Edmund Burke

 

Edmund Burke, an Irish political philosopher, was conservative and a member of the British House of Commons. He disagreed with contract theory of state presented by liberals and was a proponent of change being gradual, not revolutionary.  His argument about the French Revolution was that it disregarded the complexities of human nature and society. His political principles were rooted in moral natural law and he was not a supporter of the French Revolution.  He had specific ideologies of how a republic should work. One of his views surrounded elections where he quoted:

“But when the leaders choose to make themselves bidders at an auction of popularity, their talents, in the construction of the state, will be of no service. They will become flatterers instead of legislators; the instruments, not the guides, of the people.”

 

I would agree with Burke’s argument that in a republic it is the duty of elected officials to vote their conscience, stand up for their own beliefs, and not the will of their constituents. This goes against what we think of our democracy for quite some time. Often, candidates put on a dog and pony show for what the people want to hear. I do not believe that the Founders intended it to be this way.  The Constitution was formed to protect the people from the government and various individual liberties of American citizens.  The framers intended for the elected officials to have superior knowledge of the issues at hand to make informed decisions on important topics. 

Clearly, Burke emphasizes in this quote that he disapproved of popularity over leadership. I chose this quote because I believe in choosing the right leadership aligning one’s ideals with that of the candidate.  Many Americans cast their vote just to participate, select the candidate that projects all the promises on one’s checklist of the ideal leader, or simply make an uninformed decision and follow the popular group. 

 

 

 

 

 

John Locke - Private Property

 

In chapter 5, section 27, of the Second Treatise of Government, Locke describes private property as follows:

Though men as a whole own the earth and all inferior creatures, every individual man has a property in his own person [= ‘owns himself’]; this is something that nobody else has any right to. The labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are strictly his. So when he takes something from the state that nature has provided and left it in, he mixes his labour with it, thus joining to it something that is his own; and in that way he makes it his property. He has removed the item from the common state that nature has placed it in, and through this labour the item has had annexed to it something that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour is unquestionably the property of the labourer, so no other man can have a right to anything the labour is joined to—at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.

This interested me as I thought of The Takings Clause in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This is known as Eminent domain, which allows the state or federal government to appropriate one’s private property for the public’s use such as government buildings, public utilities, highways and railroads, with or without consent. However, the government may only exercise this power if they provide just compensation to the property owner. If you refuse to sell, the government will file a court action to seize your property through an Order of Taking.  The governments argument is that it attempted to purchase your land for a fair price, you declined, hence justifies the seizure for public use.   

Let’s say I own a historical property and the state imposes a restriction on the use of my property. They allow me to occupy the property however I wish (i.e. as my personal home, a commercial storefront, etc.) but restrict me from changing the exterior as it will compromise the historical aesthetics of the neighborhood.  What if I purchased the property with intentions to knock down the building and build a hotel, office building, or residential towers?  This restriction has not only imposed a loss but also revoked my degree of freedom over my private resources.  In this framework, one truly does not acquire their bundle of rights which includes: The right of possession, the right of control, and the right of exclusion.

Almost a decade after the adoption of the Fifth Amendment, James Madison, whom had similar Lockean views, wrote an essay and quoted, “That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest” The National Gazette, The Papers of James Madison 266 (1983). I strongly concur with this view. 

Corrupt political systems

Discourses on Livy

Chapter 17 - That a corrupt People obtaining Freedom can hardly preserve it.

“But from the head being removed while the trunk was still sound, it was not difficult for the Romans to return to a free and constitutional government”.

In chapter 17, Machiavelli discusses the causes and effect of corruption in a state. He sets two examples of where Rome was able to re-establish and maintain liberty, whereas Milan or Naples were not.  He contends that the Roman people in the time of the Tarquins were not yet corrupted.  But in Milan and Naples the entire body of people were corrupt.  When Machiavelli uses the term “corrupt or corruption”, it is not synonymous with bribery.  He is referring to inequality within the people that contaminates the State and can only be remedied with violent measures to which some may not have the force nor skill to preserve liberty. 

Machiavelli talks about one’s virtues and he exampled how under the rule of Dion and Timoleon, their city was kept free because of their virtues. But the minute they went out of power, their city fell under tyranny.  Corrupt people are only concerned with self-interest, do not respect other members of society, and often do not adhere to laws or adapt to new laws.  Power and wealth govern corrupt societies. The inferior socioeconomic people do not have the possibility and opportunity regardless if they could make a difference in the community.  When a society becomes so corrupt, it becomes nearly impossible to restore to a sound regime.  He expresses this by asserting that a sound body of people overturns corruption and disorder does not shake a solid foundation.  

He draws an inference about transforming a corrupt state to a good one.  He cites two scenarios of the impossible and conditional possibility if one has paramount authority (respect, not power). One cannot enter in power with bad methods even if his intentions are meant for good because these same bad methods can be used to turn against and destroy the people of the state.  Governments fall into old disorders because rarely does one ruler live long enough to accustom to right methods a city which has long been accustomed to wrong.  For this reason, he states society needs two virtu (having ability, talent, strength, and skill) and virtue (being wise and courageous) successors to re-establish and maintain liberty.

His quote, “But from the head being removed while the trunk was still sound, it was not difficult for the Romans to return to a free and constitutional government”, translates to, if you remove the corrupt head, ruler, king, president, etc. before the entire cabinet or system becomes tainted, there is hope and possibility to return to a free and constitutional government. 

I chose this quote because when I analyze political systems, I metaphorically think of it in two ways; in nature and brick and mortar.  In nature, if the root of a tree is rotten, it will not grow and bear any fruit.   With brick and mortar, if the foundation is not solid, a building will collapse.