The Bill of Rights Merely Legitimizes Government

From nearly the beginning of this project, Carl has responded to various posts recommending that I read a particular article in a future issue that relates to the topic I’ve discussed.

Up to now I have not taken his advice. I had this idea that I wanted to read the issues in order, not only to learn more about the Voluntaryist viewpoint itself, but to also get a feel as to how this particular project moved forward, in and out of the historical context of recent decades.

Yet, just as Carl has tirelessly continued his work publishing The Voluntaryist, he continues to recommend upcoming articles. He’s been like that guy who knows what’s coming up in a movie, talking in my ear as I’m watching, “Oh Debbie, wait until you see this next part, it’s so cool!” (I’m sure you all visualize Carl as I do, jumping up and down in anticipation, wanting me to read on, right?)

"Thanks Carl," I say, "I’m sure it is, but I’ll see it when I get there."

Well, as anyone can see by the speed at which I am moving forward, it’s entirely possible I may not get there - unless I live to be about 124 according to my calculations.

So this time I decided to take him up on it and see how reading ahead works for me. I can still continue to read in order, but to not take advantage of Carl’s knowledge of what’s in future issues that could help us all get a clearer picture of a particular topic is kind of missing a main benefit to even doing this project. Besides, this project is called Debbie AND Carl.

In addition, Joe offered this comment on the same post (Is the Constitution Preventing Further Progress of Freedom?):

“Debbie, I think that the Constitution is first and foremost a political instrument. It's only the Bill of Rights that may be considered to be based on some philosophical truths, and even then it insists on maintaining statist doctrines such as eminent domain.”

So I went to the article in issue 101, published December 1999, and read “ ‘The Illusion is Liberty – The Reality is Leviathan’: A Voluntaryist Perspective on the Bill of Rights.”

Carl writes at the beginning of this article:

This article was sparked by an essay written by Forrest McDonald entitled "The Bill of Rights: Unnecessary and Pernicious," in which he presents the thesis (which he shares with some other historians) that the first ten amendments to the federal Constitution were essentially a legitimizing device used by those favoring a strong central government. In other words, many Americans who otherwise might not have supported the new central government were won over to it by the adoption of the Bill of Rights. Reading McDonald's article led me to review some of the history of the adoption of the Bill of Rights, of the conflict between the Federalists and their opponents, the Anti-Federalists, of the strategy adopted by the Federalists in urging the ratification of the Constitution, and to consider the ultimate significance of the Bill of Rights. Would we, as late 20th Century Americans, have been better or worse off' had the Bill of Rights never been adopted? What would American constitutional history look like if there had been no Bill of Rights? The purpose of this article is to examine these topics from a Voluntaryist perspective, and to decide what position the committed Voluntaryist would have taken during the struggle for the ratification of the Constitution and the adoption of the first ten amendments.

This article doesn’t give anything away about the publication that I just don't want to know yet and it is full of juicy tidbits for the brain to chew on. Here are just a few:

• The Declaration of Independence was a statist document. (For an example, see page 1 of this article.)
• Americans simply traded one state for another
• The Federalists and Anti-Federalists were not arguing over whether there should be government to rule men, but only what form it should take.
• There are several violations of individual rights contained in the Bill of Rights. (For examples, see page 5.)
• The Bill of Rights has not protected American Citizens during some of the most critical times in our nation’s history. (For examples, see page 6.)

Now I’m going to be like that person who’s taking you to a movie I’ve seen before and encourage you to read ahead. Maybe you’ll reach a similar conclusion as Carl (I know I did.):

Constitutions and bills of rights are legitimizing tools of the ruling elite. Both are badges of slavery not liberty, and should be rejected. It is only when people awaken to these facts that they will become free.

Is the Constitution Preventing Further Progress of Freedom?

Issue 15 of The Voluntaryist is entirely devoted to a single article by George Smith, titled “Property Rights and Free Trade in Ideas.” George sets up his purpose here:

“In this paper I shall examine two arguments for freedom of conscience and religious toleration. There is, first, the moral argument based on property rights, specifically, the argument that every individual has "property in his own conscience." There is, second, the social argument that diversity of religious belief is desirable, and that from the conflict and competition of religious ideologies, truth will spontaneously emerge.”

One point that seems to run throughout this article is that although religion was historically a big impetus for the movement towards freedom in general, the arguments used to defend religious freedom from government control were not always applied consistently to other areas, education for example.

In other words, religious liberty is just one aspect of liberty of conscience, or self-ownership. The article goes into greater historical detail and I invite you to read it if interested.

The part I want to pull out here is George’s explanation of why he chose to focus his article on English writers:

“…The moral and social implications of liberty of conscience and religion are covered more elaborately, and with more attention to fundamentals, in nineteenth-century England than in nineteenth century America. The fact that English dissenters were struggling against an Established Church undoubtedly accounts for some of this.

But I suggest that another factor was operating, which makes England a more interesting field of study from a purely philosophic perspective. After ratification of the U.S. Constitution, church-state controversies in America typically revolved around Constitutional arguments, especially the Bill of Rights and its prohibition of a religious establishment. Consequently, arguments in nineteenth century America are often legalistic and resort to legal precedent and the intentions of the founding fathers.

… English libertarians had no Constitutional amendment to which they could appeal. And, to the extent that appeal could be made to the British Constitution, it clearly favored an established Church. An established Church enjoyed legal precedent of longstanding in England.

This forced English dissenters to develop moral and social arguments in favor of liberty of conscience and religion. Elaborate theoretical systems were required to combat an established church grounded in legal tradition. Legalistic arguments gave way to moral, social, and political arguments. This, I believe, is why we find a greater stress in England on moral principles and spontaneous order, and on theoretical considerations generally.

This is also why English thought is more interesting historically. If we wish to bypass constitutional interpretations peculiar to one country and focus instead on moral and social underpinnings, English thought provides an ideal case study.”

This brings up something I’ve been wondering about for some time now: is the Constitution getting in the way of real freedom?

So many, when asked to make reasoned arguments for their positions, simply say “It’s in the Constitution,” as if that in itself answers the question of any philosophical underpinning for their view and determines the truth.

But does it?

Of course I understand that the Constitution started from what were considered to be basic philosophical truths, but it’s also a political document. And as such, it went through the gauntlet of political compromise, which always waters down basic philosophical principles. This also opened it up to endless interpretation by a variety of biased viewpoints. (Ironically the exact problem humans have experienced with religious texts.)

Consider this in relation to the views of a man George discusses in this article, Henry Robinson:

“From the free competition of ideas, he (Robinson) argued, truth will emerge; suppress ideas, even wrong ideas, and truth will suffer. Competition, whether in commerce or ideas, produces vitality and life; imposed uniformity produces stagnation and death.”

So, looking at this from the perspective of Robinson, is the worship and legalistic reliance on the Constitution for answers keeping us from moving forward with the free competition of ideas which are necessary for the emergence of truth, and ultimately, complete liberty?