a. Classical Liberalism vs Progressivism
One of the most polysemous words in American vernacular is the word liberal. The meaning of this word has evolved over the centuries, whilst the meaning itself has had several different variations at any point in time. The history of the word's transformation is fascinating, for the examination of the subject provides the reader with both invaluable and essential knowledge, knowledge that is requisite to understand the very philosophical foundations of our Constitution.
Although the basic concepts of Classical Liberalism have existed since antiquity, it is best to begin this inquiry at the inception of Classical Liberalism during the Age of Enlightenment, founded by the philosopher John Locke. In order to understand John Locke, we must also understand one of those most responsible for influencing his development of Classical Liberal ideology.
Our investigation beings with a man named John Milton and the concept of the Divine Right of Kings. The theory of Divine Right asserts that God divides men by certain distinctions, Kings and Subjects, just as God divides the human species into male and female. The King is Sovereign, exercising supreme authority in all spheres of government, in all places subject to his jurisdiction; therefore, the King is endowed by the Creator with unlimited rights, for all decisions made by the King are in fact the will of God.
The Subject is inferior to the King, and must accept any edict from the King without question. The Subject only has those rights which the King permits. Those rights may be revoked, denied or disparaged at any time. Some Subjects will enjoy being in a privileged class (so long as they remain in favor with the King), elevating their status in both government and society, for if God can create the Distinction of King and Subject, then the King, who rules by the will of God, can create the Distinction of Nobility and Commoner among the Subjects.
Central to the doctrine of Divine Right, was that no Subject may question the King, for questioning any edict of the King was equivalent to challenging the will of God. The King being Sovereign over his Subjects, both Noble and Common, can only be judged by God, or another King, as other Kings rule by the will of God. Thus the Subjects have no power, on heaven or earth, to depose of their King.
However, during the middle of the 17th Century, a man named John Milton came to challenge the legitimacy of the Divine Right doctrine itself. Milton argued that the King's authority was derived from the people, and thus the King's power is only granted to him by Popular Sovereignty. Most important is that the people derive this sovereignty from God, and that these Sovereigns have both the right and the obligation to overthrow a tyrannical King. Here the roles of King and Subject are reversed, the Subjects, are Sovereign over the King; the King only rules as a privilege extended to him by the people, a privilege that can be revoked, denied or disparaged at any time. Overall, the King is a Servant to the Public, hence the term public servant.
The theory presented by John Milton was only rudimentary at best. It was from this idea that great philosophers and other writers would build upon, paving the way towards republican form of government, social contract and natural rights. The first of these philosophers to whom we pay homage if John Locke, the most influential of all the Enlightenment thinkers upon the Constitution of the United States.
In the year 1689, John Locke published Two Treatises on Government, in direct response to Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarcha, a book that declared that all government is absolute monarchy, and that no man is born free. In the very beginning of Filmer's book, he states:
'Mankind is naturally endowed and born with freedom from all subjection, and at liberty to choose what form of government it please, and that the power which any one man hath over others was at first bestowed according to the discretion of the multitude' …
But howsoever this vulgar opinion [above paragraph] hath of late obtained a great reputation, yet it is not to be found in the ancient fathers and doctors of the primitive Church. It contradicts the doctrine and history of the Holy Scriptures, the constant practice of all ancient monarchies, and the very principles of the law of nature. It is hard to say whether it be more erroneous in divinity or dangerous in policy …
This desperate assertion whereby kings are made subject to the censures and deprivations of their subjects follows — as the authors of it conceive — as a necessary consequence of that former position of the supposed natural equality and freedom of mankind, and liberty to choose what form of government it please …
Secondly, I am not to question or quarrel at the rights or liberties of this or any other nation; my task is chiefly to inquire from whom these first came, not to dispute what or how many these are, but whether they were derived from the laws of natural liberty or from the grace and bounty of princes. My desire and hope is that the people of England may and do enjoy as ample privileges as any nation under heaven; the greatest liberty in the world — if it be duly considered — is for a people to live under a monarch. It is the Magna Charta of this kingdom; all other shows or pretexts of liberty are but several degrees of slavery, and a liberty only to destroy liberty.
Notice the text in bold, Sir Robert would have his readers believe that we have no rights, only privileges which are extended by the grace and goodwill of the King. Herein exists the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings, where the King is Sovereign, and the Subjects are no more than serfs. In the words of John Locke, from the the first chapter of his Treatise:
...that in a book [Patriarcha], which was to provide chains for all mankind, I should find nothing but a rope of sand, useful perhaps to such, whose skill and business it is to raise a dust, and would blind the people, the better to mislead them; but in truth not of any force to draw those into bondage, who have their eyes open, and so much sense about them, as to consider, that chains are but an ill wearing, how much care soever hath been taken to file and polish them.
The ancient strife between Liberalism and Statism had been ever going, and continues to this very day. Either we are born with certain unalienable rights, bestowed upon us by the Creator, or we are born as Subjects, a distinction chosen for us by the Creator, and we exist at the mercy and grace of Kings. For the meantime, we will examine the former, and abandon the latter — at least for now.
Our study of John Locke shall consist of three pillars:
I. Natural Rights
II. Social Contract
III. Republicanism
We start with the theory of natural rights, established upon the axiom (quoted from the Declaration of Independence), that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. In order to fully comprehend this statement, we must first investigate the meaning of the word unalienable. According to Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, “Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.” It is safe to assume that this is the meaning which Thomas Jefferson intended when composing the Declaration of Independence.
There also exists another word of which we must pay heed to, that is the word inalienable. Modern authorities would have us believe that there exists no difference between the words unalienable and inalienable, that the word unalienable was abandoned in favor of inalienable, because the 19th Century placed more emphasis on Latin variants of English than the Anglicized variants; the negative prefix in- is derived from Latin, where the negative prefix un- descends from the original Germanic roots of the English language.
However, there exists an acute difference between unalienable and inalienable, a difference which modern authorities wish you to remain ignorant of. In the year 1952, the Kansas City Court of Appeals made the ruling: Inalienable is defined as incapable of being surrendered or transferred; at least without one's consent.
The implications of the ruling are tremendous, but also necessary. There is nothing intrinsically evil in this ruling. For instance, your life is an unalienable right, it cannot be transferred to another; however, your property is an inalienable right, as it can be transferred to another upon your consent. Unfortunately, the word unalienable has been expunged from American vocabulary, and this was caused neither by coincidence nor the progression of time. This was a calculated effort made by the élite in order to impose Roman Civil Law upon the United States, instead of English Common Law. The former is adjudicated under Admiralty Jurisdiction, the latter falls under the jurisdiction of either Law or Equity. However, this deception by the élite is for another chapter, for now we continue with our study of Natural Rights.
