Some Stanford professor who claims to be an expert in our nation’s founding documents has published his thoughts on the founders and their concept of individual rights.
The claim here is that when the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence, they did not intend it to mean individual equality. Rather, what they declared was that American colonists, as a people, had the same rights to self-government as other nations.
Bullshit. This is easily disproven by the words of the Declaration itself. Look at the sentence that they are referring to:
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.
If Thomas Jefferson were talking about the collective rights of the colonists to self government, then why would he refer to their creator?
If this asshat knew anything about our founders at all, he would know that the founders relied heavily upon the philosophies of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes.
First there was Thomas Hobbes, who had some ideas about humans and the need for government:
- The natural state of mankind (the “state of nature”) is a state of war of one man against another, as man is selfish and brutish.
- The way out of the “state of nature” is a “social contract,” to be agreed upon by the people to be governed and the government.
- The ideal form that government should take is an absolute monarchy that has maximum authority, subverting mankind’s natural state and creating societal order in the process
Johnn Locke took the ideas of Hobbes and came up with some ideas of his own. Locke’s Second Treatise is centered around three ideas.
- What characteristics of the state exemplify its legitimacy?
- What is the role of the state?
- What is the citizen’s role in the state?
Locke was greatly concerned with the preservation of natural born rights and the protection of accumulated wealth in the form of property. He stressed that the role of the state is to protect each individual from the will and desires of others.
For Locke, the overthrow of King James II in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 showed how governments and people should behave. He developed a philosophy that emphasized three points:
- The natural condition of mankind is a “state of nature” characterized by human freedom and equality. Locke’s “law of nature”—the obligation that created beings have to obey their creator—constitutes the foundation of the “state of nature.” However, because some people violate this law, governments are needed.
- People voluntarily give government some of their power through a “social contract” in order to protect their “natural rights” of life, liberty, and property.
- If a government fails to protect the natural rights of its citizens or if it breaks the social contract, the people are entitled to rebel against the government and create a new one.
It was this basic foundation upon which the founders, especially Jefferson, intended to build a nation. The idea was that the sovereign was to be distributed amongst the people themselves. By distributing the power of the sovereign, it would be more difficult for any one person or coalition to abuse that power.
If this asshat academic from Stanford had any knowledge of Lock, classic liberalism, or Hobbes, he would know that. My guess is that he DOES know it, but is a collectivist who wants to take away individual rights and sees his bully pulpit as a way to do that. The only logical conclusion that I can draw is that this so called scholar is a liar and a fraud.
Let’s do a bit of research to see if I am correct. The scholar in question is a man named Jack Rakove. First: the man is no longer a faculty member of Stanford.
Second, to understand him, all you have to do is refer to this interview:
Eugene Volokh: First of all, it would have been so easy for the framers to say the right of the states to keep and bear arms, or the right of the militia. They didn’t. They said the right of the people. Again, right of the people appears in the First Amendment.
Jack Rakove: But they–they–they could as eas–easily have said the right of individuals.
Like I said- collectivist. If you read what he wrote, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the right of the people to be secure in their persons and effects, the right of the people to peaceably assemble are all collective rather than individual rights. That is, as long as some individuals have the ability to assemble, to bear arms, or to be secure in their persons and effects, that is just fine and dandy.
This guy is the kind of “scholarly expert” who will be explaining to us how the government can lock us in our homes, because as long as some of the “people” are permitted to attend birthday parties in Martha’s Vineyard, we are all free and the government is perfectly legitimate.
It will soon be time to test the limits of exactly why the Second Amendment is there, and why the people have the ability to alter or abolish the forms to which they have grown accustomed.