Teacher: According to the Declaration, what two truths are self-evident?
Student: All men are equal, and they all have certain unalienable rights.
Teacher: What does self-evident mean?
Student: It means that something is obvious. That a person needs no special education to understand it, that even a small child could understand it.
Teacher: Is it really self-evident that all men are equal and that they have certain unalienable rights?
Student: Well, I'm not sure grossly deformed embryos or people with little chance of surviving long without heroic efforts are the same as normal people. I'm not as sure that criminals who have violated other people's rights have the same rights as innocent people. There is a fuzzy line, but if you ask me if murdering an Australian in Australia is as significant as murdering an American from Kansas . Yes, some things are well on one side or the other of that wide fuzzy line.
Teacher: What does it mean that all men are created equal? Does it mean that all men can play basketball as well as Karem Abdul Jabar?
Student: No. I think it means people should be treated fairly, that one group should not be discriminated against while another group is given special privileges. For example, if a rich man commits a crime, then he should get the same punishment as a poor man.
Teacher: If it is so obvious and self-evident that all men are equal, then why do we have such a complicated court system to find out when people's rights have been violated? Why did we have to fight a war with Great Britain to prove our point? Why am I still arguing with Ed and others on this board about them?
Student: I think some things, as I indicated awhile ago, are not self-evident. Some things are controversial and require a great deal of education to unravel. Human beings will never have all the answers, but some things are obvious. Jefferson meant that even a child has some sense of what is right and wrong. The line gets fuzzy, but some things are definitely on one side of the line or the other. The kind of things Great Britain was doing to us were self-evidently unfair. With the Stamp Act, the Quartering Act, the Tea Act, Mercantilism, and a number of things; Great Britain was not treating us equally.
Teacher: Now would you like to explain that a little more for the benefit of cynics who think perhaps we are just rationalizing our actions against Great Britain , that perhaps they weren't so bad but we just put our little spin on things?
Student: I wouldn't like to have soldiers move into my home and require me to take care of them under the excuse that they are there for my protection? The real reason was that they did not wish to build barracks, and it was also be a good way to watch us, to make sure we say or do nothing which can be critical to the controlling government They confined our movement to this side of the Proclamation Line of 1763, even if we've already staked out land west of it and made friends with the Indians, and they exploited us for the benefit of the mother country by restricting trade through mercantilism. They were paying us for lumber and raw goods but selling it back to us as finished products at a higher price than we paid for it. Since we could not trade with others, we were basically being used as cheap labor and a captive purchasing market. Basically, we were imprisoned, slave labor, and had no freedom of speech to complain about it. Even newspapers had to be censured because they required that government stamp. Of course wealthy, white, male landowners could vote, but those who would most like to make changes were not allowed to vote. That was not a situation where the value of all humans' lives was equally respected.
Teacher: Okay, can you tell me what unalienable means?
Student: It comes from the word alien, which means strange or foreign or unnatural. If you have an alien object in your milkshake, then you have something that is not naturally there. If you feel alienated, then you feel strange, uncomfortable, or unnatural. Alienable means unnatural. Unalienable means not unnatural.
Teacher: Do all people have natural rights, even those people in Russia, El Salvador, Iran, China, Afghanistan, South Africa, and other places?
Student: Until I came to this class, I would have said no, that only people in America have natural rights. However, natural rights are human rights, necessary conditions of existence for the proper survival of human beings, and as long as people anywhere are human beings, they have natural rights. It could be that many governments are not protecting natural rights, but that does not mean people do not have these rights. They have them by virtue of being human, not by getting them from governments.
Teacher: Okay, we'll talk about the function of governments soon, but can you tell me first what our natural rights are according to the Declaration?
Student: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Teacher: Well, what does that mean? If I have a right to the pursuit of happiness, and it makes me happy to rape my neighbor's wife, then do I have a right to do that?
Student: No.
Teacher: Why not?
Student: Because all men are created equal and all men have equal rights, and you cannot have a right to violate somebody else's right. If we should all have the same rights, then we should have the right to do anything we want as long as we do not step on other people's toes.
Teacher: Do you have a natural right to medical care?
Student: No. Medical care is the product of somebody else's services. If I have a right to medical care, then I am making a slave out of those who provide that care, depriving someone else of the right to do what he or she wants with his or her services. Medical care is a privilege.
Teacher: What is the difference between a right and a privilege?
Student: A privilege is something somebody may give me but a right is something I can demand because it is already mine. I have a right to apply for a job, and I have a right to a job if somebody hires me. But, I do not have a right to demand that somebody hire me.
Teacher: What is the difference between a natural right and a legal right?
Student: Natural rights are, as I explained before, necessary conditions of existence for human survival. Legal rights, like the Miranda rights or the rights under the Bill of Rights, are given to us by governments to protect our natural rights.
Teacher: Now, according to the Declaration, what is the function of government? Why are governments formed?
Student: To secure or protect the natural rights.
Teacher: According to this, do you have a duty to your government, or does your government have a duty to you?
Student: I have a right to the pursuit of happiness, and the government has a duty to protect that right. This has to do with the function of the government. It is there to serve the people, not the other way around.
Teacher: Then why do we sometimes have things like the draft, which seems to be a violation of individual rights, and why do we pay taxes?
Student: It is sometimes necessary to violate some rights to protect other rights. Our government is not yet perfect, but we are aspiring to the ideals stated in the Declaration. The Declaration contains general principles, but reality is often complicated. Nevertheless, these principles give us a good idea of what to strive for.
Teacher: Perhaps some of the complications come from a lack of understanding by many people who are responsible for the proper functioning of our government of the principles you just explained.
From about 1781 to 1789, the newly independent Americans struggled under a weak central government called the Articles of Confederation. It was understandable that they should want a loose confederation instead of a strong central government like the one they fought, but this near anarchy also had its problems, much to the satisfaction of Great Britain . The colonists finally, by 1789, ratified the Constitution, which has been a fairly effective instrument, with safegaurds and checks and balances, for implementing the principles contained in the Declaration.
Still, the rights of black people, Indians, women, and other minorities were constantly violated. Problems did not go away. As inventions were made and industrialization got under way, civilization became ever more complex and sophisticated. The Constitution has been fairly effective at protecting individual rights but certainly not one hundred percent effective.
The model of laissez-faire capitalism seems the perfect economic system for an egoist. It is based on self-interest, the profit motive, which is suppose to make it work. The producer/industrialist/employer must appeal to the self-interest of his employees so they will continue to appeal effectively with the self-interest of consumers, and value is voluntarily exchanged for value. Theoretically, everyone is happy. If an employer does not appeal to the self-interest of employees or customers, then he or she leaves himself or herself open to competition from someone who does. Theoretically, the invisible hand of economic law regulates everything justly.
One problem with this is that too many businessmen fooled the public long enough to no longer need be concerned about appealing to the public's self-interest. They could afford to corner a market and set wages and prices anywhere they wanted, with no concern for economic law.
America's industrial history is filled with forced child labor, low wages, sweat shops, unsafe conditions, blacklisting and monopolies. Before government intervention, people were getting lung disease, blown-up, and caved-in on in the mines. In foundaries and factories, people were falling into vats of molten steel or getting their arms chopped off and ground into meat which was then sold to the public. Women were making dresses for twentyfive cents that were sold for hundreds of dollars, and then many of these women burned in the famous Triangle Factory fire.
There weren't as many employers as there were employees. It was easier for employees to get together at their cocktail lounges and organize. To protect themselves and perpetuate the class system, they formed blacklists and agreed that if one employer fired an employee, then other employers would not hire him either. They could enforce their arrangements by threatening to go to other employers to put pressure on the employer who didn't agree.
Early unions had a difficult time. There were strikes and riots and head bashings. Union leaders were called communists and thrown in jail.
Eventually, the government intervened. Early examples of government regulations were child labor laws, the Pure Food and Drug Act, the minimum wage, the anti-trust laws, and the Interstate Commerce Act. Later, when the United States was into the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt started government programs almost changing the primary function ot the government from protecting individual rights to redistributing the wealth. However, it seems that something had to be done, and it also seems some of Roosevelt 's actions worked.
Karl Marx saw all of the problems with capitalism in Europe . He accurately described how factory work alienates people and how capitalists become slaves to this non-human thing called capital. When I am involved in a transaction, when I wish to purchase a new car, then I am not interested in the person who sells me the car, and he or she is not interested in me. We each care only for material things, the non-human things.
Marx felt his philosophy was more liberating and humanistic than capitalism. It was his goal that through socialism people would learn how to live with other people in harmony, and we would, eventually, not need the government force which often disrupts more than it controls.
Marxism leaves out the profit motive which promotes productive competition, from the capitalist's point of view, and he subjugates the individual to the group. There have been problems with the application of Marxism, and there are variations of the theory of which Karl Marx would probably disapprove. However, to be honest, there are also problems with capitalism. It's not right that all people should be kept at a median level, sharing their rewards with both deserving and undeserving, but it's also not right that there are a few rich industrialists while everyone else lives in poverty.
I choose to work for capitalism, but I must be careful. When I tell the government to back off, I don't want unscrupulous employers to victimise me. I don't want thousands of people who have come to depend on government programs to be cut off. On the other hand, eventually I want to be an individual who shares his rewards with only those he chooses and is a burden to no one.
bis bald,
Nick
|
