military and economic changes to the United States.

Any discussion of a Resurrection obviously implies a downfall. Thus, this initial book will examine the first 220 years of The United States with particular emphasis on those periods in history which most affected that downfall.

The first portion of the book will go over the philosophical concepts that had the most influence on what would become the United States of America. What did it mean to be an American? Too many of our citizens have, for too long, professed a vague notion that problems exist but yet few can articulate the actual ideals this nation was founded upon. Trying to ‘fix’ the problems in such an environment is akin to trying to give someone driving directions when you have no clue where they are coming from nor where they are going.

The concepts that formed our nation were real—and revolutionary. In the final century or so leading up to the American Revolution great thinkers posed many ideas that stood the established order on its head. Freedom of the individual was introduced not just as a far-flung fantasy goal but as the basis for societies to succeed beyond anything mankind had yet experienced.

But interesting ideas would remain just that until something new could come along to nurse them from theory to practice. These ideas are collectively referred to as Liberty, and at the end of the 18th century Liberty found form in this upstart country called the United States of America. However, the ideals which guided the founders of this new country—this new experiment—were not new to them at all. We will explore the philosophical theories and writings that molded those ideals, with the goal of defining what really constituted the American experiment.

The bulk of this book will examine historical events pertaining to these ideals. Therefore, this first portion will lead up to the formation of the United States and the embodiment of these ideas.

A concept will then be introduced which is meant to change the way we look at American history. Having identified the ideals that culminated in this new nation, we will then look at how those ideals could best be undermined given the societal and political structure that was evolving in the United States. Our national history can be examined as a series of steps that strengthened those ideals of Liberty or as a series of slides down a slippery slope whereby the ideal of Liberty was continually weakened.

Conventional wisdom seems to be that our history is one of strengthening the founding ideals—with the occasional setback that must be overcome. This certainly seems the opinion taught in American schools.

However, that is definitely not the way this book portrays American history. The history of this nation—from its first administration—has been one of Liberty being lost bit by bit. The ideals that personified this nation were steadily tarnished and abandoned over the following two centuries. Distinct points in time will be discussed when original founding ideals were attacked and were, if not outright done away with, at least transformed into a mockery of their original meaning.

Individual rights implicitly possessed by right of existence morphed into individual privileges granted, and seemingly changed at will, by government decree.

A central Federal Government—limited both by a Constitution and by constrained financial resources—morphed into a near-limitless power which seemed to scoff at constraints, financial or otherwise.

The free market of capitalism, in which entrepreneurs flourished and free men peaceably traded, morphed into a system of government enforced monopolies in which political deal-making con-men flourished and once-independent men were guided towards the ‘common good’.

A foreign policy which focused on leaving other nations free to determine their own destinies mutated into a foreign policy focused on imposing the ‘American view’ of what the destinies of other nations should be.

Finally, a nation of equal states voluntarily forming a Republic was transformed into a nation of a central government that tolerates the illusion of geographic entities called states.

There were individuals attempting to fight this downfall. At the nation’s founding these individual represented Liberty. During the course of the downfall the definition of the term Libertarian (i.e. one who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state) somehow got twisted into the Orwellian definition of ‘one who opposes government protections’. During that same period the definition of the term Conservative (i.e. one disposed to preserving existing conditions) morphed from meaning a supporter of the British monarchy (1776) to a supporter of traditional U.S. founding principles (1940) to any opponent of the Democratic Party (2000). Along the way the definition of the term Liberal morphed from classical liberalism (i.e. a supporter of free markets and maximized individual liberties) to Progressivism (1900) and Statism (1940) to any opponent of the Republican Party (2000).

Later entries in this series will introduce ways to return to our founding principles. There will certainly be disagreements on the methods, but far less so if those principles are understood in the first place. There are infinite paths leading to some amorphous goal that can be defined by anyone in their own way. However, if we define the goal as that set forth in the Constitution of the United States, there are a lot less paths leading to it. By not bothering to properly understand our founding philosophies—or worse yet bastardizing those philosophies to fit our own personal beliefs and desires—we eliminate any chance of being taken seriously if we profess to ‘return’ to something we don’t even understand.

**********

Philosophical Musings

We have all heard, I hope, the saying that ‘Those who do not remember the past are bound to repeat it’. That sage wisdom is usually ascribed to the American philosopher George Santyana but the sentiment has been often expressed both before and since.

I personally find the saying ‘The best way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time’ equally relevant.

It can be debated whether the United States of America represented, at its founding, the most revolutionary societal experiment in human history. Certainly it was one of the top such social experiments.

What should not be debatable is the following: historical evidence shows that nations and empires, certainly important nations and empires, were always shaped and controlled by powerful and influential individuals, families or ruling groups. Important nations became so because of the vision and aspirations of their rulers who used the resources, mostly people, of their nations to achieve the power they sought.

That is a lesson of human history. It in no way or form dissolved because of a social experiment in the libertarian principles of limited government based on laws; of the people, for the people and by the people.

If, then, powerful entities wished to use the various resources of the new United States of America to foster their own aspirations of power they would in effect be faced with the dilemma of how best to subjugate the new nation.

A large nation.

And like an elephant, the best way would be one bite at a time.

Before specifically examining the American experience, it may prove constructive to review some of the philosophical ideas which heavily influenced what was to become the United States of America. We will do so by looking at some scenarios and individuals historically preceding the formation of The United States as an entity. Then, from those examples, as well as later philosophical theories, we will explore the concepts and ideals that appear to have had profound influences on that formation.

Pilgrims & Capitalism

It might seem strange to throw in a brief history of The Pilgrims as some sort of philosophical idea, but the circumstances of that event did exemplify a lot of what was to become the new American experience.

When the Mayflower reached the shores of what is now Massachusetts late in the year 1620 what followed was a very tumultuous, and deadly, winter. These colonists, many of which were the religious refugees from England we refer to as Pilgrims, had spent several months at sea sailing about in Europe and then crossing the Atlantic to the New World. They spent their first winter in that New World living ship-board while trying to piece together a foothold onshore.

Half of the approximately 130 colonists and crew died that first winter.

As with the few other English colonies in what would become America, the Pilgrims were organized in a communal society where essentially everyone contributed to the welfare of the entire group.

The survivors thrived, comparatively, in the spring and summer of 1621 and that Fall celebrated in a traditional European harvest festival with local Indians. We now celebrate this event as the first Thanksgiving.

The winters of 1621 and 1622, as before, proved brutal and deadly. It was becoming obvious that the small community could not long endure these feast-famine cycles.

William Bradford, at that time the Governor of the colony, decided that the existing contract regarding colony structure (called The Mayflower Compact) was not working and he instead modified it to do away with the communal economic nature of the colony and institute private property rights and a market-oriented labor system.

Each colonist was allotted his own plot of land and was allowed to keep for themselves whatever was produced from that land.

What followed over the next several years literally saved the colony.

Entire families, not always just the men, worked their land and performed other productive tasks. Families who did not grow enough food were able to trade other skills they might have, woodworking, sewing, etc, for food. Men could sell their excess labor to others in exchange for more goods or food than they might produce on their own lands. Specialization of labor and exchange of goods maximized the productivity of everyone.

Most of the colonists prospered, and did so without resorting to violence against their neighbors—a practice which has so often plagued mankind.

In short, they discovered the true meaning of Capitalism.

Now this coincided roughly with Protestant reformers such as John Calvin preaching that work, and the success it wrought, could well be considered a sign that one was a member of the ‘elect’ which were, according to Calvinism, the pre-determined favorites of God.

For most of early Christian history, work was regarded as something one had to do not only to subsist but also to ‘pay-off’ the landed aristocracy—to whom one owed physical security—and the Church—to whom one owed spiritual security. The favorites of God were usually considered those individuals who had risen above the work-to-subsist stations of life.

There were few examples from man’s past of hard work and self-reliance being enough to bring about true success. A person’s class was the main determinate in such matters. While obviously survival was the main measure of success, the other primary recipients of the fruits of diligence and hard work tended towards the kingdom and the church who demanded one’s allegiance. The range of benefits any individual could bring to himself or his family was usually fairly limited.

By the time of John Calvin, greater measurements of success were beginning to be realized by individuals as the result of their own efforts. However, the ruling aristocracies could not allow the lower classes to let this idea of success get too out of hand and they still severely limited prospects for class movement. Since part of that ruling aristocracy was the Church, Calvin’s teachings that success equated with divine favor complicated the imposition of those limits.

In an isolated continent, removed from central governmental authority, this small group of individuals we call Pilgrims had unwittingly stumbled upon an oft-suppressed innate characteristic of all humans. This fact has always been true but because it contradicted with existing power structures had always—to some extent or another—been squashed. This characteristic could best be summed up as self interest; that the strongest incentive to work is to benefit yourself—not your neighbor or ruler or church.

Thus the opening of the New World, combined with Calvinism-related ideas, proved an opportunistic turn of events. This realization that work, success and religious favor could now be seen as inter-related was profound.

The original document that these early colonists had agreed to abide by, the Mayflower Contract, was essentially a declaration that all of them would work for the common good and that their primary allegiances were to the Sovereign (King James) of Great Britain as well as the God of Great Britain.

The changes Governor Bradford instituted in 1623 effectively unleashed that tremendous power of self-interest. The small colony survived because of the recognition that the best common good comes from all members pursuing their own self interests.

For the waves of colonists who followed the Pilgrims to the Americas, this linkage of 1) work with success, 2) success with Godliness and 3) not having to be beholden to a central authority did a lot to mold later generations.

The Enlightenment

The period of time corresponding to the development and maturation of the early American experience has become known philosophically as the Enlightenment. Though the experiences in America were shaped by, and helped shape, this period in mankind’s history, the Enlightenment was certainly far more widespread than just this piece of North America.

This was a time, and it’s not so clear-cut as to what range of years we refer to here, when reason was advanced as being the source and legitimacy of authority.

For the bulk of human societies throughout history, social authority was primarily based on power and heredity. In the mid-to-late 17th century this began increasingly to change, as scientific and political discourse began to move out of the realm of the ruling elites and more to the ‘common man’.

The terms ‘common man’ and ‘freedom of thought/expression’ certainly seem very constrained when compared with the modern concepts of those terms. However, the rifts developing in those philosophical areas between the 17th and 19th centuries were monumental.

Central to this period was the rise of what became known as the ‘public sphere’. The public sphere can be thought of as separate from the state but where the legitimacy and ideals of the state were openly discussed and debated by citizens. Individuals and groups would discuss, in a more or less free fashion, the makeup and actions of the state. Examples of these idea exchanges were coffee shops, salons, town squares, newspapers, publishing houses, debating societies, parliaments, free markets and academic institutions.

Many of these concepts had vague beginnings in the ancient Greek and Roman worlds. Most of that was lost, or at least retarded, dramatically during the roughly 1200 years we refer to as the Middle Ages.

The concept of a public sphere is often affiliated with the term bourgeois, simplistically meaning middle class. There developed during this period distinct societal stratifications between a ruling elite class concerned primarily with obtaining and wielding power, a bourgeois class concerned primarily with bettering their station via the leveraging of private property rights and a working class who Karl Marx would later refer to as the proletariat.

The pecking order, if you will, went something like this.

The ruling elite controlled the apparatus which governed the state (e.g. the military, the legislative process, the state treasury, the police, the courts, etc). The more numerous bourgeois controlled the means of wealth-production (e.g. the land, the shops, the merchants, the mines, etc). The still more numerous working classes controlled usually not much more than their labor, which was primarily rented out to the bourgeois for productive purposes.

Throughout human history, the power attainment of the ruling elite increasingly shifted away from conquer-and-acquire to dependence on wealth-production by the bourgeois middle-class. Likewise, the welfare and living standards of the working classes increasingly shifted from substance-farming to employment by that same bourgeois middle-class.

It is small doubt, then, that the bourgeois would demand more say in influencing, or at least openly discussing, the makeup and actions of the ruling elites. The old elite’s grip on literally everything loosened; the public sphere widened to accommodate questioning not only by the middle classes but also by the working classes.

Thus we have this expanding public sphere with its focus on trying to apply the concepts of reason—absolutely necessary to bourgeois productivity—to understand the proper purpose and scope of governments as well as attempt to guide governments to those legitimate roles.

The Enlightenment certainly did not have just a narrow focus on the nature of Government. Profound questions were asked relating to scientific inquiry, religion’s relationship to man, the economic relationship among men and many more areas we could broadly refer to as philosophical.

Historical figures such as Thomas Hobbes, Algernon Sidney and John Locke questioned the origin, purpose and structure of governments and began asking the questions of whether societies of men even needed governments.

Relatively new (or at least more bold versions of) concepts were introduced such as capitalism, free markets, the scientific method, religious freedom, societal contracts and the nature of learning itself.

The transition, however, did not occur without conflict. Many of the questioners ended up persecuted and even killed for daring to question the authority and legitimacy of both governments and the Church. Revolutions and civil wars were fought throughout Europe as competing groups faced such arguments. In fact, the madness known as The French Revolution is often considered the endpoint of this period.

In many ways, the sons and daughters of these ‘Enlightenment pioneers’ found an accommodating home in the Americas, specifically England’s American colonies.

The early American colonists were tied to Europe in general and England in particular so much that life was not totally cutoff from the civilization they were accustomed to. But the geographic and cultural differences were great enough that they were not bound by as stringent a conduct of rules with which they philosophically ‘had issues’.

Let us examine in more detail some of the giants of The Enlightenment and the ideas they are known for, especially those who seemingly had some of the greatest influence on the thinking of those men who would later craft the Constitution of The United States.

John Locke

One of the most influential of The Enlightenment thinkers was the English philosopher and physician John Locke (1632 – 1704). He was sometimes called the Father of Liberalism; referring to his (at the time) unconventional beliefs in the importance of individual liberty.

The concept of individual liberty was radical in Locke’s time, as individuals were mainly seen as objects, possessions and tools of ‘the Crown’ and/or the ‘the Church’. Individuals were autonomous insomuch as they had to care for themselves and their families, but usually that autonomy was completely subservient to the wishes of the ruling entities.

John Locke was a great pioneer in the branch of philosophy called epistemology, or the Theory of Knowledge. Essentially, epistemology is concerned with questions such as ‘What is knowledge?’, ‘How do we gain knowledge?’ and ‘How do we really know what we know?’. Locke was especially interested in how the human mind gathered knowledge through perception and the various senses.

He was educated as a physician, but in his 40s began work on a manuscript later to be called the ‘Two Treatises of Government’. In it he argues against governments as a monarchy and for legitimizing governments based on individual consent and liberties.

In Two Treatises as well as other writings he strongly espoused the theories of individual liberty and social contracts.

Social contracts are the means by which, though mostly theory in Locke’s time, individuals organize into states and agree to trade certain of their sovereign liberties away to form governments in an attempt to gain or maintain social order. The understanding of this voluntary trade—liberties for order—needed to be codified into a binding contract. The implementation of this social contract was what would be viewed as the concept called ‘Rule of Law’.

The idea that a government would be formed by the governed and that any beneficial relationship was to be reciprocal and defined by a set of agreed-upon rules (i.e. laws) was certainly not well-received by the ruling elites of England at the time. Partly due to such ‘disagreements’ Locke fled to the Netherlands in 1683 and resided there till 1688, returning to an England that by then was a bit more tolerant of his political views.

After returning to England he promptly published his ‘Two Treatises of Government’. Also published, supposedly unknown to him, were his works ‘A Letter Concerning Toleration’ and his ‘Essay Concerning Human Understanding’.

In ‘Two Treatises of Government’, as previously noted, Locke lays out the rationale for governments being based on individual liberty.

‘A Letter Concerning Toleration’ attempted to explain how religious tolerance resulted in a more civil society than government attempts to enforce religious uniformity. The chief conclusion seems to be that the government should not involve itself in the care of souls. This conclusion would be viewed as an early call for separation of church and state. It should be noted, however, that while the logic in this work lays out well why forcing one to conform to a specific religion is not an effective societal exercise Locke himself seems to consider as unacceptable atheists and non-Christian ‘believers’. Even among Christians he was strongly biased against Roman Catholics, whom he thought no state other than Rome could really ever trust because of the Roman Papal ties.

In the ‘Essay Concerning Human Understanding’, Locke laid out in two books his theories on self-realization and knowledge. In book one he spends time debunking the idea of innate ideas, or knowledge one is born with. Instead, he was of the mind that the human mind starts out blank and everything it is to become is the result of what we perceive through our senses. Just as there are no innate ideas, he reasoned, there can be no innate principles but only those formed through our environment. In book two he expanded on all human knowledge as originating from our senses OR from our reflections and refinement of those ideas. Essentially, the accumulation of knowledge allows us to extrapolate new or modified knowledge. Locke presents arguments for the existence of an intelligent being, though he never really insisted it need be the Judeo-Christian concept of God. It is worth noting that the American Founding Fathers, most of whom were well aware of Locke’s views, often referred to God or Providence but seldom if ever alluded to any tradition Christian theology.

John Lock would come to be viewed as one of the greatest Enlightenment thinkers in general and a huge influence on the coming United States of America.

David Hume

David Hume (1711 – 1776) was a Scottish philosopher, economist and historian.

Most famous in his lifetime as an English historian, his ‘Treatise of Human Nature’ is what mainly marked him as a philosophical prodigy. Published when he was only 26, ‘Treatise of Human Nature’ was a massive three book collection of essays on acquiring and understanding knowledge, the understanding of emotions and free will followed up by an examination of morals, virtue, vice, benevolence and justice.

As with John Locke, it is thought that David Hume believed in an intelligent creator. Unlike Locke, he was largely considered an atheist because of his refusal to embrace traditional Christian theologies. This was important because being considered an atheist in 18th century Europe was detrimental to one’s chances of being taken seriously, especially in matters of human nature. In fact, being considered an atheist at that time and place often ostracized you from society completely.

Of importance to us in our upcoming analysis of the American experience are Hume’s theories about ethics, free will, determinism and political theory.

Hume believed all actions, or more precisely the motivations behind those actions, were the result of morals and ethics as opposed to reason. Reasoning alone dealt with facts and was useful not as a motivating force but in shaping how we feel about ourselves and our relationships to our environment. This ‘shaping’ is itself influenced by experiences, culture, desire for acceptance, etc. The actual motivating forces are the morals and ethics we form through experiences and cultural influences. Then, when confronted by the need to act, we make decisions based primarily on those morals and ethics as opposed to pure reasoning. This can be seen as a facet of self-realization. It also can be extended to mean that morals and ethics are more subjective than mere reasoning, since they are results of various experiences and cultural mores.

Hume believed that events were deterministic: that they are determined by an unbroken chain of prior causes (e.g. A caused B caused C caused D caused …). However, he also espoused free will as being compatible with determinism.

There were then, as there are now, two philosophical camps in this regard. Some believed that all events are deterministic and free will is impossible; what we refer to as an individual’s ‘will’ is actually pre-determined. Others, and Hume would probably fall into this camp, believed that while events are deterministic individuals exercise free will. One way he presented this idea was in distinguishing between ‘necessity’ and ‘liberty’. The actions of systems, or men, that require no conscious decision-making are necessitated, or determined, by other related events. The decisions of a man, the power to act or not to act upon an event, is determined freely if that decision is not itself forced upon him. The decision taken is influenced by both fore-knowledge of likely deterministic results as well as individual choice.

In short, according to Hume ‘free will’ and ‘determinism’ are compatible with ‘free will’ representing individual influence over the course of ‘deterministic’ events.

In matters of political theory, several of Hume’s beliefs are relevant in this discussion. These have mostly been gleaned from his several political essays, most notably the 1754 ‘Idea of a Perfect Commonwealth’.

In those essays he counseled against changing governmental structures unless current structures proved overly tyrannical. He apparently felt this way because he had little faith that any type of government would approach perfection. He was, being a renowned historian, aware and wary of religious and civil discourse in society and urged moderation in whatever form of government was adapted. He felt that a government that abided by rules, a contract between government and the governed, was more important than the actual form of government.

He indicated in ‘Idea of a Perfect Commonwealth’ several aspects he would ascribe to his idea of a perfect government, though he was explicit that the same form of government was not necessarily applicable to all societies.

A republic was preferred, with representatives being chosen only by citizens with a sufficient level of property or wealth to be considered societal stakeholders. Governmental functions should be as decentralized as feasible, powers should be strictly separated and higher officeholders should be elected by and from the ranks of the elected representatives themselves. The Swiss militia model was the preferred state defense force, primarily meaning all able-bodied men would be rotated into and out of paid militia service such that all contribute to the security of the nation.

Of the early American founders, it is believed that the only one to have known David Hume was Benjamin Franklin. However, Hume’s influence is evident in many writings having to do with formation of the United States.

Adam Smith

Adam Smith (1723 – 1790) was a Scottish philosopher and economist most known for his published works ‘The Theory of Moral Sentiments’ and ‘An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations’.

Smith entered the University of Glasgow at the young age of 14, with his primary studies being moral philosophy. This field of philosophy was focused on the moral concepts of good and evil, right and wrong, justice and virtue. From all accounts he seemed especially enamored with the related concepts of liberty, reason and free speech.

At age 17 he was awarded a prestigious scholarship to Oxford University, though by most accounts he quickly regretted that honor. He did not like Oxford near as much as the University of Glasgow, though he apparently expanded his academic sphere of studies while there. He left Oxford in 1746 but returned to Glasgow in 1751 to teach logic and moral philosophy. He remained in that position for the next 13 years.

Smith’s views closely coincided with those of the slightly older David Hume, whom he met in 1750 and with whom he remained friends until Hume’s death in 1776.

He published ‘The Theory of Moral Sentiments’ in 1759. In it he attempts to explain moral consciousness as a reaction to social interaction. People prefer to feel liked, appreciated and to feel that they are helping others; this is not only to help others per-se but because it makes one look good to society to be viewed as compassionate and moral.

According to Smith humans have a natural tendency to care about the well-being of others for no other reason than the pleasure one gets from seeing others happy. He calls this sympathy. He also felt that most people feel pleasure from being around others with the same emotions and displeasure in the presence of those with contrary emotions. Thus, people are more likely to assist others if they all share a similar emotional state.

Smith observed that people tend to respond more from being around people with shared sympathy for negative emotions than for positive emotions. When we are sad or displeased about something we expect others to respond likewise, which reinforces our interpretation of the event that made us feel that way. If others do not respond similarly, then we assume this means there is something somehow wrong with their moral reasoning. If others do not express joy at events that make us joyful, then we might wonder how they cannot be as happy as we are but seldom do we ascribe poor morals to them because of the situation.

The sympathy we feel for others is itself an expression of our feelings regarding the justness of their morals. If we feel them to be morally just then we tend to be more sympathetic to them in appropriate situations. If instead we judge them to be morally unjust then we tend to withhold our sympathies.

It is these types of observations that this moral philosophy treatise, largely a collection of Smith’s prior essays and teachings, involves itself.

But the major work history attributes to Adam Smith, and certainly the one most applicable to formative thoughts regarding the United States, was ‘The Wealth of Nations’. Published in 1776 the full title was ‘An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations’. For brevity, and to follow common convention, we shall refer to this piece of literature as ‘The Wealth of Nations’.

A major theme was that of the ‘invisible hand’, an intangible entity that guides economies in the most efficient use of resources. This can be loosely described as an early reference to what would become known as laissez-fare economics.

Smith felt that the interplay of wages, prices and return on capital investments would result in the best allocation of resources in any marketplace. He believed that productivity could be maximized by the efficient specialization, and division of, labor. Furthermore, he felt that the influence of factions, or special interests, were harmful in that their interactions usually resulted in higher prices due to unnatural wage inflation and/or government manipulation of markets.

He laid out formal definitions of accumulated wealth as being used for either immediate consumption or for revenue-generating capital.

He examined the evolution of nations from agrarian to that of commerce-driven economies between cities, towns and among nations themselves. Smith concluded that commerce among nations was the real route to prosperity and wealth, not wars and conquest.

While importation of goods (i.e. inter-nation commerce) is not to be discouraged true national wealth comes about by domestic production. Treaties allowing favored import privileges to selected nations often leads to market conditions less favorable than if all nations were allowed equal access to domestic markets.

In the final chapter of ‘Wealth of Nations’— ‘OF THE REVENUE OF THE SOVEREIGN OR COMMONWEALTH’—Adam Smith’s views regarding government taxation are stated. He felt that the rich should pay proportionately more of their wealth than the poor and also warned that all citizens needed to pay some taxes to the state so that the burden would be shared and equally felt by all.

He also pointed out that unchecked government borrowing would tend to lead to an increase in wars, since nations that were forced to tax its citizens more heavily in wartime would be less likely to engage in such activity than those who could borrow funds to pay for war expenses.

As with David Hume, we do know that Benjamin Franklin had interactions with Adam Smith during his European trips prior to the American War of Independence. Whether the American colonies were a major target of ‘Wealth of Nations’ is not clear, but several of those later to be referred to as ‘American Founders’ were early readers of this important work.

Extrapolation: Individual Rights & Government

Let us now engage in a bit of extrapolation.

Though it has been attempted many times to divine from history the intent of those men we have come to know as The Founders, I propose we do so again but from the viewpoint of the three philosophical giants we just briefly examined.

We’ll add to the resulting conjectures the wording and tone of The Constitution, which we have yet to explore directly, and some additional insights derived from a 20th-century philosophy called Objectivism.

The intent here will be to try and explain why The Founders believed as they did regarding Liberty and Individual Rights. We will then, hopefully, gain a better understanding into why they architected The Constitution in such a way as they did.

The Nature of Man

A good place to start would be analyzing the nature of Man.

Man differs from other animals primarily by his self-realization and his ability to reason. He knows that, unlike other animals, he cannot just react to situations at hand and expect to live very long. Compared to other mammals he is not overly strong or fast. He has no claws, fur, superior senses or superior agility.

He is dependent for his very existence on one primary feature; his mind.

Man acquires