The Liberty Archive FREECAPITALISTS.ORG

Chapter 35 of 51 · The Freeman 1963, Vol.X by Foundation for Economic Education

Sources of Governmental Authority; D. Russell

1,040 words · All 51 chapters

SOURCES GOVERNMENT AL OF AUTHORITY THE AUTHORITY of government comes either from the people or from some source above and beyond the peo ple. That statement is, of course, a simple truism. But as we shall see, there are implications in that truism that are not generally understood. To bring this issue into focus, let us begin with a brief comparison of the primary difference between the ancient and modern concepts of the sources of govern mental authority. Generally speaking, with a few ex ceptions, the ancient concept was that the authority of government came from a source above and beyond the people. Most often, the source was heredity; the king ruled because he was the son of the previous king. Sometimes the source was conquest; might makes right. Oft-times, the ruler cited "god" as the source of his authority to compel people to obey him; he claimed to be either god or the direct and chosen representative of god on earth. But whatever the claimed source for the authority of government may have been, at least it was almost never the people themselves. Their func tion was to obey government, and even to worship it.

338 SOURCES OF GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY 339 The modern concept is, of course, just the opposite at least, in theory. That is, government derives its legiti mate authority from the people. No person has any right by birth (or any mandate from God) to rule over others. Might does not make right. And neither the in stitution nor the officials of government should ever be worshiped. Certainly that is the traditional concept of the source of governmental authority in the United States. It was proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence. It was confirmed by the known philosophies of the founders of our nation. And it was clearly written into our Constitution. According to our forefathers, individual persons have natural and inherent rights. The purpose of government is to protect those rights. And the powers not specifically delegated to government for that purpose are retained by the people themselves. Further, when government exceeds its proper function and attempts to deprive per sons of their natural rights, the people are fully justi fied in rebelling and establishing a new government.

While the documents of other nations have phrased this idea differently (sometimes radically differently), the modern concept of the source of governmental au thority is still clearly identified as the people. Even dic tators pay lip service to that concept. Mr. Khrushchev makes decisions in the name of the Russian people, and he claims that his authority comes from the people. The same sentiments are voiced by almost all other modern rulers, elected or self-appointed.

340 DEAN RUSSELL That introduction brings us to our first question, which happens to be one of the oldest of all philo sophical issues: Does the individual really have any rights outside of those granted to him by government? If so, what are they? And since, in that case, the funda mental rights of man do not come from government, where do they come from? Inherent Rights at Birth It is my contention that each person does have in dividual and inherent rights that come with him at birth. It is true that the existence of human rights can not be proved in the laboratory sense. But no human aspirations, ideas, or activities can be proved in that manner; for the laboratory requirement of "holding other things equal" can never apply to human beings in real life. Principles of human relationships can only be found by observing how human beings act univer sally, how they always have acted in real situations.

My thesis is that men always base their actions on the supposition that they have rights that inhere in themselves as self-controlling human beings. In fact, they cannot avoid doing so. For example, men always instinctively resist the persons who try to deprive them of life-all men, without exception. And when they think about the issue after the immediate danger is over, they invariably devise laws and institutions to pro tect their lives. Thus, since all men have always acted in this fashion, SOURCES OF GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY 341 we are faced with an undeniable truth of universal hu man action that identifies a proper relationship among men-that is, a man has an inherent right to protect his life against anyone who attempts to deprive him of it. Even the persons who scoff at the existence of this uni versal principle always base their actions on it, in one way or another. And even the most ruthless of murder ers will do everything he can to retain his own life.

Since this inherent and individual right to life comes with each person when he is born, the source of the right is necessarily above and beyond any governmental institution that men may correctly or incorrectly estab lish and support. The sad fact that a man may indeed be killed by a superior force-natural or man-made-is re lated to the issue only in the sense that it causes the question to be raised. In addition to a right to life, man also has an in herent right to liberty. And always, men attempt to pre serve their freedom of action. When they give it up, it is always due to a superior force or to a lack of knowl edge that their liberty is being lost. Even after long training to the contrary, the natural and universal in stinct for freedom of action is still present in every per son. Strong proof of the existence of this inherent and individual right to physical liberty is offered again and again by the actions of seemingly docile slaves who, sooner or later, revolt and reclaim their freedom, or die in the effort. Unless they were instinctively aware of their right to liberty, slaves would make no attempt to regain it. For men do not act haphazardly and with342 DEAN RUSSELL out reason. And the fact that some persons may actually prefer the combination of bondage and security to the combination of freedom and responsibility proves only that men have different scales of values. That unfortu nate choice does not in any way deny the existence of the right to liberty.

The Freeman 1963, Vol.X

Read the whole book online · Book details

Free to read online and to download from this archive.