Toppling Statues

I am in two minds over the issue of the removal of Confederate statues. The Confederacy was founded on the preservation of the evil that was slavery and that is reason enough not to honour it in any way, but on the other hand the destruction of historical statues smacks more than a little of the historical revisionism of 1984.

The toppled statue of a Confederate soldier in North Carolina

The problem is, where do we draw the line? It is a slippery slope and we are already hearing calls to remove statues of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson because they were slave owners. Some people are even saying statues of Martin Luther King should be removed because he opposed gay rights. And as someone more reasonably pointed out, where are the protests against the statue of the murderous Lenin in a Seattle park?

I think we should distinguish between the political leaders of the evil systems of the past and those who served their nation in good conscience. I do not have a problem with the statue of Erwin Rommel in Heidenheim in Germany because I think he was the closest thing to an honourable military man in the Nazi regime (and he did try to rid his country of Hitler), and for similar reasons I think statues of General Robert E Lee should remain standing. However, just as I would find a statue of any Nazi political leader offensive (fortunately none exist to the best of my knowledge), I think statues of Confederate president Jefferson Davis and his close political cohorts should come down.

Independence Day celebrates individual rights

Today is Independence Day, the day on which Americans celebrate the Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies in America from Great Britain. One thing that is often forgotten is that the American Revolution was a rebellion of Englishmen against their government. They were a remarkable group those revolutionaries, risking their lives by committing treason against the Crown. They were intellectuals like Thomas Jefferson, polymaths like Benjamin Franklin and pragmatists like James Madison. Some, like John Adams, came reluctantly to the cause, while others like George Washington were enthusiastic revolutionaries. What they had in common was a belief that

individuals that are sovereign and that moral governments can only rule with the consent of the governed.

Those brave founders signed a declaration that enunciated a philosophy that was radical for the times. It wasn't completely original - other Englishmen like John Locke and Thomas Paine (who went to America to join the revolution) had already expressed similar sentiments - but it went against the the predominant philosophy that had endured since Aristotle and Socrates - that individuals are sacrificial lambs to the greater good. They turned this prevailing wisdom on its head and said that human beings have inherent rights including the right to pursue their own interests (described in the Declaration as 'the pursuit of happiness') and that these rights cannot be subordinated to anyone's view of the collective good.

The Declaration also stated that governments exist only to protect the rights of individuals. This is, in my view, perhaps the most under-appreciated principle contained in that powerful document. It means there cannot be conflict between the actions of a moral government and the rights of the individual. How can that be true, you ask? Surely part of the role of government is to arbitrate between the conflicting rights of its citizens?

The answer to this dilemma is that there is no conflict between the objectively-determined rights of individuals. Conflict arises because of subjective claims that are not genuine rights (such as 'the right to a job'). The rights that the Declaration refers to are by definition universal and they impose no obligation on anyone other than to respect the same rights in everyone else. There is no conflict between a government that regards its role as solely to protect rights by this definition and the rights of the individual because they are one and the same thing*. This suggests that many, if not most, of the actions of the United States Government today are immoral and inconsistent with the Declaration (and the US is certainly not unique in this regard).

There are many who claim that the Declaration and the US Constitution are anachronistic. I think, on the contrary, both documents were incredibly farsighted. It is not these documents that are the problem today but successive governments abrogation of them.

* I have expanded on this subject before here.

The Right to Bear Arms

I've read much in the last few days about the constitutional right of Americans to bear arms and how this should be limited in view of the terrible events at Newtown, Connecticut.  I am as appalled as anyone about the shooting of teachers and schoolchildren at Sandy Hook Elementary School (see the post below) but I think much of the comment about gun control in the US is poorly informed.  It is important to understand why Americans have the constitutional right to bear arms when considering whether and how to further restrict their ownership and use.

The right to bear arms is contained within the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. The words, in the final version ratified by the States and authenticated by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, are as follows:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The amendment made it into the Bill of Rights along with the right to freedom of speech and religion (the 1st Amendment), protection from unreasonable search and seizure (4th) and due process under the law (5th).  Why it is there amongst other unquestionably moral rights is an interesting story.

In 1789 when the Bill of Rights was being written, the United States was a brand new country that had only recently defeated the British in the War of Independence and adopted the US Constitution.  There were concerns that the Federal government would become too powerful and abrogate the rights of the States and the people, in the same way as the British Crown and Parliament had done before the Revolution.  Congress was divided between the Federalists, who believed that there should be a strong federal government, and the Republicans, who believed in a small federal government that was effectively subservient to the States.

The United States did not have a standing army until 1789.  The Continental Army that was led to victory in the War of Independence by George Washington comprised the militias of the thirteen states and was disbanded upon the final defeat of the British at Yorktown except for a small general staff of no more than a few hundred soldiers.

By the time the Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791 there had been both external and internal challenges to the unity of the United States.  The risk of renewed war with Great Britain and with revolutionary France, plus the internal Whisky Rebellion and Northwest Indian War, meant many in Congress supported the idea of a strong, standing Federal army.  But in order to garner the supermajority of States needed to pass the Constitutional amendments, those promoting the idea had to offer the States something in return.  That something was the right to bear arms.  The 2nd Amendment was the right demanded by the States to ensure the Federal Government would not be able to use its armed forces to tread upon their rights.  Of course one could say the assurance did not work - after all, the American Civil War was primarily about that same issue: whether the Federal Government had the right to over ride the States on the important issue of slavery.  And in that case it was a very good thing that the Federal Government won.

Today the issue of Federal vs States rights is more salient than ever.  Washington DC and the state capitols are arguing over many important issues - drug enforcement, immigration, health care, etc.  The Federal Government has taken upon itself more and more power, including in recent years the power to torture and kill people without any form of judicial process.  Many Americans think their government has well-overstepped the constraints that the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison intended to impose upon it and in view of this, it is understandable that they would be reluctant to give up the right to bear arms.

Seen in this light, the Second Amendment becomes something more noble and reasonable than merely the right of Americans to defend their person and home against criminals (although that, too, is hardly an ignoble right in my opinion).

All of the above doesn't change the fact that American civilians kill far more of their fellow citizens with firearms than any other country on Earth.  I agree that America needs to debate the issue but I don't think stricter firearms control alone will do much to address the problem (after all, New Zealand has some of the strictest firearms ownership laws in the world and we have had our share of mass killings).  If President Obama wants to introduce tougher gun laws, perhaps he should start talking in the same conversation about limiting the unbridled power of his Government - then more Americans might be more receptive to greater gun control.