Declaration of Independence

signing of the Declaration of Independence by John Trumbull

 The American Declaration of Independence from 1776 is one of the most important political documents ever written. Its historical importance is unquestioned, but it is also very important as work of political philosophy for it addresses several of the key themes of political philosophy. The English writer G.K. Chesterton called this the creed of America, meaning it expresses the core values of American political culture, just as a creed represents the core values of a religion.

The most famous phrase from the declaration, and the creed Chesterton refers to is:

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, 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 Government, 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.

Largely written by Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration articulates several of the core themes of political philosophy: a view of human nature, the purpose of the state or government, the limits of the power of government, where the legitimacy of government comes from, and further a clear "right to rebel" if the government violates the rights of its people. It is also hostile to traditional beliefs and superstitions that justify authority but cannot defend itself on rational grounds, i.e. cannot provide arguments to justify itself.

This also provides the basis for civil disobedience as expressed by writers as diverse as Henry David Thoreau, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, Noam Chomsky, and many others. Simply put, governments must be bound by laws, and if the government violates these laws, then the government loses the right to govern. Furthermore, no one is obligated to obey the commands of an illegal or criminal government. Ultimately, the government or the state does not have sole authority to determine what is legal or not, it may have the power to enforce its concept of legality, and people may be compelled to obey in the face of such power, but that does not mean something is legal just because the government says it is. Many theorists and activists working in the tradition of civil disobedience emphasize the concept of a "natural law" or justice that goes beyond the dictates of the state, and which indeed the state itself must conform to if it is to be a legitimate government. The idea of inalienable rights reflects this idea of a higher natural law then the laws instituted by government.

MLK and X

Of course, this raises the question if the state cannot determine what is legal or just then who does? Certainly, the people who are subject to the laws should have some say in this, that is where the whole concept of democracy comes from, and further we accept that there is a constitutional process that determines how the laws are made, but we also implicitly accept the idea that the constitutional process is fair and impartial which is the basis of justice. In that case, the question becomes under what circumstances can we say that the government is acting illegally and thus obligates us to disobey the government? Well, in the language of the Declaration many times the illegality of the government may be unclear or difficult to determine:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

What are some circumstances where this may apply? Again, I think it has to be reserved for situations where the criminal nature of the government are overwhelmingly obvious, like an illegal war or the illegal invasion of a country, or widespread and systemic discrimination against a group of people or minority group, we might also have to add to that list when a President loses an election and refuses to leave office, or when a candidate is illegally installed as President who did not actually win an election. In recent American history, regrettably, we can find many examples where this might apply: the Vietnam War, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, institutionalized racism against African-Americans and people of color, and now of course with the possibility of Trump not leaving office if he loses the election, or for that matter the unconstitutional way that George Bush was installed as President in 2000. 

The thing is, despite all the reverence people display towards the Declaration, most people really do not take it seriously. If they did, then they would feel obligated to disobey the illegal acts of the government, or in some cases illegal or criminal Presidential administrations, and even though there was and still is in many cases significant protest and resistance to these acts, the vast majority of the American public are passive in the face of these criminal actions, some even loudly proclaim their support. Many people think of civil disobedience as breaking the law, but Noam Chomsky, for example, argues that you are not really breaking the law if you are opposing illegal acts of the government, that it is in fact legal and proper to disobey a criminal government, and thus most acts of civil disobedience are not really civil disobedience. Ironically, by following the arguments and principles laid out in the Declaration to its logical conclusion which I think is reflected here, would make the Declaration seem much more relevant and vital rather than some dusty old document that we are supposed to memorize as part of some sort of official state dogma.  Of course, in the United States, the freedom to protest (or peaceably to assemble) is a right protected by the first amendment to the Constitution which also speaks to Chomsky's claim that most acts of civil disobedience are not really breaking the law since they are in fact legal:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As it it relates to current situations, how does this relate to the protests over police brutality? Reading your blogs, I have seen a bunch of different viewpoints on this issue. First, I think overall most of the protests have been non-violent. Considering that there have been protests in almost every major city in America and even smaller cities and suburbs, the vast majority of these protests have been non-violent. Everyone knows the media likes to focus on negative stuff because it gives them good ratings but that also distorts people's view of things. It is also obvious that Trump and Republicans like to emphasize the violent aspects of protests because it mobilizes their supporters. However, to the extent there is undeniably some violence that have occurred during these protests, can this violence be condoned or justified? Well, again it depends where your political value lie, if you follow the non-violent tradition of protest associated with Martin Luther King Jr. then you would say no. If you follow the tradition of Malcolm X whose mantra was "by any means necessary" then violence or political violence is conditional depending on the circumstances. Here is an excerpt from Malcolm X's most famous speech "The Ballot or the Bullet" from 1964, the year before he was assassinated: 

I'm nonviolent with those who are nonviolent with me. But when you drop that violence on me, then you've made me go insane, and I'm not responsible for what I do. And that's the way every Negro should get. Any time you know you're within the law, within your legal rights, within your moral rights, in accord with justice, then die for what you believe in. But don't die alone. Let your dying be reciprocal. This is what is meant by equality. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I think the idea that some people are so traumatized by the violence they are witnessing on the part of police, or may have experienced personally, are literally driving them insane may help explain why some people have turned violent. On the other hand, if people see these things and are not outraged it may show how callous and unfeeling they are.

That might help partially explain the violence on the part of protestors but I think there is more to it than that. It probably would be best if people engaged in non-violent resistance in the form of strikes, boycotts, etc., but to do those things, and carry them out in an effective way requires institutions or an organizational structure that either does not exist or have been so heavily compromised over the last decades that they are incapable of playing this role, like labor unions, religious organizations, neighborhood associations, etc. A functioning democracy can and should have institutions like this but I guess that speaks to how dysfunctional our democracy has become. Martin Luther King (quoting John F. Kennedy) once said those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable. Even in Malcolm X's speech, the whole point of the speech is he clearly prefers the ballot, or that people vote and use the political process to accomplish change, but if that has become impossible then you have no choice but the bullet, or violence. Of course, the ultimate fate of both King and X (and many others) also speak to this as the leaders of these movements were literally killed off during the 1960s. So, I think while not condoning the violent protests (limited though it may be) it is still an indictment of the current system that has so crippled organized political protest that what you are left with are unorganized people acting spontaneously in a situation they find intolerable and have no other option by which to voice their dissent.

I do not have much to say about Bentham, it was also just brought to my attention that one of the links was not working, so that is fine, do not worry about it. The Foucault reading is interesting, but rather than talking about it I thought I would post this link to an debate between him and Noam Chomsky that is very enlightening. The whole debate is definitely worth watching, but if you are pressed for time I would say watch starting at the 35:00 min mark to the end, that is where they get more into the political debate (you might have to turn subtitles on by clicking the "CC" symbol).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wfNl2L0Gf8

For the assignment, choose either a quote from the Declaration or the Foucault piece, or if you like choose a quote from the debate and write about that.