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 effect their Safety and Happiness. So for awhile we have been focused on the idea of natural rights and breaking down what words like life, liberty and happiness really mean. Now the Declaration of Independence moves forward and says that rights mean nothing if they are just philosophical principles argued about by intellectuals like John Locke and Jean Jaques Rousseau. We need government and this is why: "to secure these rights". This is the goal of government and Jefferson lays forth pretty heavy consequences for failure to live up to these expectations. Let us look at this passage and examine the role of government, the role of the people in government and how the "voice" of the people is measured. So to "secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men" is the next phrase and it seems like an odd one.
I mean men institute as opposed to what cows, birds? Here it seems Jefferson is taking down the notion of divine right, a popular theory for the past few centuries that the monarchy is instituted and mandated by God. People create this government and although "the Creator" may give us these rights it is up to us to keep them. This is a rather secular passage and it makes sense that Jefferson would believe this. After all, he founded the University of Virginia as the first non-sectarian university in America. He was a Deist and his love of science and reason are well-known. Here he is departing from some of the more spiritual, Christian and idealistic elements he touched upon in the last sentence and becoming much more cold, lawyerly and calculated. Then he continues to dispel the notion of divine right and argues that "they derive their just power from the consent of the governed". Two things of note, one is that he modifies the word power with "just". After all, a major point of this document is that the actions of King George III are unjust. He will soon dispatch a laundry list of abuses and he is explaining that power must be justified and it is justified through the second thing of note: consent of the governed. Once again, consent of the governed is not a Founding Father original idea. John Locke, of course, but also John Milton, Thomas Hobbes and many more dealt with the idea of consent of the people both positively and negatively. Yet, this gets murky in today's world. What exactly constitutes consent? For example, if people become so disillusioned with the 2016 Presidential candidates that less than half of Americans vote, can the winner really say they have "consent of the governed"? They may have "consent of the voters" but that is not the same thing. This also starts to skew dangerously towards another word "legitimacy". Do we need the government or does the government need us? What about the fact that consent can be skewed by lack of options? In a world of false dichotomies, does my support of one action to stop another really mean consent or fear over the alternative? How about the fact that once politicians are in office, voters have little recourse to stop the actions taken by their elected officials until the NEXT election. I may have consented a certain Virginia Senator to represent me but must that consent last for six years? Does that consent mean I have to live with every decision they make, even ones I vehemently disagree with? What if I did not vote for that person, then I never gave my consent for their decisions did I? In America, we fundamentally tie our consent to the right to vote on candidates and occasionally issues like a referendum vote. Yet it is clear that this definition is flawed today just as it was back then when many groups were left out of the process entirely. Consent is meant to be a unifying force but getting their is a very divisive project. How do we redefine consent in 2016 then? I would love to hear your thoughts in the comments section below.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorFollow me @MrG_Unit Archives
August 2016
Categories
All
|