John Adams wrote:The Declaration of Independence I always considered as a Theatrical Show. Jefferson ran away with all the stage effect of that; i.e. all the Glory of it.
Are all men created equal? And is consent the basis of society? What are your opinions on these, the two stilts of liberalism (Hobbes claims all men are by nature equal)?
As a conservative, I firmly reject them (Russell Kirk likewise thought the United States Declaration of Independence to contain much gibberish, even if the act of Independence itself was proper and called for; Friedrich von Gentz expressed the same position in The Origins and Principles of the American Revolution, compared with the Origin and Principles of the French Revolution, which was translated by John Quincy Adams) . Taking "All men are created equal" at face value, it is patently absurd. It would mean all men are fungible. No two persons are equal, neither are any two peoples--imagine if every Russian in Russia were replaced by an American: the country would be utterly transformed over night. And does anyone seriously believe that an infantry platoon composed entirely of men would perform the same as one composed entirely of women? No, human beings are not fungible.
Let us then take a more practical approach to this statement: it is paraphrase from the first draft of the Virginian Constitution, by George Mason: "That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent natural Rights, of which they cannot by any Compact, deprive or divest their Posterity; among which are the Enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the Means of acquiring and possessing Property, and pursuing and obtaining Happiness and Safety."
Well this first part is obviously wrong of course. Men were not born "equally free" in Virginia at that time. Made it should have read, "Ought to be born equally free and independent". Of course, men obviously "ought" to be born with gumdrop trees and houses made of gingerbread as well.
Suffice it to say, this belief in the equality of man makes no sense. And "natural rights," i.e. rights "endowed by God", obviously don't mean a right to sin. That doesn't mean all forms of sin must be illegal, which would make us all convicts. But to say one has a "right to sin" is of course nonsense, at least within the framework of natural rights. If one throws out the very idea of natural rights, that's another story though.
Anyhow, moving on to the next topic, the idea of society being based on "consent", i.e. "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". That consent plays a large role in society, and that it always accomplishes better than coercion, of that there can be no doubt. But that society is founded principally on consent, that idea is simply not true. As Orestes Brownson observed in The America Republic, the American Civil War decisively put that liberal misconception of the "social contract" to bed: states which did not want to be a part of the union were simply told they have no choice, and were forced to be a part. Without coercion, collective sufficient taxes would be impossible, as would having a national border. In fact, private property itself would be impossible. And the idea of sovereign borders and private property go hand-in-hand: the very legitimacy of one is the same as the legitimacy of the other. To have one but not the other would be wholly inconsistent.
One other fallacy I would like to note is "abstract nationalism". It's very popular in America, I don't know about elsewhere. This is the idea that a country or a nation is an "idea" or a "dream" rather than a distinct land and people. Imagine if you will a man who lives in Virginia in a town settled by his ancestors in the 17th Century. Imagine this man's greatest treasure is the land, his neighbors and his family. Now imagine this man is a communist. It would be absurd to call him "unamerican", by which standards a Swedish businessman who doesn't even live here is more "American". No, no, no. This very strange perspective leads some people who really don't value their land or neighbors to say they "love their country". They really don't, the land and your neighbors, those are your country--unless of course you are outside your country. This is like someone who claims to "love books" and yet detests reading.
So, again, are all men created equal? And is consent the basis of society? What are your opinions on these?
