Has the American Revolution’s Rationale Lost Its Force?
By Robert Higgs • Sunday July 3, 2011 10:36 AM PDT • 13 Comments
The heart of the Declaration of Independence adopted by the thirteen united colonies of British North America on July 4, 1776, is as follows:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 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 to 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security
On these grounds, the colonists took up arms against the long-established state under which they lived, and thousands of them perished in the struggle to secede from the British Empire.
Did the argument they advanced to justify their actions have any force? If it had force then, does it not have equal force today – nay, does it not have a thousand times greater force today than it had then?
To repeat, our ancestors declared that ”when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” Do the Americans of today deny that they also possess this right and this duty? And if they do possess this right and this duty, why do they continue to suffer – nay, to affirmatively suppport and celebrate – the rule of a state whose every action mocks their unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and crushes them ever more oppressively under the weight of its presumptuous and mendacious tyranny?
Tags: American History, Civil Liberties, Liberty, Personal Liberty, Power, The State 
One wonders how bad it has to get before Americans wake up and rebel against Leviathan. Concentration camps? Tanks in the streets? Hyperinflation?
Steve Hogan | Jul 3, 2011 | Reply
Dr. Higgs,
I hear you loud and clear.
The above is a great dialogue to start.
You ask: “And if they do possess this right and this duty, why do they continue to suffer?”
I say because they don’t understand that private markets offer a better alternative. They’re stuck thinking that the long train of abuses and usurpations can be fixed with a similar, but slightly better government. They can not imagine how all protection services, roads and money could be better provided by markets.
So...why not help them visualize your libertarian-anarchist utopia? Somewhere deep in your mind, you have a vision of this place, even if it’s just a seed that motivates you to do what you do. I think you want to live in that utopia right?
How difficult would it be to imagine this utopia and then sketch it out? Create it on paper. Put yourself in that world and imagine what it would be like to live there. What would you do? Imagine how other people you know would respond to the incentives, freedom and knowledge in that world. What would they do?
Scott
Scott G | Jul 4, 2011 | Reply
My guess is that democracy is just much more convincing then divine right as a basis for legitimacy so it takes much more abuse before a revolt happens.
As for Steve Hogan, my guess is that the entire bill of rights will be completely ignored and people still won’t revolt.
I don’t think concentration camps would do it so long as they targeted some hated minority not necessarily racial (What other types of concentration camps are there.)
I doubt tanks in the streets would do it so long as it followed a terrorist or black flag event.
Hyperinflation might do it. Whatever it is, I think it would have to involve severe economic disruption. Everything else will effect few enough people that the vast majority will just frown about it and then go on with their lives.
steve | Jul 4, 2011 | Reply
Oh yeah, Steve, at Least that, if not more.
That Russian fella from long ago (I forget his name at the moment) says it won’t be until after they feel the boot hitting their butt as they’re kicked into the camp.
clark | Jul 4, 2011 | Reply
Also, Scott, what a tease, we’re a Loooong ways from that moment.
And, it’s minor, but, it’s not a utopia,... “utopia” is what “they” are attempting to construct now.
And, when you say, “Put yourself in that world and imagine what it would be like to live there.”
HA! I imagine that is exactly what the good Prof. Higgs is doing by moving to Mexico,... I envy him, last time I was in Mexico I said I never wanted to leave, it was FGreat there, but that was twenty years ago, still, some things never change.
clark | Jul 4, 2011 | Reply
Clark,
I’m using the word utopia in a more general sense (usage 1 and some of usage 2 below).
From Merriam-Webster:
utopia
1. an imaginary place or indefinitely remote place
2. a place of ideal perfection in laws, government and social conditions
3. an impractical scheme for social improvement
You’re thinking of the third usage correct?
More precisely I would say that my usage of the phrase libertarian-anarchist utopia means: an imaginary place of ideal perfection in laws and morals which emerge through an evolutionary process.
I admit the the phrase is confusing, however my audience is Dr. Higgs and I know he understands exactly what I’m talking about. If I were speaking to a wider audience I would use different words. Voluntarist would replace libertarian-anarchist, and world would replace utopia. Then I would take some time to define voluntarist.
Also, Dr. Higgs is at a certain place in his life where moving to Mexico makes sense. The loss in positive liberty which Dr. Higgs will give up in exchange for the greater negative liberty he will gain is too expensive for younger folks like myself.
http://www.studiohayek.com/2011/06/reading-brief-history-of-liberty-by.html
Scott G | Jul 4, 2011 | Reply
At this point in our cultural history, armed rebellion is likely to produce only a new set of masters. The State is the institutional manifestation of social irresponsibility—as long as people will not take responsibility for their own lives, the State prospers. Only through a revolution in thinking—a de-legitimization of State power—in the minds of a critical minority of the citizens can real change be effected. Liberation is an inner struggle; violence only breeds more violence.
David Brenner | Jul 5, 2011 | Reply
Dr.Robert Higgs: 7/06/2011
Indeed it has and will continue to show declivity with everything else.
“That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”This statement alone would give Homeland Security enough reason to file this under the category of terrorism,if the people sought(demanded)to make good on this particular issue.There is no doubt,the Government will keep this power and will do anything and everything to prevent its loss.
Thanking you for your attention to this matter -
James deLaurier | Jul 6, 2011 | Reply
The Declaration of Independence is as much a legal document as the Constitution. It is sometimes said that it is the title and the Constitution the owners manual. Jefferson had it right when he said that the primary purpose of government is to secure life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. He later warned, however, that it is the nature of government to grow and liberty to recede.
All men have a natural right to self defense. It makes no difference if one is being subjected to the abuses of a local bully, a class of nobles, a simple majority, or an entrenched political class – one always has the right to resist parasites but doing so is never easy and should not be taken lightly. The problem today is that most men are either unable to recognize tyranny or unwilling to do anything about it if they did. The right to vote has, in effect, become an acceptable substitute for freedom rather than a means to better achieve that end. Worse yet, it is sometimes sometimes even turned into a license to steal. The present has come to more closely resembles the world envisioned by Rousseau than by Jefferson – a tyranny of the majority or absolutist government by popularity contest. There is some indication that Americans are beginning to slowly wake up to the peril they are in but only time will tell if the tide can be turned back.
Marc | Jul 6, 2011 | Reply
Mr. Higgs and many others have sketched it out for decades. Asking him to “sketch it out” is like asking Mark Twain to throw some essays together.
Use some Google Fu. Purchase at Amazon or Mises.org.
RNH | Jul 7, 2011 | Reply
Your referencing Yuri Bezmenov, who was interviewed by G. Edward Griffin in the early 1980s.
bill | Jul 7, 2011 | Reply