American Right To Revolt Against Tyranny: Part C - Founders & John Locke

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?–Patrick Henry

Kelly OConnell * Canada Free Press

The Founding Fathers were in favor of the right to revolt against tyranny. This is obvious despite widespread current attempts by progressives to suggest armed revolt and the 2nd Amendment would be opposed by the Founders today. But how logical would be the notion that Americans could own guns, but not use them to defend themselves?

Or that Americans could arm to defend their lives and liberties, but only against invaders—not against tyrants? Of course, such a position is transparent nonsense. In fact, the American Revolution itself is the most eloquent testimony illustrating the right to bear arms againstgovernment subjugation imaginable.

Consider the definition of Tyranny in Locke’s Second Treatise on Government:

BOOK II, CHAPTER 18: Of Tyranny

§  199. As usurpation is theexercise of power which another hath a right to, so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which nobody can have a right to; and this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private, separate advantage. When the governor, however entitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule, and his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion.

The Founders certainly brooked no defense of tyranny. Obviously, they were brave enough to stand up to England and principled enough to create a democratic constitutional republic where there had been a kingdom. But have we in America lost our ability to oppose demagogues, bullies and tyrants?

I. John Locke: Philosopher of Liberty

John Locke is perhaps the most influential mind of the modern age, and his ideas formed much of the content of the Declaration and Constitution. The Online Library of Liberty gives this short bio:

John Locke (1632-1704) was an English philosopher who is considered to be one of the first philosophers of the Enlightenment and the father of classical liberalism. In his major work Two Treatises ofGovernment Locke rejects the idea of the divine right of kings, supports the idea of natural rights (especially of property), and argues for a limited constitutional government which would protect individual rights.

Locke’s attitude on the right to resist tyranny is sophisticated and nuanced. According to Julian H. Franklin in John Locke and the Theory of Sovereignty, Locke did not consider all acts of tyranny to be worthy of resistance. Individual acts could be treated as such. But if a government or leader began to undermine the people, the people must resist. Franklin writes,

For Locke, however, a distinction must be drawn between isolated acts of tyranny—or occasional abuses of executive authority that do not disrupt the law in general—and a calculated design to subvert law and public liberty as such. In the first case the use of force against a king is either deflected by law, or else is effectively debarred in practice. Where recourse to appeal is still available the use of force is always premature… Locke, nevertheless is consistent on the central point. Revolution is appropriate where a people is confronted with a calculated design to subvert its constitution and reduce it to a state of servitude. The king, by repudiating the law in general, now forfeits not only the immunity that law confers but all the authority derived from it. The consequence is entire dissolution of the government and a state of war between the king and the community.

Locke describes in section XIII of the Treatise when a ruler could be removed—when he stops representing the people, and therefore loses all his authority.

Sec. 151….But when he quits this representation, this public will, and acts by his own private will, he degrades himself, and is but a single private person without power, and without will, that has any right to obedience; the members owing no obedience but to the public will of the society.

continue article at Canada Free Press:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/57288