The Real Radicalism of the Declaration of Independence

by Seneca

Most Americans who read Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence come away with no clear ideas but, "when our government gets really, really bad, we get to overthrow it and start over." And even this is often rejected without further consideration as too barbaric for such an enlightened age as ours (why, don’t our government-run elections provide for revolution enough?). This rude understanding confines men to an endless debate on whether or not government has reached the point of no return on the path to despotism, a point that moves steadily further away as we are overcome by propaganda and grow accustomed to our chains.

Jefferson bequeathed to us a better inheritance than this, as we will now see.

"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."

Governments are instituted among Men. This phrase, not comprehending any person or group outside of Men, must mean that these very same men institute them. That is, governments are not instituted in the midst of men, but among them and by them. Now, what do we call an institution created by men to pursue a common objective such as securing individual liberties? That's right, an association.

Let's now continue with more of the text. Such an association, that some call by the name of government, derives power from its members. That one party derives implies the other gives, the members giving power to the officers of the association. Now what is the nature of this giving? Is it merely an act of the will, as some would suggest? Certainly not. For what kind of transfer of power, which is that which compels or obligates another, can take place without a contract between parties?

The last of Jefferson's quoted text reveals another defining characteristic of these associations. This power given to governments is given consensually, and by their own members (the governed). And how would this consent be made legally knowable, unless by contract having the signature of both parties, both the individual member and each individual officer or agent. And who are the members? Those who have so contracted, and no others.

It is therefore my interpretation of the text that Jefferson is saying that governments are voluntary associations, instituted for the protection of its members against those that would injure their persons, property, or rights. That the characteristics of these associations are no different from those of any association men may form.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall most likely effect their Safety and Happiness."

Jefferson here informs us that a Form of Government (or, an association) may become destructive to the very rights it was instituted to protect. And also that the People, or members (as opposed to the officers of said association, which are in the habit of distinguishing themselves from such) may destroy this same Form of Government, and make new associations. But most importantly of all, the text nowhere implies or demands that there is, in all of this, only ONE government by ONE people, people being misunderstood as "nation." Let's now move to one last piece of the Declaration.

"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."

This quotation, oft used by many well-meaning patriots, has caused grave damage to the cause of liberty. Not that Jefferson is wrong, by any means, but that it obscures a more subtle yet greater truth. The truth is, governments can be disbanded by their members for any reason, or no reason at all. If the members thereof have given their officers any special power of attorney, they are at liberty at any time to reclaim their power according to their own will. However, if government agents should become injurious to any persons rights, they can be and MUST be held accountable for their crimes. Not only this, but if these injuries occur at the request or demand of the members, or is a matter of policy (or "law") within the association, then the association is a criminal one. If any person should give support, by membership or otherwise, to such as association, then they, too, according to principles of law and reason, are criminals to be held liable to the same extent as their criminal agents.

To believe, as many do, that we are bound to obey and support a government until it becomes a criminal organization, obliterates the principle of consent. For how can it be called "consent" when you cannot remove it until that consent makes you an outlaw?

Governments are simply voluntary associations of individuals for a specific purpose. The managers of these associations have power only in so far as they have contracted with the members for the transfer of authority. Therefore, an association without a contractual basis, such as the United States government and almost every government on Earth, is utterly devoid of authority or power over its purported members or their affairs. Because without a contract, it is impossible to prove that any individual consents, and what cannot be proven in law is presumed not to exist. Those that pretend to be officials of these non-contractual organizations act on the behalf of no one but themselves, are responsible to no one but themselves, and are therefore entirely and individually responsible for their injuries to others.

Many governments may coexist, as many as individuals see fit to institute. If a member should choose to remove his membership from any association, he is perfectly at liberty to do so without the need to explain himself to any man. He is also at liberty to join another association, several associations, or to support none at all.

There is no such thing as "the Government." There is only "government" which refers to a principle, and "a government" which refers to an association for the purpose of maintaining justice. The absurd notion that one association can have a monopoly on power and authority (which they purport to take from people who are not its members, never were its members, nor have any desire to be its members) is the very notion that has held Americans and subjects of every other rank democracy as servile captives of a band of malevolent reprobates who parade about as gods among men. It is only after the people have expelled this vile infection from their minds that we may again live as free before God.

April 10 , 2000

Seneca welcomes all responses, negative or otherwise to this article and will endeavor to answer all inquiries.

For a more exhaustive and precise discussion of these arguments, and many others related to government, please see Lysander Spooner's treatise, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority.