As I argued recently, political anarchy is the absence of unrighteous dominion. The state, characterized by its monopoly on the use of force and/or the coercive nature of its collection of funds, is one form of unrighteous dominion. Before a number of American colonies would ratify the United States Constitution, they demanded that it be amended to include what is called the “Bill of Rights“. Even though the Constitution was designed to grant only certain powers to the Federal Government, these colonies understood how nearly futile it is to “chain” down the state from exercising power beyond its granted authority. They understood that political anarchy, relative to the central state, must remain in certain spheres of action. As I will argue, the Bill of Rights was designed to protect the political anarchy of these spheres, and we should be diligent in expanding political anarchy into other spheres of action.
What Are Rights?
There are two ways of looking at the concept of rights: positive and negative. The term positive rights means you are justified in doing something. The term negative rights means you are not justified in doing something. For example, a positive rights approach to life means you are justified in defending your life, a negative rights approach to life means you are not justified in taking the life of someone else. I believe a safer and less abused approach to justifying my actions and the actions of others is through the concept of negative rights. The positive rights approach taken by many supporters of liberty have led to such ideas as “a right to good housing” and “a right medical-care”. Of course these “rights” can only be granted by infringing on the rights of others, therefore, they are not rights at all. Through the lens of the concept of negative rights, we can understand that someone only has a right to do something because it would be unjustified for anyone else to prevent them from doing it. I have a right to my life because no one else has a right to end it. And I have a property right in my body because no one else has a property right in my body. Therefore, when justifying an action that involves someone else, it must be shown that you have authority to do it.
The Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights is essentially a list of “thou shalt nots” for the Federal Government. The First Amendment states,
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
In other words, the people, through the First Amendment (and the others) are telling the Federal Government, “Thou shalt not make a law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof,” “Thou shalt not abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press,” and “Thou shalt not abridge the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Federal Government for a redress of grievances.” This all means that the Federal Government is powerless to pass laws that would interfere with the people’s ability to do these various things. The Bill of Rights contains many other “thou shalt nots”, including the Ninth and Tenth Amendments which state,
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,” and ”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Not only does the Bill of Rights list spheres of action the Federal Government has no power over, but it even goes so far as to clarify that the Federal Government also does not have power over the people’s actions the Bill of Rights does not enumerate, other than what the Constitution specifically gives the Federal Government power over. So what does this have to do with political anarchy?
A Bill of Political Anarchy
Another way of looking at the Bill of Rights is as a bill of political anarchy. Whenever two or more entities exist without a higher power exercising unrighteous dominion, these entities are in a state of political anarchy relative to each other. Two governments under the absence of a higher government exist in a state of political anarchy relative to each other. Neither are ruled over by a higher power, nor is their a higher power imposing itself to settle their disputes. Further, where there exists unrighteous dominion between two or more entities in only some spheres of action, the other spheres of action between the same parties exist in a state of political anarchy. The reason I consider the Bill of Rights a bill of political anarchy is because it protects the political anarchy of certain spheres of action between two entities: “the people” and the Federal Government.
According to the Bill of Rights, the Federal Government has no power to make laws within certain spheres of action. The First Amendment seeks to preserve the political anarchy between the people and the Federal Government in the spheres of religious worship, speech, the press, peaceable assembly, and grievance redress. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments seek to preserve the political anarchy between the people and the Federal Government in every sphere the Bill of Rights does not enumerate and those that the Constitution has not been given the authority to make laws in. It is because the Bill of Rights seeks to keep the Federal Government from exercising unrighteous dominion within these spheres that it in essence protects the political anarchy of these spheres. The Bill of Rights is in fact a bill of political anarchy.
Expanding Political Anarchy
The Bill of Rights protects the political anarchy between the people and the Federal Government of a great many spheres of action, and I am very grateful for this protection against the Federal Government. The Federal Government has grown beyond the bounds set by the Constitution, and historians and economists have shown the disastrous consequences of this growth in areas such as drug prohibition, retirement savings and disability insurance, and foreign policy, to name just a few. Expanding the Bill of Rights protection of political anarchy to even more spheres of actions is a desirable goal for those who love peace and liberty. There really is not a sphere of action that the Bill of Rights should not be expanded to protect the political anarchy of. It is my belief that it should protect the political anarchy of free enterprise and commerce in every market, including national defense. The Bill of Rights should abolish the unrighteous dominion exercised by the Federal Government in every sphere of action.
Conclusion
As I have explained, the Bill of Rights is really a bill of political anarchy because it prevents the Federal Government from exercising unrighteous dominion in a number of spheres of actions. I have argued that the number of spheres of actions whose political anarchy is protected by the Bill of Rights should be expanded, until every sphere of action boasts the absence of the Federal Government’s unrighteous dominion. I believe only then will we have true liberty relative to and protected from encroachment by the Federal Government.
The way I hear the term “right” being thrown around now-a-days makes me want to vomit.
Our children are being raised with the idea that they have the right to have fun all the time with no work expected. I see this as a scoutmaster listening to the boys complain that they’d rather sit at home and play video games than spend an hour working on merit badges and whatnot. Our society is fat and happy so long as it has easy food, ready entertainment, and no worries.
I’m of the opinion that it’s going to take some kind of nation-wide collapse to shock this nation awake. However, many probably won’t be able to handle the transition. I don’t think such an event is very far off either.
This is an interesting post. I would like to make the following comments.
The Bill of Rights (BOR) was added to the US Constitution for only one reason — to help get the newly formed contract ratified by the states. It was believed that additional safe-guards needed to be added to the Constitution in order to ensure that the Federal Government, formed under the authority of the Constitution, would not infringe upon the rights of the states or the people. Therefore, the Bill of Rights was added to provide additional protection for certain rights the people feared most would be violated. This lead to the contract’s ratification; and the rest is history.
However, there is a huge problem with the Bill of Rights. Even though the ninth and tenth amendments clearly lay it out, the existence of the BOR has caused many to presume that the purpose of the Constitution is to define what our rights are, and that if our rights are not enumerated in the Constitution, then we don’t have them. Nothing could be further from the truth. The purpose of the Constitution is to form the federal government and provide it with specific powers or boundaries within which it must operate. The Constitution does not grant rights at all. Rather, it defines the specific powers for government that allow it to operate. This is how limited government was achieved under our Constitutional Republic. By defining what specific powers government has, it is clear that all other powers NOT enumerated in the Constitution are withheld from the federal government.
Essentially, all powers granted to the legislative branch of government are defined within Article 1, Section 8. After reading through this short list of authorized powers, it becomes clear that our Federal government has grossly overstepped its authority in virtually every way possible and is in severe violation of the law of the land. Were the average American able to fully comprehend 1% of what Uncle Sam has done to them, there would be revolution overnight. Perhaps it is best they remain in their gross state of ignorance; or maybe not.
In hindsight, I believe the BOR has done more harm than good. Instead of protecting specific rights, it has actually been used as a tool to rob the American people of their many other rights, not listed under the first ten amendments. And, due to constant attacks by nefarious minded despots, the sacred rights protected under the BOR have been eroded to the point of being virtually powerless. Today, with three separate branches of despotic government, the American people have only the rights they can buy or acquire from a sympathetic court. A nation that wishes to be both free and ignorant seeks that which has never been and cannot be.
Paul
PAJ,
You make some very good points. Another one, for those who view the Constitution negatively for the way it centralized certain powers, the Bill of Rights pushed it along towards ratification.
I think the important question in light of the Lord’s purposes, is what role the Bill of Rights played in the restoration of the Gospel? Even though in the long run, it may have done more harm than good, what about the short run? And is that all the mattered to the Lord? He will make a full end of all nations, after all.
Skyler.
Skyler,
I know that most Christians, including the LDS, believe that God or Jesus Christ is heavily involved in the details of everyday life, how current events are played out, and future events that have yet to occur. But I submit that it is simply not so. Free Agency is the prime directive for the Gods, just as non-interference with primitive worlds is for members of Star Fleet. I knew I’d find a way to work Star Trek into the conversation. LOL! At any rate, exalted Beings have no authority to influence mortals, who are living in a probationary state. If the Gods could manipulate world events and use their powers to motivate people to carry out their designs, Free Agency would be flushed down the toilet and we’d be living in a Utopian world where everything was controlled and managed. But this is clearly NOT how it is or how it is intended to be. The world we live in is the result of people choosing their own path to survive, increase their wealth, and to rule over others.
As for the Lord, I think he finds opportunities here and there within our various societies to pursue his goals without interfering with world events. As for the founding fathers being inspired, I suspect they were merely intelligent people who recognized they had the opportunity to do something marvelous. And they did; but the end result was far from perfect. The constitution is not a holy document and is certainly not scripture. In fact, there is a hole in the constitution large enough to drive an 18-wheeler through. If the BOR had not been added, and emphasis had been attached to Article 1, Section 8 as being the only powers granted to Congress with a notice that all laws must be traceable to the specific power in Article 1, Section 8 authorizing it, then we could have avoided much confusion and removed the cracks that despots crawl through to enable their power grab. I could be more specific, but you see what I mean. In the short run, I still feel the BOR did more harm than good and did not, in fact, help with the restoration in any way.
In the end, all civilizations on the earth will be wiped out. In the D&C, the Lord commands us to warn our neighbors of the coming Desolation of Abomination. The Scriptures are riddled with it, but only the few folks who have studied the research, books, and newsletters of Anthony E. Larson know what it is.
Due to the very nature of men, it is quite impossible to have a Utopian society controlled and managed by mortals. The Lord said, we have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, that as soon as they get a little authority, as they may suppose, that they immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion over others. And so we see that with or without a constitution, we are doomed to suffer despotic rule. It is just a matter of time. I very much long for a society where people truly respect each other, love each other, and work together to achieve the highest enjoyment for all. But this kind of world will only be made available further down the road of our progression.
Paul