De Tocqueville's error - that of our time

[ZSorenson]

I'm finally reading Democracy in America and I have stumbled upon a major error in De Tocqueville's reasoning that seems to be part and parcel with that of the Founders' philosophy itself. Bear with me, it has to deal with the Catholic Church.

He seems to think of Government in terms of power, and constraint on power. I think the big philosophy behind the founding was John Locke's, right? Well, his was concerned with constraining man and government, so that ambition couldn't overpower freedom. The fundamental idea is that freedom requires law.

I agree with this premise though, its interpretation, or rather the traditional and modern Conservative source of its derivation is what I take issue with. Consider Thomas Sowell's 'Two Visions', and his appeal for the 'constrained view' of human society. This has a lot to do with the idea of orginal sin - that man is wicked, human nature flawed, and that peace and order is preserved via constraining man's wicked nature. This is acheived both through laws upon the people, and a limited constrained system of government by the people. The purpose of liberty then, is to constrain the most number of people against each other as possible from exercising ambition, so that evil human nature won't take over.

This seems to be what Conservatism is all about - and why it appears to support the cause of liberty, but doesn't. But it isn't liberty, it is mutual, equal restraint. Implicit in this philosophy is economic equality. This is, as of 1831, what DeTocqueville seemed to admire most about America, and which he claims is the most important unifying feature that drives the other good things found in America. To a Conservative, too much inequality leads to ego - ambition - or the rule of evil human nature.

Libertarians make the mistake of assuming that unlimited freedom will somehow lead to good, because they (and also the Liberals on the big government end) reject the notion of human vice vs. virtue as either antiquated, or subjective and relative. They do not share the Conservatives' fear of 'human nature' as it is traditionally defined.

But there is such as thing as human virtue and vice, it was just defined incorrectly by religion. We can thank Ayn Rand for a proper definition - and a proper means of evaluating history.

Here's DeTocqueville's (Locke's, etc.) error: their philosophy that human nature is flawed and leads to strife through oppression, ignores the fact that the origin of this oppression was through a constraint on human society. You could reasonably argue that with the introduction of St. Augustine's philosophy on the Roman Christian Church, the elements for a thoroughly oppressive system of society was developed. A political and ideological force that eradicated reason, self, and the like. You could also argue that such was inevitable in a system (Christianity) based on altruism and mysticism, but nevertheless, it seems like Augustine provided the element that allowed for a thorough political corruption. (Although the only information on it comes from a millenium of Catholic spin, check out Augustine vs. Pelagius. You will be surprised, and see alive the explicit corrupting of philosophy. Or watch the terrible 'King Arthur' which alludes to a change in Roman society due to Augustine's theology and a more aggressive church - thought the latter is not necessarily completely historically accurate)

Locke and DeTocqueville are reacting to monarchy, itself a product of ancient feudalism. They thought feudalism was the product of unconstrained barbarism, ego, and anarchy. I'd argue that feudalism was the product (assisted by anarchy and barbarism) of Augustine's theology, which placed man's very existential worth in the exclusive hands of a hierarchical clergy tied with a landed gentry. Since 'God' was the source of all worth and value, and was intangible, this meant suffering and oppression were existentially acceptable, and that corruption in the priesthood and political leadership was to be expected - they are just men, the virtue is found in church rituals and grace.

I also think that centuries of this mess led to really perverted ideas concerning class and class warfare. Absolutism - total government - oppression led to a class system. Equality as a goal seems to be a response to the ideology of classes, nobilities, etc. But what is missed by the Marxists is that the class system is the product of absolute government, not natural causes, to be alleviated by absolute government.

As any Objectivist knows, freedom, peace and prosperity - societal values - are the product of component values of the component members of society - individuals. Human nature is to pursue rational values in pursuit of life, and the pursuit of non-values is against human nature. Constraining human nature is the only way to destory human values. But unlimited freedom is not a human value - unlimited economic freedom is. Thus, the use of force is collectivized and subject to law, and human nature is left unconstrained.

The Liberals and Libertarians accept the Conservatives' mystical ethics. They presume that human nature is to be judged by some non-objective standard. Thus NONE OF THEM can come up with a system to allow humans to properly pursue the values inherent to their nature. Understanding that force must be constrained, trade not, and the fact that this is most conducive to human nature is a coup for which Ayn Rand really deserves worshipful admiration - despite how obvious and clear it seems upon understanding.

What I'm saying is what many Objectivist writers have written, which I have read, which is that there never was discovered a political philosophy proper for man until Ayn Rand. And she was hardly even a political philosopher.

The coup of the founders was almost accidental. Americans were free because of their environment, and understood intuitively that freedom was good, and understood what its enemies looked like. But they never developed a good philosophy for this.

So here's the challenge: write a 'preamble' to a declaration of independence that properly relfects a human philosophy. Or just respond to my comment.

[Grames]

So egalitarianism is the dialectical response to Catholic hierarchy?

[Maximus]

The preamble to the Declaration is not a legal document, but a historical one, so it would seem more useful to rewrite the constitution instead to include separation of commerce and state.

[ZSorenson]

The preamble to the Declaration is not a legal document, but a historical one, so it would seem more useful to rewrite the constitution instead to include separation of commerce and state.

I don't think the Declaration has much of a memorable preamble. What it lacks though is a strong philosophical message. As a statement of individual rights, it's great. As an expression of a good philosophy, it is not. The Consitution is justified by the Declaration - not legally - but philosophically and morally. I'm asking for a clear statement of individual rights backed up by sound philosophy. I don't think that philosophy existed at the time of the founders.