R. Abraham Edwards

“The freedom and happiness of man…
[are] the sole objects of all legitimate government.”
-Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1810

Who was Thaddeus Kosciusko? In 1776 the young Kosciucko left Poland to join the American colonists in their fight against Great Britain, receiving a commission as officer of engineers. He was the first foreign officer to receive a commission in Washington’s army, and after the war he was granted 500 acres in Ohio near the Scioto River where the city of Columbus now stands. He was a man who knew far better than many today the need for political freedom, the importance of equality, the need for education, and the necessity of economic independence. After the war, Kosciusko returned to Poland, where he organized the Polish army in an unsuccessful revolt against the combined forces of Russia and Prussia. He died in Switzerland, banished from Poland, a man whom Jefferson once called “the purest son of Liberty”.1.

Of the four basic rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life seems the most rudimentary. In fact, a cursory reading of the document may cause one to think that the “right to life” is implicit; obviously, if one is in a position to be reading the Declaration of Independence, they have already been granted the “right to life”. It may be necessary to suggest, then, that the inalienable right to ‘life’ means more than the right to “be alive”. Existence is assumed. What then, is the meaning of the phrase the “right to life” and what connection does it have to the rights of liberty and happiness?

The right to life refers to far more than the right ‘not to be killed’. Nor does it refer to the right to eke out a miserable existence in anticipation of your ultimate and unavoidable demise. Living encompasses all things that your liberty allows you, all those activities that you pursue because of your liberty, including the free exercise of your mental faculties.

The phrase ‘right to life’ is one that has been adopted by the Pro-Life movement in their fight against abortion, and while it is aptly chosen, I do not believe that Jefferson had in mind the right to exist when he penned the words. Rather, I would suggest that life has a far richer definition, and that it is intricately tied with the other inalienable rights. Writing in 1774, Jefferson suggested that, “The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.” One’s life and liberty go hand in hand. As liberty is threatened or removed, life is likewise left devoid of meaning. Jefferson, in a letter dated 1790, wrote that, “The right to use a thing comprehends a right to the means necessary to its use, and without which it would be useless.” In other words, the right to life is directly tied to the means necessary for its use, namely, our liberty. We should view any encroachment on our liberty as an encroachment on our very lives. Locke, writing in his Second Treatise of Government in 1690 made it very clear that our liberties and lives are bound up together.

“This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power, is so necessary to, and closely joined with, a man’s preservation, that he cannot part with it, but by what forfeits his preservation and life together: for a man, not having the power of his own life, cannot, by compact, or his own consent, enslave himself to any one….”

Just as I mentioned in a previous article that 2. in a sense, we are our rights, so likewise our liberties are simply the fullest and most natural extension of our lives. Recall the ringing words of Patrick Henry- the only two reasonable states for a man are liberty or death.

Furthermore, the natural desire of all men since our forefather Adam is to be free from any higher form of earthly power. The idea of placing oneself under the will or legislative authority of other men goes against our inherent inclinations. At the same time, our very nature relishes opportunities of placing ourselves in a position of power above the rest of society. We bind ourselves together under standing rules so that no man is subject to the “inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man.” 2.Sam Adams, in his essay “Rights of the Colonists as Men”, pointed out that “. . . all men have a right to remain in their natural state as long as they please, entering into society by voluntary consent. Every natural right, not expressly given up… remains. All positive and civil laws should conform, as far as possible, to the law of natural reason and equity.” Any government that fails to meet this standard is not simply depriving the citizenry of their liberties. It is depriving them of their very lives.

Finally, what does the right to life mean for the person who lives in impoverished circumstances, who has not the freedom to enjoy the good things of our culture due to economic constraints, social position, perceived discrimination, lack of proper education, or poor health? Is not the government thus required to step in and provide whatever is necessary for these people to experience their ‘right to life’ in the same way as the average citizen? Could the argument not be made for the need of governmental social services if these things would lead to a greater number of men and women experiencing lives of a higher quality? Since the right to life refers as much to the quality of life as to the fact of existence, do not more liberal social reforms seem warranted?

The voice of reason, however, cries out in protest. The flaw in the previous argument is that it looks at basic human rights, as do many social liberals today, from a completely backward angle. The inalienable human rights are not selective grants of governmental benevolence, but are inherent properties of each human being. We need to recognize these principles as essential parts of man, not gifts of the state. Unfortunately, many people in the world today view their liberties as precisely that, a gift of the state. Thus, it is logical for such a person to complain that the government has ineffectively provided for his right to life and happiness, due to the socioeconomic inequalities that exists in our culture.

This type of thinking is usually obvious, and typically is to be found when the levels of social inequality are particularly noticeable. After the resent destruction of New Orleans, for example, it was this kind of erroneous thought that blamed the government for not providing adequate financial assistance. It is often this kind of thinking that is behind cries of racism and discrimination. Anyone who believes the government exists in order to provide them with worldly comforts is certain to experience continual disappointment.

Thaddeus Kosciusko understood that life and liberty flow through the same veins. A man who risks his life to secure liberty for another is rare indeed. The sad irony of his life lies in the fact that he was successful in a foreign land, and failed in his own. May each of us have the same passion for securing today our rights to liberty…and life.

1. Adapted from “The Unusual Story of Thaddeus Kosciusko” Lithuanian Quarterly Journal of Arts and Sciences. Volume 32, No. 1 – Spring 1986.
2. John Locke, Second Treatise on Government 1690



American Liberty
Jonathan D. Detwiler

Since the terrorist attacks in the fall of 2001, one primary object has been on the agenda of the executive branch- national security. Without much dialog on principles of liberty, the Patriot Acts, the espionage of private citizens, and preemptive war measures on the nation of Iraq have been necessitated as legitimate means to a impression of “national security”. How do these actions protect liberty? Although this essay will not seek to address these current issues specifically, before we can answer such a question we must first establish a definition of liberty.

To begin, I would title our definition as ‘American liberty’. The reason I do this is that there are other definable forms of liberty, not including the American form of liberty as established in 1776. The history and development of American liberty is a very long and involved study of philosophy and political thought spanning hundreds of years in Europe and America. Thus, in the context we find ourselves, I shall reduce it to two sources from which it derived significant influence: the English Common Law System and the Protestant Reformation

Even in these two sources, our study must be brief. The English Common Law system developed as the legal opinions of private judges in ‘common law’. These judgments were not always enforceable by the local magistrate, the convicted having the option to live outside of the law- an outlaw. Outlaws of course enjoyed none of the benefits of the law, even their life not being protected. The common law system saw its source as primarily being the laws manifest in nature and confirmed in the laws and principals found in the Christian Bible. Thus, as it was being developed judgments could not go against these precedents, although they could overthrow un-logical or contrary precedent. In 1765, Sir William Blackstone published a four-volume, Commentary on the Laws of England, which examines the common law system developed in England. These volumes became the foundation for the study of law and government in the founding period of America. As an example of his work, here is his definition of natural law: “This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, and all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately from this original.” 1

The protestant reformation helped to establish the growth of the common law. This is due to the fact that the reformation established the source of law as coming from the God of scriptures, this law consisting of fixed unchanging principles. The reformation also stressed that all individuals are equally responsible before the law of God, and mans law subsequently. This went against the philosophy that government, be it church or state, was above the law and could do as it pleased. Because of this understanding of the law, the reformation established the right to resistance of laws or governments that went against the higher principals and source of law. Government was a necessary function in society, but only to punish and restrain evildoers and lawbreakers.

Now let us turn and look at the historical implementation of the principles found in American liberty in the founding of America. In 1620, English Pilgrims aboard the Mayflower wrote the Mayflower Compact, which illustrates the right of the people to establish a government to serve liberty. They wrote “…[we] covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony…” 2

The Declaration of Independence of 1776 seeks authority for its law system as the laws of nature and natures god. It also sites the right of the people to establish government. “…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…to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men…” 3 The Declaration makes use of the argument that governments that does not serve the purpose of equality before the law for all men can and should be overthrown to establish a government that accomplishes this.

Now that we have finished our introductory study of the establishment of American liberty in the United States, can we define it? Yes, but I believe that this definition can first be further articulated by studying the writings of the U.S. Constitution of 1787. This constitution created by the people of the federated states sought to provide representative government established on the rule of law. The government they established incorporated aspects of all three forms of government: the monarchical principle- executive branch; the aristocratical principle- judicial branch; and the democratical principle- legislative branch. As stated above, it was a federation of states joined together by common goals and joint protection. The Constitution was delegative, stating only the duties each member of the government was required to fulfill. It also included a bill of rights, which further defined another aspect of American liberty. We can see how these rights sought to protect the three principles of liberty:

Protection of Life: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Nor be a witness against himself, or be tried twice for the same crime. 4 He was innocent until proven guilty, had the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. 5 The right to a speedy and public trial with witnesses and counsel for defense, a jury of his peers, and according to the rules of common law. 6 The private ownership of military equipment for use in defense. 7

Protection of Liberty: Congress shall not establish a national form of religious exercise, freedom of speech, of the press and the right to assemble. 8

Protection of Property: The ability to copyright writing discoveries and ideas in science and the useful arts. 9 Soldiers shall not be quartered in any house. 10 The right against unlawful searches or seizures, private property taken only through due process and with just compensation. 11

Now I think our definition is complete. What is it that makes American liberty so unique? It is defined fully defined as follows:

American Liberty- 1. The belief that the source of liberty is found in law and that both acquire their authority in the God of scripture and the testimony of the laws of nature. This rule of law compels men to form governments to protect life, liberty and property. Governments that become destructive to these principals can be re-established to protect law and liberty. 2. The protection of life, liberty and property includes the following: right to life except through forfeiture through due process of law; innocence until proven guilty through a jury trial of ones peers; the right to private ownership of military equipment; freedom of religion, speech, the press and peaceable assembly; private ownership of property free from searches or seizures, without due process and just compensation.

Do you see now how unique and powerful American liberty is? These are the principles that nurtured and fed the growth and birth of liberty. American liberty did not come out of a vacuum. And unfortunately it does not continue indefinitely. Patrick Henry was an ardent believer in American liberty. You may remember the speech that he gave in 1776, in which he stated “give me liberty or give me death!” Freedom and liberty was so important to Patrick Henry that he was willing to face death than submit to chains of submission and slavery. And he and others sacrificed their all to establish liberty in America. Later in the ratification debates for the proposed constitution he again stressed the importance of protecting liberty by saying “shall liberty or empire be sought?” What did he mean? Simply, some of the tendencies of the proposed constitution leaned towards the establishment of an empire at the expense of liberty. It was because of this and his insistence that the Bill of Rights was added as amendments in 1789. This brings us back to the questions I raised in the beginning of this article. With our definition of American liberty we need to evaluate the tendencies and actual operations of our current government compared to the principles of American liberty. Do we truly live in a country based on American Liberty or the American Empire?

1. William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Vol. 1 pp. 41
2. Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, pp. 75-76
3. Declaration of Independence of 1776
4. U.S. Constitution of 1787, Amendment V
5. U.S. Constitution of 1787, Amendment VI & VII
6. U.S. Constitution of 1787, Article I, Section VIV
7. U.S. Constitution of 1787, Amendment II
8. U.S. Constitution of 1787, Amendment I
9. U.S. Constitution of 1787, Article I, Section VIII
10. U.S. Constitution of 1787, Amendment III
11. U.S. Constitution of 1787, Amendment IV





More on Locke and the Logical
Conclusion of His Philosophy
Stephen Valentine Hodos

I was recently reading a copy of Friedrich A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom at a local coffee shop when I was approached by a stranger with an opinion. The man began by asking me how it was that I became familiar with Hayek. If you are not familiar with Friedrich Hayek, he was an economist of the 20th Century whose most popular work The Road to Serfdom was published just prior to the end of World War II. In The Road to Serfdom Hayek outlines the doom that awaits any nation which heads down the slippery slope of socialism. Back to the coffee shop. When I told the inquiring gentleman that I am a Libertarian he told me that I am “halfway there.” When I asked him what he meant by this statement he did not hesitate to explain. He told me why the war in Iraq is necessary to counteract the growing threat of terrorism that is a result of bourgeoning hostilities amongst middle-eastern Muslims. He went on to explain to me that some social programs will always be necessary to counteract poverty at home. While the conversation was cut short, I am sure that there are more issues at which my philosophy is only “halfway there” according to his self-proclaimed conservative ideology.

The question that begs to be asked is can we merge a democratic philosophy of government that is based upon the right to property with modern socialistic ideals without being inconsistent? The answer is no, we cannot. Do such inconsistencies have consequences? History will tell. If Hayek was right and justice prevails then we have sacrificed every bit of liberty that our government was intended to preserve for such concepts as social equity for the poor and misguided concerns for national safety. But let me ask another question: how is it that a “conservative” today could possibly come to such illogical conclusions? Before I answer this question, how about a very short lesson in political theory.

Prior to the American Revolution and at the outset of the birth of capitalism two men wrote two books in which two very different philosophies of government were outlined. The first was entitled Two Treatises of Government and was written (originally anonymously) by John Locke in 1689. The second, The Social Contract, Or Principles of Political Right was published in 1762 by author Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Locke, in his Second Treatise, outlines for us why it is that private property actually does exist in the first place and then goes on to conclude that the role of government is to protect that property. He states that “”the Commonwealth comes by a Power to set down, what punishment shall belong to the several transgressions which they think worthy of it, committed by the members of that Society”and all this for the preservation of the property of the members of that Society, as far as is possible.” 1 I am aware that this short excerpt does not provide for a full account of Locke’s philosophy. Nevertheless, the point is that Locke asserted that governments exist to protect the property of the governed. Now let us look at Rousseau’s position.

In The Social Contract Rousseau states that a democratic system presupposes certain things concerning how society should be ordered. He posits that democracy requires a large measure of equality in rank and fortune, without which equality of rights and authority cannot long subsist” and goes on to state that little or no luxury is necessary for the citizens of a democratic society because, according to Rousseau it corrupts at once the rich and poor, the rich by possession and the poor by covetousness.” Rousseau concludes his chapter on Democracy by stating “Were there a people of gods their government would be democratic. So perfect a government is not for men.” 2 While Rousseau tends to be unclear as to how he defines his terms I will assume that he would have considered the early American form of government for the people, by the people” to be a democratic one.

From such a brief account of the positions of both philosophers, which one sounds more in line with my friend at the coffee shop?

The point is that Locke’s philosophy of government being essentially libertarian is very opposed to any idea that government might restrict the property rights of its citizens seeing as it is the duty of government to protect that property. Contrary to this, Rousseau’s philosophy being essentially socialistic sees “equality in rank and fortune” as a necessary precondition to a democratic form of government. Rousseau is completely in line with modern socialistic ideology as well as both mainstream conservatism and liberalism wherein they all agree that the less fortunate in society have a right to some minimum amount of property guaranteed to them at the expense of the more fortunate. Such thinking is entirely problematic. Here is why. If the very government which is entrusted with preserving the property of its citizens is allowed to do with that property as it pleases and as it sees fit, whether it is for the “general welfare” or not makes no difference, it is no longer the property of the individual which the government is protecting it is the property of the state. What then is the property of the state? Anything and everything that it can get its hands on. From a ludicrous percentage of your paycheck, to your home, to your life!

Unfortunately, it is rarely considered to be extreme to want to merge such socialistic principles as were espoused by the self-professed conservative who I met at the coffee shop with such Libertarian principles as Hayek would have us uphold. Even more unfortunate is the fact that it is the person who is consistent in recognizing the logical consequences of such thinking who is considered to be extreme, if not old-fashioned. It is in an attempt to synthesize these two philosophies of government that a conservative, like the man I met at the coffee shop, is able to come to the conclusions that he holds to.

The purpose of this article is not to address my problems with any specific set of issues that currently comprise the platform of either of the socialistic parties running our country. Neither is my point to single out a well-intentioned stranger who had the mind to start a conversation. My point is to recognize the fact that unless we learn to distinguish between a philosophy of liberty and a philosophy of socialism, a Lockean philosophy of government and a Rousseauean one, all the good intentions in the world will not save our country from the impending doom that befalls those who accept the tenet that social equity comes before liberty.

1. John Locke, Two Treatises of Government; Peter Laslett, Cambridge University Press, 2004; p.324.
2. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract and Discourses; Everyman Press, 1993; p.240.


On Property
R. Abraham Edwards

A thorough study of the political ideas surrounding private property being impossible under the constraints of time (and perhaps the reader’s patience), let it suffice us to make a logical examination of certain Lockean and Jeffersonian phrases which have shaped our present government and society.

John Locke, writing in his Second Treatise on Civil Government asserted that government exists because of property. Governments serve to protect property, and if I possess no property, then I have no need of a state. I do not require or benefit from prisons, police, armies, judges, rulers, or any of the machinery of government. The question is whether I have right to property.

If I do indeed have a right to property, then government becomes legitimate because those who own property certainly have a right to protect it. A legitimate government is one in which the governors work for the good of the governed, and not their own good. The people give their consent to be governed in the hope that it will result in justice throughout society. Locke then asserted that the government could be overthrown if and when the governor “makes not the law, but his will the rule, and his commands are not directed at the properties of his people, but to satisfaction of his own ambitions, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion.”

Clearly, if a right to property exists, then property owners have a right to revolution. what, however, would we say about those who own no property? Have they no recourse if their rights are abridged? The American revolutionists certainly fought to protect the rights of property owners, but what of those who owned no property?

Perhaps it was in response to this dilemma (and the dilemma raised when ‘property’ comes to include other human beings) that Jefferson chose the term “pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson’s wording seems more generous, but raises the question: Did Jefferson disagree with Locke’s thesis that there is an inalienable right to property? There are many today who own no property- are we to say that those people have no right to legitimate government? Perhaps there is a different way of understanding property that goes beyond houses, farms, and fields.

James Madison, in an essay dated 1792, defined property as “the dominion a man exercises over the things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.” this, then, is the normal way in which we think of property: my car, my house, my boat, my tractor, etc. Madison, however, was far from finished, and he continued his definition in a way that I believe is quite radical.

“In its larger and more just meaning,” Madison continues, “property embraces everything to which a man might attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to everyone else the same advantage. A man has property in the safety and liberty of his person, in the free use of his faculties, and free choice of the objects on which to employ them. As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may equally be said to have a property in his rights.”

In short, Madison was saying that a man possesses property in the form of his opinions, in his religious beliefs, and in his liberty. each man, then, is a property owner, and each of us must needs determine of our government is the legitimate entity we have a right to.

“Government,” Madison declared, “is instituted to protect property of every sort, as well as that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government that alone is a just government which impartially secures to each man whatever is his own.”

The word “property” comes to us from the French word ‘propre’, which means “self”. our rights are inseparable from ourselves. In a sense we are our rights- they are our highest form of property. In this day and age we hear much about ‘rights’, and given the passion of some groups toward what they see as the usurpation’s of their rights, it may serve us well to ask a few probing questions in order to gauge the efficacy of our government at protecting our rights, our property:

Is the war in the Middle East helping to protect you property? Does the abortion trade in this country help to protect your property? Does the so-called ‘wall of separation’ between church and state serve to protect your property? Does a ban on smoking in public places serve to protect your property? Does banning Christian religious expression serve to protect your property? Does outlawing firearms serve to protect your property? Does the ‘No Child Left Behind act, or the Federal Board of Education serve to protect your property? Does the Patriotic Act serve to protect your property? Remember that the role of government is to protect property. Is it possible that it has strayed from that goal? Is our current government “impartially securing to every man whatever is his own?”

If the answer to the above question is negative, then we must take the logical next step and agree with Locke that our elected officials are not providing us with legitimate government and may be legitimately overthrown. I write this not to endorse revolt, per se, if my words seem radical to you, it is only a sign of how far our society has fallen the ideals of our Founding Fathers. Madison wrote that it was “imperative for the United States that it equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights.”

Tyranny exists. All fine words wither before a man such as Mao Zedong, who claimed, “power is in he muzzle of a gun.” Tyranny exists in those nations that have censored Madison’s revolutionary doctrine from their people, shielding them from the knowledge that it works in practice. While many in this once great nation remain passively apathetic to the usurpation of their rights, we should learn a real lesson from the young people of China and other nations who have shown that they are willing to fight and die for their property rights. If we are unwilling to do the same, tyranny will soon become very real to us, and the legitimacy of government will be purely academic

Is Liberty Unlimited?
Jonathan D. Detwiler

What exactly is Liberty? Can liberty be unlimited or is it limited? A look at the dictionary can help us answer these questions. One definition I found states that liberty is, “the state of being exempt from the domination of others or from restricting circumstances.” This doesn’t sound very good, are you free from the domination of others, or restricting circumstances? You name it; domination coming from others, a spouse, employer, parents, tax collectors, the government- the list goes on. And restricting circumstances, again, you can only spend as much as you make. Having to work itself is a restriction on your liberty. So you must admit that you do not experience unlimited liberty.

What if we could experience unlimited liberty? If you had unlimited liberty would this be a good thing? If you were a law unto yourself who would say that you couldn’t steal for an income, kill at will, whatever you wanted. This may sound okay at first, but what if everybody had this freedom? You would not be safe. True liberty would be destroyed and the result would be chaotic anarchy. Rousas J. Rushdoony says that “Man’s total liberty is always anarchy, and anarchy is the death of both law and liberty. Unless all men’s liberty is limited by law, no liberty is possible for any man.”

So when the founders talked about liberty and freedom what did they mean? In the writings of John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon in their book, Cato’s Letters they explained the unalienable right of liberty as:

“All men are born free; Liberty is a gift which they receive from God; nor can they alienate the same by Consent, though possibly they may forfeit it by crimes”
The right of the Magistrate arises only from the right of private men to defend themselves, to repel injuries, and to punish those who commit them; That right being conveyed by the society top their public representative, he can execute the same no further than the benefit of security of that society requires that he should. When he exceeds his commission, his acts are extra-judicial as are those of any private officer usurping an unlawful authority, that is, they are void”"

They say “Liberty” is the “power which every man has over his own actions, and his rights to enjoy the fruit of his labor, art and industry, as far as by it he hurts not the society, or any members of it, by taking from any members, or by hindering him from enjoying what he himself enjoys. The fruits of a man’s honest industry are the just rewards of it, ascertained to him by natural and eternal equity, as is his title to use them in the manner which he thinks fit: And thus, with the above limitations, every man is sole Lord and Arbiter of his own private actions and property.”

What Trenchard and Gordon are trying to point out here is that liberty is limited. Albeit they argue these limits are limited. Man is born free. Liberty is a gift, a right they cannot forfeit except through committing of crimes. They also point out that living in a society under government does not alter the right to liberty.
“The entering into political society is so far from a departure from his natural rights, that to preserve it was the sole reason why men do so; and mutual protection and assistance is the only reasonable purposes of all reasonable societies.”

One of the basic premises of the American system of liberty is that man’s liberty is under law. The purpose of the founding of the United States and for much of its history the goal of its justice system, has been to further liberty by law. If liberty is indeed under law, the it requires careful and conscientious legislation to maintain the social structure that promotes liberty best. The founders thought this could be accomplished by making the interests of those who govern and the governed the same. All parties with a vested interest in the preservation of liberty in the society would assemble and vote on it. This is the principle of representative government. The representative must live under the laws that they pass. Government must be limited so as to not encroach upon the liberty of man.

The restoration of true liberty means the restoration of true law. It is completely illogical and dangerous to think that freedom means the escape from law.
http://www.liberty-forum.org/page/2/