Revolutions are bloody. As Malcolm X put it in his famous Ballot or the Bullet Speech: "When this country here was first being founded, there were thirteen colonies. The whites were colonized. They were fed up with this taxation without representation. So some of them stood up and said, "Liberty or death!" I went to a white school over here in Mason, Michigan. The white man made the mistake of letting me read his history books. He made the mistake of teaching me that Patrick Henry was a patriot, and George Washington – wasn't nothing non-violent about ol' Pat, or George Washington. "Liberty or death" is was what brought about the freedom of whites in this country from the English." So perhaps it is particularly poignant that the first inalienable right given to all men in the Declaration of Independence is: life. Something that was being taken away on both sides of this conflict every single day. However, what does this really mean? Were the Founding Fathers against the death penalty? Unlikely considering they lived in a world where stealing a horse could be punished by death. So is it conditional and, if so, how can it be an inalienable right? For clarity on the right to life, let us go to the biggest inspiration of the Declaration of Independence, John Locke.
Now I know John Locke is oft-discussed philosopher in classrooms across America but rarely does the discussion go beyond, "John Locke...natural rights...learn it". Here are some things worth noting. 1. Locke died in 1704, Jefferson was not born until 1743 so they are in no way contemporaries. 2. Locke spent most of his life as a doctor, not a politician or philosopher. His interest in political systems likely came from saving the life of an Earl and was likely prompted by him to write his famous Two Treatises of Government. 3. The full name of Two Treatises actually shows that the target of Locke's critical analysis was a pretty much forgotten political theorist named Robert Filmer. Filmer had just written a publication that defended monarchy and divine right. 4. Although Jefferson clearly loved and plagiarized John Locke, he was not alone in the TJ Admiration Club. Jefferson actually wrote to a friend around the time of the Constitution that three greatest men of all-time were Locke, Isaac Newton and Sir Francis Bacon. Locke explained in his most famous work that governments are created for a variety of reasons but one of the major ones is to resolve disputes in a civil way. In other words, governments are made to protect lives. On one hand that makes sense, tribal warfare is pretty common in world history and we all know the famous line Thomas Hobbes about life being "nasty, brutish and short". Pop culture shows us all the time the bloodbath that is created without the structures of legal institutions. I mean, does The Purge or The Walking Dead ring any bells? On the other hand, governments have actually sanctioned death in several forms. Whether it be the death penalty, fighting in a war or euthanasia, governments have multiple times found very efficient but not necessarily "civilized" ways to deal with disputes. Going back to pop culture, let's remember "The Hunger Games" is a state-sponsored murder fest and while they may claim it is used to placate the masses and stop another "revolution" of the 13 colonies...I mean districts...which would kill even more people, it is hard to argue that they are any safer than the "natural state". So how do we explain this problem? First, we should remember the point of this document. Locke is arguing against tyranny and divine right. His belief is that civil decisions will be made because of another important Enlightenment concept "consent of the governed". This sounds logical but it also complicates are concept of natural rights. So what if people consent to giving up their natural rights? Are they allowed to do that? If not, are natural rights holding their own tyrannical-like force over us? Furthermore, while you could argue wars in democracies have consent of the governed because the represented assemblies vote on them, you have to wonder what role the nation-state plays in the modern era. While the "nation-state" is not really a term being widely used in Locke's era, the concept is beginning to take root. The Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 created independent cultural sovereignties that many would consider nation-states today. By the time of the French Revolution, less than 1/5th of the people of France spoke French! The common identity that we associate with countries is nothing back then compared to the recent centuries. Does this development help Locke's vision of government or hurt it? Is it superfluous and I'm just trying to overcomplicate? Still, if the role of government is to protect life it seems hard to evaluate their success. Wars, abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, alcohol, tobacco and drug legalizations all contribute to life being impaired in our modern society in some way, shape or form. I always knew life was complicated, I just never knew "the right to life" would be equally confusing.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorFollow me @MrG_Unit Archives
August 2016
Categories
All
|