| | Like much else that Professor Machan posts here, the lead essay evidences no analytical thought, but only repeats glib generalities known in advance to be approved of by the readership. The lead essay is an example middle-of-the-road libertarian sentiment.
It is easy to quibble with the sophomorisms. "...throughout most of human history a great deal of wealth was not created by those who held it but confiscated from those who created it, too often at the point of a gun." Guns did not exist for most of human history. If those who "hold" wealth do nothing with it, is it still "wealth"? That is an interesting question. Following the so-called "Panic of 1857" the Chemical Bank stopped paying interest on demand accounts. The bank considered the cost of storage and delivery to be greater than the utility of the cash on hand. Was this gold "wealth" or not? If the bank lent it out, then, it was, even though it was "held" and not "paid for." On the other hand, a Dark Ages warlord with a pit full of Roman plateware certainly held gold and silver, but was that "wealth"? That paradigm, I think, was Dr. Machan's point -- an easy one to accept, but again, without insight and poorly stated, something I expect to read from a second-year college student, rather than from an emeritus professor of philosophy.
Dr. Machan wrote: Those who wrote the Declaration of Independence put the idea of monarchy to rest, buried it, in fact, because they realized it was based on a vicious misunderstanding of human nature. It rested on the notion that some people are good enough to govern others without the consent of those others. This idea of innate elitism was supposed to be abandoned in America. Lincoln put the point in crystal clear terms: "No man is good enough to govern another man, without that other's consent."
Again, this might be fine for a high school senior competing in a contest to write a patriotic essay. However, the fact is that George III ruled by agreement with Parliament. His grandfather had been hired. His father and he both were invested by Parliament before they could assume office. The complaints of the colonists were, in fact, two-fold. The king had overstepped his authority as they understood it from the Bill of Rights of 1689. More to the point, they were being denied their rights as Englishment to elect representatives to Parliament. That was the deeper issue.
Moreover, today, in law, we do not recognize the right of one person grant privilege of assault to another. Specifically, once the police are called, the battered spouse cannout say, "It's all right." This came up in a landmark court case in which a battered spouse attempted -- on appeal! -- to claim just that. If that makes perfect sense to you -- and it shouldL you cannot consent to your own assault -- then, what can be the "consent of the governed"? Can we ever give consent to another person to rob us... to "rule" us? Dr. Machan seems not to understand the inherent contradiction in his bland statement.
The Declaration of Independence set down the reasons why some American colonists wanted to "alter or abolish" their government. It had nothing to do with "goodies from the federal government." In fact, it has been cogently argued by some, such as Charles Beard, that if the so-called "Founding Fathers" had actually enjoyed more of that regal largess themselves, they would not have revolted. It is an interesting theory. Perhaps Dr. Machan would like to address it... after really doing some research.
|
|
