The nation has very nearly died of a thousand cuts and body blows from George Bush's illegal, inhumane and financially ruinous war against the people of Iraq to his frontal assault upon the US Constitution. The beneficiary is always his elite, corporate base of multi-nationals which, in fact, dictate policy in America, Great Britain, China and the nations of Europe. The Bush government is therefore, illegitimate, because it serves --with wars and unfair fiscal policies --the corporate bosses --not the sovereign people! This radical departure from every American ideal has all been done in the name of 'conservatism'.
Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.
-John Stuart Mill
In his classic essay "On Liberty", John Stuart Mill deals with the issue of "civil liberties" -not the metaphysical issue of "free will". Mill deals with threats to liberty from within the institutions of democracy itself. This issue is especially relevant today, a time when widespread domestic wiretapping and surveillance violates the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, a measure intended to prevent the abuse of liberty by government, a measure intended to preserve the very ownership of government by people.
A time, however, came in the progress of human affairs, when men ceased to think it a necessity of nature that their governors should be an independent power, opposed in interest to themselves.
The struggle between Liberty and Authority is the most conspicuous feature in the portions of history with which we are earliest familiar, particularly in that of Greece, Rome, and England. But in old times this contest was between subjects, or some classes of subjects, and the government. ...
That (it might seem) was a resource against rulers whose interests were habitually opposed to those of the people. What was now wanted was, that the rulers should be identified with the people; that their interest and will should be the interest and will of the nation.
-- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
...creating the desire, the need, for a government "...of the people" themselves.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The preamble to the US Constitution is, arguably, the most important clause in the entire document. Historically, it must rank with the Magna Carta, establishing up front the source of US sovereignty: the people themselves. It asserts its own legitimacy and the philosophical basis for the legitimacy of government itself. It defines a revolution based upon the ideas of Montesquieu, John Locke, Rousseau and, of course, Voltaire.
As important as the preamble to the US Constitution, is the still revolutionary principle articulated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence:
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 abolish it, and to institute new governmentt, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Government is no longer "legitimate" by default or by raw power. Legitimacy and sovereignty reside with the people themselves. The apparatus of government is owned by the people and those governments violating those principles may be overthrown -by revolution, if necessary.
A special note about Voltaire is appropriate. Voltaire's life illustrates those principles that many of us growing up in a free society take for granted. Voltaire lived most of his life in or near Geneva or nearby Ferney in France. He lived always in fear of being arrested by the French regime where all power resided in the King and Church. The King's will was law made "legitimate" by "The Church" which recognized a "divine right of kings". Voltaire's France was a society in which the King supported the authority of the Catholic Church in France and vice versa. The people were controlled, however, only so long as the masses believed in both the divinity of the Church and in the "the divine right of kings". "Heretical writing" as well as his "upstart" attitude had often landed Voltaire in jail. From Ferney, he could always beat a hasty retreat into Switzerland just down the road.
The repression of dissent, of minorities, of "subversives" is nothing new. Mill reminds us of the plight of Socrates, arguably the father of Western Philosophy itself:
Mankind can hardly be too often reminded, that there was once a man named Socrates, between whom and the legal authorities and public opinion of his time, there took place a memorable collision. Born in an age and country abounding in individual greatness, this man has been handed down to us by those who best knew both him and the age, as the most virtuous man in it; while we know him as the head and prototype of all subsequent teachers of virtue, the source equally of the lofty inspiration of Plato and the judicious utilitarianism of Aristotle, "i maestri di color che sanno," the two headsprings of ethical as of all other philosophy. This acknowledged master of all the eminent thinkers who have since lived -- whose fame, still growing after more than two thousand years, all but outweighs the whole remainder of the names which make his native city illustrious -- was put to death by his countrymen, after a judicial conviction, for impiety and immorality. Impiety, in denying the gods recognized by the State; indeed his accuser asserted (see the "Apologia") that he believed in no gods at all. Immorality, in being, by his doctrines and instructions, a "corrupter of youth." Of these charges the tribunal, there is every ground for believing, honestly found him guilty, and condemned the man who probably of all then born had deserved best of mankind, to be put to death as a criminal.
- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
In a post-911 world, we simply must remember the philosophical source of our own founding. It does not serve our purpose here to pinpoint a specific time when people began to think differently about how and by whom they should be governed. However, two significant events come to mind: the signing of theMagna Carta and the English Civil War, to cite just two examples. Indeed, in 1649, in an historic assertion of the rights of Parliament, King Charles I of England was executed. According to Mill, government itself ceased to be the seat of sovereign power. More accurately, I would say that it never had been. But it required a realization by people that they had always been the sovereign. Upon this realization, "governors" ceased to be independent powers; magistrates of the State became delegates of the sovereign i.e. the people themselves. Their power was revocable, or as Simon Schama said in his "History of Britain", even a King could be "brought to book."
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. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
The aim of early libertarians was to limit the power of the ruler over those governed. Mill understood that even governments of freely elected executives and legislators often become unaccountable and, as we have seen recently, autocratic. He understood the need to limit the power of elected governments. Because even majorities can be tyrannical, Mill understood the necessity of limiting the powers that even freely elected, democratic governments, may exercise over minorities and individuals. His work is more relevant now than ever.
If minorities have rights today, due credit must be given to J.S. Mill. No society is expected to tolerate genuinely criminal behavior. But, for Mill, a free people, in a free society, may not tolerate a majority rule which seeks to interfere with or suppress minorities or non-conforming behaviors indiscriminately simply because a "majority" may be prejudiced, mis-informed, or simply tyrannical and arbitrary.
Mill understood that the democratic ideal -a government of the people - is often not the case in fact. Those exerting the power of the government -elected officials, bureaucrats, the judiciary - develop their own interests, influenced by special interests and their constituencies in ways that are at odds with the interests and liberties of individuals, minorities, or, indeed, the greater good of the society as a whole. Indeed, a majority may become tyrannical when its interests are at odds with the legitimate interests of a minority or an individual. Mill sees no difference between a tyranny of one and a tyranny of many. A majority running roughshod over the rights of individuals and minorities is no less a tyrant because it is a majority, because it is elected, or because it is elected by a majority.
What then are the powers that society may legitimately exercise over the individual?
Mill answers:
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.
-J.S. Mill, On Liberty
James Madison -called the "Father of the Constitution" -anticipated Mill's ideas in his draft of the Bill of Rights -the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Implicit in the Bill of Rights is the recognition that the power of the state is a blunt instrument. Abused, it can oppress and repress individuals and minorities alike. The Bill of Rights addresses this issue by guaranteeing "due process of law", limiting state power over individuals and groups, guaranteeing that groups and individuals may speak and worship freely.
Len Hart is a Houston based film/video producer specializing in shorts and full-length documentaries. He is a former major market and network correspondent; credits include CBS, ABC-TV and UPI. He maintains the progressive blog: The Existentialist Cowboy
I also note that the government has no power not expressly given it within the terms of the Constitution. Many of the founders opposed the Bill or Rights on the grounds the rights were inherent in the concept of "granted rights." They feared that by listing the ten rights, their heirs might misinterpret the Constitution to believe they had only these ten rights and the government retained all others, when exactly the opposite is true. The executive, legislative and judicial branches have only and exactly those rights specifically granted in the Constitution.
by
W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 329 comments)
on Thursday, June 19, 2008 at 7:06:37 PM
That is correct. However, I am glad the founders entrusted Madison with the task of drafting the Bill of Rights. Given the 'creativity' of those who oppose OUR RIGHTS, I am in favor of adding another amendment making it clear and unambiguous that government and the executive (in this case) HAVE NO MORE POWERS than those expressly described in the Constitution. Bush and his evil minions, for example, have just made stuff up for which there is no precedent in history or some 400 plus years of English common law or US Constitutional precedent.
by
Len Hart (131 articles, 173 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 546 comments)
on Friday, June 20, 2008 at 12:49:29 AM
This is why impeachment is necessary. Justice, decency, and morality, not to mention the Constitution, are crying out for Bush and Cheney's impeachment and removal(and possible incarceration). If we fail to remove these two traitors our road back to America will be made that much steeper. The administrative branch has become a dictatorship and the Congressional branch an ineffectual gelatonous blob that feeds upon itself with great self-loathing. The Judicial branch is owned by the administration lock, stock, and whatever. There is absolutely no resemblance by our current government to the one defined in the U.S. Constitution! The treason and treachery brought forth by Bush and his disciples has reduced a once great and revered nation to that of N*z* Germany or the decadent Roman Empire. Just what will it take to get Congress to pull it's head out of the Patomac and put into motion the deeds that may save our Democratic Republic? Do we all need to contribute to a fund to buy them back from who or whomever is paying them to laydown so flaccidly limp and useless? I would really like to know what is going on underneath Nancy Pelosi's "table". There are very few souls left in DC that even know what Integrity is, let alone have it!
by
Hayesml47 (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 471 comments)
on Friday, June 20, 2008 at 9:46:07 AM
4 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
The nation has very nearly died of a thousand cuts and body blows from George Bush's illegal, inhumane and financially ruinous war against the people of Iraq to his frontal assault upon the US Constitution. The beneficiary is always his elite, corporate base of multi-nationals which, in fact, dictate policy in America, Great Britain, China and the nations of Europe. The Bush government is therefore, illegitimate, because it serves --with wars and unfair fiscal policies --the corporate bosses --not the sovereign people! This radical departure from every American ideal has all been done in the name of 'conservatism'. 
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
