This paper is inspired by the founders
of American and the men and women that came before them on the ship called the
May Flower that set sail to America on September 16, 1620. So what is the balance between individual
freedom and liberty and his/her obligation to the state? The paper will analyze
two English political philosophers, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Both
presented their theories during the 17th-18th century Age of
Enlightenment. Of the two philosophers,
John Locke had a profound influence on our Founding Fathers when they devised
the United States' Constitution. Earlier,
Thomas Hobbes, whose theory of government absolutism, established a concrete
reason why the Mayflower took the 66-day voyage to America.
(pilgrimhallmuseum.org, 2013)
In order to understand the balance between
individual freedom and liberty and individuals obligation to the state, we
first need to explore the founding father of modern political philosophy,
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). Hobbes lived
during a time when England was in turmoil with civil wars (1642-1646) and with
political disputes over various political and religious, military and economic
situations such as taxation. Hobbes
greatest fear was social and political chaos.
Hobbes believed his mother went into early labor because the Spanish
Armada was sailing toward England to attack.
Thus, as a jest, he said his mother birthed “twins at once, both me and
fear”. ( Deutsch, Fornieri, p.226, 2009)
(iep.utm.edu, 2005)
Being very intellectually gifted, Hobbes
started studying at Oxford at the age of 14.
After graduating from Oxford in 1608, he continued to enrich his mind by
being a private tutor. His first student, William, was an eldest son of Lord
Cavendish of Hardwick (aka Earl of Devonshire).
After William died in 1628, Hobbes continued to tutor students, whom
also included the youngest Earl of Devonshire and Charles I's son Charles
II. Tutoring allowed him to travel with
his pupil abroad, while at the same time, branching out his own studies,
writings and publishing. Thus his
travels provided a means of escape from England's civil upheaval to such
countries as France, Italy, and Germany.
While abroad, he was able to visit and share thoughts with prodigious
individuals, notably, Galileo, the supporter of the relativity of motion, and
mathematical physics. (plato.Stanford.edu,
2013) (Deutsch, Fornieri, 2009, pg. 226) (Comrade
Joe., 2009)
Hobbes was one of the few, before and
after him, intellectual giants who radically transformed Western thought
through the age of reason; however, he consider himself the 'first' true
political philosopher. In 1651, Hobbes
published an influential text called Leviathan, which says that government
(“commonwealth”) or powerful state “which is but an artificial man, though
greater stature and strength than the natural, for whose protection and defense
it was intended; and which the sovereignty is an artificial soul, as giving
life and motion to the whole body” that is created to impose order. With
regards to this, the title of Hobbes's masterpiece, The Leviathan, was founded
on mechanics (the motion of bodies / matter) and he saw society as a machine
constantly in motion.(Deutsch, Fornieri, 2009, pg. 229) (darkwing.uoregon.edu,
2005, p.2)( rachmorr, 2009) (Comrade Joe., 2009)
In the state of nature, according to
Hobbes, “[n]ature hath made men so equal in the faculties of body and mind . .
. one man can there upon claim to himself any benefit to which another may not
pretend as well as he. For as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength
enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or by confederacy
with others that are in the same danger with himself.” Specifically, no man is
superior to another, similarly, “every man looketh that his companion should
value him at the same rate he sets upon himself” (darkwing.uoregon.edu, 2005,
p.107, p.109) (Deutsch, Fornieri, 2009, pg. 238) ( rachmorr, 2009)
In leviathan, Hobbes contends that the
natural state without civil government is war and “such a war as is of every
man against every man. . . . [In] the nature of man, we find three principal
causes of [conflict]. First, competition [for gain]; secondly, diffidence [for
safety or trust]; thirdly, glory [reputation]”. In addition, because nature
provides no security, except man himself for self-preservation, everyone
suffers from “continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man,
solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”.
In war, Hobbes argues, because there is no government, there is no law,
with no law, there is no injustice.
“Force and fraud are in war the two cardinal virtues.” Subsequently, “[t]he passions that incline
men to peace are: fear of death. And
reason suggested convenient articles of peace upon which men may be drawn to
agreement”.( arkwing.uoregon.edu, 2005,
p. 110, p.111, p.112) ( rachmorr, 2009) (Comrade
Joe., 2009)
The right of nature according to Hobbes,
is the “the liberty each man hath to use his own power as he will himself for
the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life; and
consequently, of doing anything which, in his own judgment and reason, he shall
conceive to be the artist means there unto.”
( arkwing.uoregon.edu, 2005, p.112)
To put it another way, men have the right to maintain self-preservation
by any means, including state of war, thus the laws of nature are
inferred. Hobbes continues by
stating: “Law of Nature is a precept or
general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that which
is destructive of his life or which takes away the means of preserving the
same. . . . For though they that speak of this subject used to confound jus and
lex (right and law), yet they ought to be distinguished, because Right consists
in liberty to do or forbear, whereas Law binds to one of them; so that law and
right differ as much as obligation and liberty”. (
arkwing.uoregon.edu, 2005, p.113)
( rachmorr, 2009) (Comrade Joe., 2009)
The Leviathan, deduces many general rules
of reason in the law of nature which directs toward civil peace: such as seek peace; lay down the right to all
things and transfer power to a sovereign; obey the social contract; promote the
attitudes conducive to civil peace, such as gratitude, forgiveness, avoidance
of pride, treating people equally, and acceptance of arbitration and impartial
judgment. ( arkwing.uoregon.edu, 2005,
p.112 - 140 ) Hobbes also argues that in
order to prevent conflict or war and promote justice and harmony, an 'absolute sovereign' authority needs to
judge right and wrong, just or unjust, while at the same time, utilize force
and promote fear. (Deutsch, Fornieri, 2009, pg. 243-247) To summarize, the laws of nature to the following
precept: “Act toward others in a manner in which you would want them to act
toward you”'. ( arkwing.uoregon.edu, 2005, p.114.) ( rachmorr, 2009) (Comrade Joe., 2009)
“The mutual transferring of right is that
which men call contract” (aka covenant or social contract)
(arkwing.uoregon.edu, 2005, p.116)
Absolute sovereignty is launched when men confer all their power to one
person or an assembly of men through a contract, such as, according to Hobbes:
“I authorize and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this
assembly of men, on this condition; that thou give up, thy right to him and
authorize all his actions in like manner. This done, the multitude so united in
one person is called a commonwealth”. ( darkwing.uoregon.edu, 2005, p.6 of
184) (Deutsch, Fornieri, 2009, pg. 247) ( rachmorr, 2009) (Comrade Joe., 2009)
The transferring of power is a voluntary
action in order to obtain peace and preservation, however, the absolute
sovereign is not subject or limited by the contract. Likewise, a citizen cannot resist or judge
the actions of the sovereign for crimes or injury, because doing so would be
accusing one self. In a government of absolute sovereign, he/she governs the
legislature, executive and judicial branches all in the name of peace.
(Deutsch, Fornieri, 2009, p. 256) ( rachmorr,
2009) (Comrade Joe., 2009)
In Hobbes's sphere of thinking, there is no
'separation of powers' in absolute sovereignty.
The separation of powers would impede or limit the government power to
secure peace and does nothing to change the state of nature. The rights of sovereignty are the following:
“His power cannot, without his consent, be transferred to another: he cannot
forfeit it: he cannot be accused by any of his subjects of injury: he cannot be
punished by them: he is judge of what is necessary for peace, and judge of
doctrines: he is sole legislator, and supreme judge of controversies, and of
the times and occasions of war and peace: to him it belonged to choose
magistrates, counselors, commanders, and all other officers and ministers; and
to determine of rewards and punishments, honor and order”. (darkwing.uoregon.edu,
2005, p.30-31) ( rachmorr, 2009)(Comrade
Joe., 2009)
Hobbes considers religion as a competitor
to an absolute sovereign. The reason is
that religion has the capability to create fear. Since Hobbes describes religion as fear of
“powers invisible”, religion is under the thumb of the sovereign's power.
(Deutsch, Fornieri, 2009, p. 257) According to The Leviathan: “The force of words being (as I have formerly
noted) too weak to hold men to the performance of their covenants, there are in
man's nature but two imaginable helps to strengthen it. And those are either a
fear of the consequence of breaking their word, or a glory or pride in
appearing not to need to break it. This latter is a generosity too rarely found
to be presumed on, especially in the pursuers of wealth, command, or sensual
pleasure, which are the greatest part of mankind. The passion to be reckoned
upon is fear; whereof there be two very general objects: one, the power of
spirits invisible; the other, the power of those men they shall therein offend.
Of these two, though the former be the greater power, yet the fear of the
latter is commonly the greater fear. The fear of the former is in every man his
own religion, which hath place in the nature of man before civil society. The
latter hath not so; at least not place enough to keep men to their promises”.
(darkwing.uohttpregon.edu, 2005, p. 123) ( rachmorr,
2009) (Comrade Joe., 2009)
The true liberty of a subject reported by
Leviathan: “LIBERTY, or freedom, signified properly the absence of opposition
(by opposition, I mean external impediments of motion); and may be applied no
less to irrational and inanimate creatures than to rational./ And according to
this proper and generally received meaning of the word, a free man is he that,
in those things which by his strength and wit he is able to do, is not hindered
to do what he has a will to. But when the words free and liberty are applied to
anything but bodies, they are abused. /
So when we speak freely, it is not the liberty of voice, or
pronunciation, but of the man, whom no law hath obliged to speak otherwise than
he did. / Lastly, from the use of the
words free will, no liberty can be
inferred of the will, desire, or inclination, but the liberty of the man; which
consistent in this, that he finds no stop in doing what he has the will,
desire, or inclination to do. / Fear and liberty are consistent: as when a man
therewith his goods into the sea for fear the ship should sink, he doth it
nevertheless very willingly, and may refuse to do it if he will; it is
therefore the action of one that was free: so a man sometimes pays his debt,
only for fear of imprisonment, which, because nobody hindered him from
detaining, was the action of a man at liberty. And generally all actions which
men do in Commonwealths, for fear of the law, are actions which the doers had
liberty to omit. / [W]e are to consider what rights we pass away when we make a
Commonwealth; or, which is all one, what liberty we deny ourselves by owning
all the actions, without exception, of the man or assembly we make our
sovereign. For in the act of our submission consistent both our obligation and
our liberty. / . . .The obligation of
subjects to the sovereign is understood to last as long, and no longer, than
the power lasted by which he is able to protect them”. (darkwing.uoregon.edu,
2005, part 2, p.40-49)( rachmorr, 2009) (Comrade
Joe., 2009)
The paper now introduces the second
enlightenment English philosopher and political theorist John Locke
(1632-1704). Locke presents a tamer view
of the balance between individual freedom and liberty and ones obligation to
the state in contrast to Thomas Hobbes's pessimistic view in “The
Leviathan”. Before going forward,
however, keep in mind that “The leviathan” talked about motions and
interactions of material bodies that incorporate fear as the determining factor
of life. Equally important, the absolute
monarchy encompasses the means of maintaining a civil, peaceful order, at the
same time, preventing the natural process of society into civil war. Thus Hobbes saw rights as conveniences;
liberty as the right to disobey.
Nevertheless, the powers of this Leviathan become the foundation for all
civic obligations. (Deutsch, Fornieri, 2009, p.226-267) ( rachmorr,
2009)
John Locke wrote the “Second Treatise
of Government” which makes the assertion that man is naturally free and equal
by God and not subject by nature to the monarchy. (stanford.edu, 2010) The “Second Treatise of Government” allied
with “The Leviathan”, where they both described the state of nature as a
condition before government intervention or before civil society emerged and required
social contract to secure peace. But it is at this junction, where both Hobbes
and Locke polarity of thought becomes evident.
According to Locke, the state of nature is neither anarchy nor war as
Hobbes describes it, although conflict can erupt from time to time. Nor is it defined by what Hobbes called
self-interest. The Lockean state of
nature is a community without government to act on its behalf. ( Deutsch, Fornieri, 2009, p.277)(Yale, 2013) (rachmorr, 2009)
Locke indicates that in the state of
nature, everyone is equal, because they are human beings with liberty and
rights; therefore, everyone will follow the national law of reason. “To understand political power aright, and
derive it from its original, we must consider what estate all men are naturally
in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose
of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the
law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man”.
((Deutsch, Fornieri, 2009, p.279)( rachmorr, 2009)
Locke continues by saying: “A state also of
equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having
more than another, there being nothing more evident than that creatures of the
same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of Nature,
and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another,
without subordination or subjection, unless the lord and master of the mall
should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and
confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to
dominion and sovereignty”. (Deutsch,
Fornieri, 2009, p.279 Sect 4) Locke said that human rights such as life,
liberty and property was included with the state of nature and was never meant
to be voluntary or forcefully taken away from individuals. These were
inalienable rights. (rachmorr, 2009)
In regards of social contract, Hobbes
considers a social contract a 'covenant' and Locke uses the term
'compact'. Social contract according to
John Locke, is not just an understanding/ agreement among the people, but a
lasting trust that doesn't depended on ''calculation of returns” or transferring
one's rights to the sovereign. (Deutsch,
Fornieri, 2009, p.277-8) Hence, Hobbes orientation to the state of
nature as the state of war, while Locke's state of nature is destined to the
positive and good, thus weighing heavily
on moral obligations to God. It is also
important to note, according to Locke, from the very beginning of one's life,
one carries the common sense of obligation toward each other. Therefore, the transition from individual to
communal orientation is no problem. ( Deutsch, Fornieri, 2009, p.277) (rachmorr, 2009)
“But though this be a state of liberty,
yet it is not a state of license; though man in that state have an
uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not
liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but
where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of
Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason,
which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all
equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health,
liberty or possessions; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and
infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the
world by His order and about His business; they are His property, whose
workmanship they are made to last during His, not one another's pleasure”.
(Deutsch, Fornieri, 2009, p.279) (rachmorr, 2009)
According to Locke, property in the state
of nature is considered linkage where “all our rights are exercised”. (Deutsch,
Fornieri, 2009, p.282) In addition to
this, private property is a necessary part of liberty. Furthermore, Locke extends the idea of
property of a person. In Locke's line of
reasoning, individuals are God’s property already. Specifically, property is identified with our
'labor' that is accomplished through our own body and hands. Property produces integrity. According to the Second Treatise, no one can
collect more property than they can use before it spoils. ( Deutsch, Fornieri,
2009, p.283) (rachmorr, 2009)
“God, who hath given the world to men in
common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of
life and convenience. The earth and all that is therein is given to men for the
support and comfort of their being. And though all the fruits it naturally
produces, and beasts it feeds, belong to mankind in common, as they are
produced by the spontaneous hand of Nature, and nobody has originally a private
dominion exclusive of the rest of mankind in any of them, as they are thus in
their natural state, yet being given for the use of men, there must of
necessity be a means to appropriate them some way or other before they can be
of any use, or at all beneficial, to any particular men. ( Second
Treatise, chapt. 2, Section 25) (rachmorr, 2009)
“Though the earth and all inferior
creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a "property" in his
own "person." This nobody has any right to but himself. The
"labour" of his body and the "work" of his hands, we may
say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that
Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and
joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It
being by him removed from the common state Nature placed it in, it hath by this
labor something annexed to it that excludes the common right of other men. For
this "labor" being the unquestionable property of the laborer, no man
but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is
enough, and as good left in common for others”.
(Second treatise, chapt. 2, Section 26) (rachmorr,
2009)
Locke favored a representative government
like England with House of Lords and House of Commons. However, Locke wanted men to be
entrepreneurs. He also believed that only male property owners should be voting
while keeping the people without property out of the voting system. Locke held forth the opinion that the
law-making legislature should have supreme authority where the courts are
creating the legislature under its authority.
John Locke said in his Second
Treatise that there should be life, liberty and the right of property. John Locke said that all men are by nature
created equal which means they are capable with unalienable rights. That nature wouldn’t lone out who is governed
and who is to be administered; there are no king’s privileges or legal privilege
or rights of the reigning class. The Declaration of Independence is the
founding article of the American political tradition. It pronounces the
important ideas that form the American homeland: All men are created free and
equal and enjoy the same essential, natural rights. Legitimate governments must
therefore be based on the agreement of the ruled and must exist “to secure
these rights.” (heritage.org, 2013)
As a practical matter, the Declaration
of Independence announced to the world the unanimous intent of the thirteen
American colonies to separate them from Great Britain. But its correct
revolutionary significance is the declaration of a new foundation of political
legitimacy in the sovereignty of the people. The Americans’ final appeal was
not to any man-made decree or evolving spirit but to rights inherently
possessed by all men. These rights are found in eternal “Laws of Nature and of
Nature’s God.” As such, the Declaration’s meaning transcends the particulars of
time and conditions. (heritage.org, 2013)
The situations of the
Declaration’s writing make us appreciate its extra-ordinariness statements even
more. The war against Britain had been intense for two years when the
Continental Congress via a resolution by Richard Henry Lee on June 7, 1776,
chose a committee to discover the freedom of the colonies from Great Britain.
John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert Livingston appealed to
Thomas Jefferson to draft an official declaration which they presented with few
enhancements, to Congress. On July 2, Congress voted for independence moved to
discussion the wording of the Declaration, which was, with the distinguished
removal of Jefferson’s passionate disapproval of slavery, firmly approved on
the twilight of July 4. Every Fourth of July, America celebrates the act of
independence . (nccs.net, 2013) ( The Heritage guide to the Constitution, 2005,
p. 46,179)
Although the document was modified during
the revolutionary war, the Declaration claims the foundation of widespread
motive by disbursing “decent respect to the opinions of mankind” and appealing
to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” (.nccs.net, 2013) ( The Heritage
guide to the Constitution, 2005, p. 46,179)
The testimony in the document bases America and
its regime on self-evident truths such as human equality and certain
“unalienable rights.” The truths are self-evident, not in the logic of being
directly clear to everyone, but somewhat in offering the rational or apparent
assumption of what enlightened humanity recognizes by a human being.
Self-evident truths are also not limited to any one era or nation; they are as
correct today as they remained in 1776. To implement those rights is the
contest of American politics. (nccs.net, 2013) ( The Heritage guide to the
Constitution, 2005, p. 46,179)
Such rights are recognized and confirmed as
liberties essential in human nature—the right to individual property. They are
not only powers, and neither are they simply wishes or desires. “Endowed by
their Creator,” these rights exceed the skill of any regime to abolish them.
Thus, these characteristic or natural rights create authentic government and refute the validity of any government
warranted only on, for example, religion, heredity, class, wealth, or race.
(nccs.net, 2013)( The Heritage guide to the Constitution, 2005, p. 46,179)
In equality, so regarded, American
government is essentially about rights or liberty. But these privileges follow
from the equivalence of all men. This priority of equality clearly does not
mean an equivalence of character, strength, or writing skill, batting averages;
nor does it request a communistic equivalence of outcomes or situation. In fact
the Declaration’s idea of fairness would forbid such accidental smoothing of
the obviously varied human condition. Whatever our differences, there happens
an important human uniqueness—that no one is instinctive to conquer or be
conquered. Equality in this intellect therefore necessitates that authentic
government be founded on “the consent of the governed.” (nccs.net, 2013)( The
Heritage guide to the Constitution, 2005, p. 46,179)
In the Pursuit of Happiness, the purpose of such an
authentic government in opportunity is to safeguard “certain unalienable
rights,” including “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Rights
conclude in the pursuit of happiness. And happiness is not about
self-satisfaction or dazed choice but rather a life lived to its full
latent—human prosperity. (umkc.edu, 2013) (The Heritage guide to the
Constitution, 2005, p. 46,179)
By creating three branches of
government, the delegates built a "check and balance" system into the
Constitution. This system was constructed so that one branch of our government
couldn’t become too powerful. (umkc.edu,
2013) (The Heritage guide to the Constitution, 2005, p. 46,179)
Each branch is controlled by the other
two in numerous ways. For example, the president may veto a law approved by
Congress. Congress can overrule that veto with a vote of two-thirds in
cooperation of Congress. Another example is that the Supreme Court may restrain
Congress by announcing a law unconstitutional. The power is composed by the
circumstance that members of the Supreme Court are chosen by the president.
Those appointments have to be permitted by Congress. (nccs.net, 2013) ( The
Heritage guide to the Constitution, 2005, p. 46, 179)
The concept of
Separation of Powers is exemplified in the Constitution in the 1st Article, in
the 2nd Article, and in the 3rd Article. Fifty state constitutions specify that
government be divided into three branches: legislative, executive and judicial.
While separation of
powers is crucial to the mechanisms of American government, no democratic
system happens with total separation of powers or a total absence of separation of powers. Governmental powers and responsibilities
deliberately overlap; they are too problematic and interconnected to be neatly
compartmentalized. As a result, there is a characteristic measure of rivalry
and struggle among the branches of government.
Throughout American history, there also has been an ebb and flow of
supremacy among the governmental branches.
Such experiences propose that where power resides is part of an
evolutionary process. (nccs.net, 2013) (The Heritage guide to the Constitution,
2005, p. 46, 179)
The
Constitution covers no delivery openly announcing that the powers of the three
branches of the federal government shall be separated. James Madison, in his
original draft of what would become the Bill of Rights, included a planned
amendment that would make the separation of powers explicit, but his suggestion
was rejected, mainly because his fellow members of Congress thought the
farewell of powers principle to be understood in the construction of government
under the Constitution. Madison's future amendment, they concluded, would be a
dismissal. (nccs.net, 2013) (The Heritage guide to the Constitution,
2005, p. 46, 179)
The first article of the Constitution says "All legislative powers
shall be conferred in a Congress." The second article vests "the
executive power in a President” who is obliged to faithfully execute the laws
as written, and not to suspend some and enforce all others. The third article
spaces the "judicial power of the United States in one Supreme Court"
and "in such inferior Courts as the Congress may establish." (nccs.net, 2013) ( The
Heritage guide to the Constitution, 2005, p. 46, 179)
Separation of powers attends numerous goals. Separation prevents attentiveness of influence (tyranny) and
delivers each branch with armaments to fight off infringement by the other two
branches. As James Madison claimed in the Federalist Papers (No. 51),
"Ambition must be made to counteract ambition." Clearly, our system
of separated powers is not designed to maximize efficiency; it is designed to
maximize freedom. (umkc.edu,
2013) ( The Heritage guide to the
Constitution, 2005, p. 46, 179)
Freedom in the US
Constitution is freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion from
the first amendment. Such freedom as is appreciated by the citizens of a state
or country under the safeguard of its constitution; the collective of those
individual, civic, and political rights of the separate which are guaranteed by
the constitution and protected in contradiction of invasion by the management
or any of its agencies. (umkc.edu, 2013)
The Bill of Rights,
Amendments 1 to 10 of the Constitution protects the individual's rights to
liberty from the power of government. The 1st Amendment, for example, says that
Congress shall not take away a person' freedoms of religion, speech, press,
assembly, and petition. Rather,
the Constitution undertakes that all people mechanically have these civil
freedoms and therefore confines the government from using its influence to
abuse persons. Thus, there is an isolated jurisdiction of life, which
government officials cannot occupy without disrupting the Constitution.
(umkc.edu, 2013)
Some freedoms at risk
today are religion and gun rights. The
US Government is creating a nationwide gun registry so the feds can eventually
remove guns from responsible gun owners, just like Canada removed guns when it
created a gun registry in the 1980s.
Amendment II states: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the
security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, should
not be infringed”. (The U.S.
Constitution; Reader, 2012, p.59)
The First Amendment to
the US Constitution prohibits Congress from passing any law that infringes the
free exercise of religion. “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion' or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . .
.” (The U.S. Constitution; Reader,
2012, p.58) The question today is
whether or not this freedom will still be permitted when it comes to the public
life of Christians. (umkc.edu, 2013)
The conflict is arising
over the matter of contraceptives in health care plans. The Roman Catholic
Church holds that all contraceptives are immoral. Most Evangelical Christians
do not forbid all contraceptives, but hold that contraceptives that induce
abortions are sinful. The current issue is the mandate under the Affordable
Care Act for businesses, including those owned by Christians and Catholics
formed to uphold Christian values, to provide contraceptives that include 'the
morning after pill' in the insurance plans of their employees. Religion liberty
violations are becoming an issue, where Christian businesses, Universities,
hospitals and charities would have to pay for healthcare that is traditionally
absent from the decades long expenditures of their public charity funds and
belief. (umkc.edu, 2013)
The 17th amendment rectified
since 1913, states: The Senate of the
United States should be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by
the people [not state legislators] thereof, for six years”. (The U.S. Constitution: A Reader, 2012,
p.62) There are no limits on how many
times each Senator or House representative can run for congress. What we see
over time, is many of our congressmen have become professional politician,
whose agendas are becoming more distance of the needs of their constituents,
resulting in a situation where more democratic and oligarchic (power is vested
in a few people). The state can crush the civil society institutions, such as church,
family, and community that are the essence of American society. (Levin, M.R.,
2013, p. 30-32) Just in the past weeks, the Democratic Party in the Senate abolished the super
majority vote replacing it with a simple majority, because the super majority
no longer works in the Democratic oligarchy.
In this paper's
opinion, individuals should be able to freely select (not the government) our
own health insurance and if need be, purchase one's healthcare insurance across
state lines. In the very near future, insurance companies will be limited and
selections reduced to the single state.
Since April 22, 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency has been doing
economic planning with five year plans since its establishment. The Article 1,
Sec. 8 has the “Commerce Clause” which grants the federal government “To
regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with
the Indian Tribes.” When the commerce clause was written, the federal
government had ever-expanding scope and power. (keywiki.org, 2013)
So is our Liberty and
freedom at risk in today's state?
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers
from the Consent of the Governed." — Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration of
Independence. In regards of Thomas
Jefferson's famous above quote, this paper does not believe that our present government
is listening to or has the “consent of the Governed” which stands in contrast
to the European's “will of the majority”.
So what is the better way to organize a society so people can be free
and flourish, Hobbes or Locke? Possibly
Locke's smaller government, more limited government, that promotes more
individual freedom and liberty is more favorable over Hobbes's Leviathan state,
a big state, an entitlement state that can crush the civil society
institutions, such as
church, family, and community that are the essence of American society.
In conclusion, this
paper would like to reflect on the echoes of John Locke, through Thomas
Jefferson's powerful words for liberty:
“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 to
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 affect their Safety and Happiness”.
(archives.gov) Perhaps, the next
time in the voting booth, we the “governed”, should all remember Thomas
Jefferson's powerful words for liberty, 'period'!
References
Anonymous (2013)
The Declaration of Independence
Retrieved November 27, 2013 from
Heritage website
http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/the-declaration-of-independence
Anonymous (2013)
Checks and Balances
Retrieved November 27, 2013 from NCCS
website
Anonymous (2013)
Separation of Powers
Retrieved November 27, 2013 from UMKC
website
Anonymous (2013)
Barack Obama and the Committees of Correspondence
Retrieved November 27, 2013 from
Keywiki website
Anonymous (2013)
Barack Obama and the New Party
Retrieved November 27, 2013 from
Keywiki website
Article 1. (2005). In The Heritage guide to the Constitution (p.
46). Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation.
Article 2. (2005). In The Heritage guide to the Constitution (p.
179). Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation.
Comrade Joe. (2012, August 19). The State of Nature: Thomas Hobbes
Vs John Locke. Retrieved November 8, 2013, from
http://comradejoe.hubpages.com/hub/The-State-of-Nature-Thomas-Hobbes-Vs-John-Locke
Deutsch, K. L., & Fornieri, J. R. (2009). Chapter 8 - Locke.
In An invitation to political thought (pp. 272-308). Boston, MA: Thomson Higher
Education.
Deutsch, K. L., & Fornieri, J. R. (2009). Chapter 7 - Thomas
Hobbes. In An invitation to political thought (pp. 226-267). Boston, MA:
Thomson Higher Education.
Hammond, K. (2011, June 22). What are The Differences Between
Locke and Hobbes’s Notions of The ‘State of Nature’? Discuss with Reference to
The Second Treatise of Government and The Leviathan. Retrieved November 8,
2013, from
http://socyberty.com/social-sciences/what-are-the-differences-between-locke-and-hobbess-notions-of-the-state-of-nature-discuss-with-reference-to-the-second-treatise-of-government-and-the-leviathan/
rachmorr. (2009, November 8). The Difference Between Hobbes and
Locke [Blog post]. Retrieved from The State of Nature: Thomas Hobbes Vs John
Locke website: http://polsci101.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/the-difference-between-hobbes-and-locke/
Second Treatise of Government - John Locke (1632-1704). (2012). In
The U.S. Constitution: A reader (pp. 31-42). Hillsdale, Mich.: Hillsdale
College Press.
Yale (2008,
September 21) 15 – Constitutional Government Locke’s Second Treatise
Retrieved November 27, 2013 from
Youtube website
Levin, M.R. (2013) An
Amendment to Establish Term Limits for Members of Congress
pg 30-32 The Liberty Amendments-
Restoring the American Republic Threshold
Editions, United States
Anonymous (2013)
About the Pilgrims
Retrieved November 27, 2013 from pilgrimhallmuseum
website
Anonymous (2013) Leviathan
Retrieved November 27, 2013 from
University of Oregon website
http://web.archive.org/web/20041206091803/http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~rbear/hobbes/leviathan.html
Anonymous (2013) Leviathan
Retrieved November 27, 2013 from
University of Oregon website
http://web.archive.org/web/20041210185041/http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~rbear/hobbes/leviathan2.html
No comments:
Post a Comment