Freedom Under Security In UR of the Chaldees; R. Rushdoony

Sumerian society by law was divided into three classes, each with clearly defined legal status, privileges, and rights. The upper-class freemen, the "aristocrats," con stituted the ruling elite of society. They were the priests, the government officials, and the rank and file of the army. They constituted the privileged group, and were The Reverend Mr. Rushdoony is pastor of the· Trinity Presbyterian Church, Santa Cruz, California. [201 ] more or less sacrosanct in person. Any act of violence against them entailed a greater penalty than one commit ted against the middle class or against slaves. They were, in one sense, good examples of the overprivileged aristo crats caricatured by Marxists. But this gives only one side of the picture. The aristocrats were privileged be cause they bore the burden of maintaining Sumerian society. Life in Church and State was their responsibil ity; their social function gave them a utility which made them indispensable to the whole State.

Because they shouldered the responsibility, they there fore had a corresponding freedom. It was the aristocrat who fought and died for Sumerian liberty in the army, and was hence entitled to a greater freedom under law. He won his freedom by responsibility and accountabil ity. When he violated the law, his punishment was severe. When he went to doctors, lawyers, and others, he paid double the fee of the middle class. Because he bore the main burden of society and assumed a greater responsibility, and legal and social accountability, free dom became his prerogative. The middle class, while free, had less social account ability and responsibility. No military service was re qUired of them except in emergencies, such as the inva sion of the land. The penalties of the law were less severe against the middle class and were essentially financial rather than personal. They were the traders, the doctors, lawyers, and other professional men, the farmers, the great body of freemen, able to function freely under law, advance their fortunes, and further their enterprises, but [202 ] always beneath the law and government of the upper class. As a class, they were personally responsible and personally accountable; but because their social respon sibility and accountability were limited, as compared to the upper class, their status was therefore subordinate and their participation in government limited.

Slaves were the third class, into which many were born and others came as prisoners of war and because of debt and poverty. They had absolutely no part in the life of the State, having no personal responsibility. They could be bought and sold, could be punished severely if they became fugitives, and were legal property. On the other hand, slaves had some very real privileges. They were secure-in the sense that a ward or a prisoner is secure. They could protest their sale and ,submit the question to court; they could canoy on business enterprises on the side and save money. They could marry, and if the wife were free, be assured of their children's freedom under law. They could purchase their freedom and enter the middle class if they had the means. The Sumerian slave had maximum security under the law, but he had little social responsibility and little freedom. To gain a greater measure of freedom and social responsibility, he had to forsake his status as a ward and live the more exposed life of the middle class.

The New Slavery The significance of Sumerian society is obvious: Lust for security is incompatible with the requirements of [203 ] responsibility and freedom. Modem man tries to gain all three by means of government action; he abolishes class lines and personal slavery, only to create slavery on a vastly greater scale. The world has not otherwise seen slavery on so vast a scope as that under Nazi Ger man and Soviet Russian governments, and, in increasing degree, in the welfare economies of contemporary States. The omnipotent State becomes the new slaveholder, and the citizenry the slaves; and it becomes impossible for any man to escape into freedom because of the vast extension of political power. The price of the guaranteed life, sometimes called security, is always the surrender of freedom and responsibility, the surrender of true ac countability, to the fiat will of the State. What the Sumerians recognized in antiquity, modern man per versely refuses to accept, hoping against hope to have his cake and eat it, too.

No Security without Freedom But the lust for security destroys itself; no man is more insecure than the slave of the modern State; for he will tolerate no free classes,as did the Sumerian slave, to furnish protection for him. Freedom and responsibility still involve, as in Dr, an exposure to problems, inse curities, and social burdens which are often pressing and heavy. But, in final analysis, no greater security ever appears than the security born of freedom and respon sibility. The Sumerians exacted a price from those who yearned [204 ] for security. So does the modem State. As it assumes the burden of weHare and social provisions for its citizenry, the State declares in effect that the price for subsidy is the surrender of freedom and responsibility. The State becomes increasingly free to act omnipotently, and the citizen increasingly a slave. The freedom of Sumerian aristocrats and the middle class was the guarantee of the society's basic health, and the ground for the security of all. But the freedom of the modern State from an inde pendent citizenry spells slavery and ruin for all. The issue remains unchanged. Ultimately, the issue between freedom and security is clearly seen as responsibility versus slavery. Modem man finds responsibility burden some; he will shortly discover that slavery is even more burdensome and less· rewarding.

[205 ] A DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE tg GtwooJ p. Smith ~ Dan N. Hendricks, Jr., President Seattle Professional Engineering Employees Association 3106 Arcade Building Seattle 1, Washington Dear Sir, I wish to inform you that I am discontinuing my mem bership in SPEEA. In order that my reasons for this action are properly understood, I would like to explain the basis upon which this decision was reached. I would first like to commend SPEEA for its "new look," its attitude of cooperation and good will toward management. In this light SPEEA reflects the type of organization to which I would like to belong, and which I believe could perform a valuable service to both man agement and the engineering profession. My objection to SPEEA stems from an entirely dif ferent consideration, that of its being a protected or ganization under the Wagner Act, as modified by the Taft-Hartley Law. Under this legislation SPEEA is Mr. Smith is an engineer with the Boeing Airplane Company in Seattle.