Letter 2. Standing on the shoulders of giants

Letter 1: Preamble

Every first-time reader can attest that there is some mysterious quality in our Constitution. It is hard to determine what is more enticing: the laconic yet elegant phrasing, its completeness or the almost childish astonishment elicited by this tiny booklet's great wisdom. Yet it would be naive to presume that the US Constitution is the first commendable code of law in the history of mankind. We've all probably heard about the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi, Lycurgus' laws in Sparta, the legendary Twelve Tables of ancient Rome and other countless law codices issued by every country worth mentioning. Humanity has been in the law-codifying business for a very long time, ever since we developed first ideas about how to make others' life better or at least somehow profit from the process. In other words, people were always in search of a better way to govern. By the dusk of antiquity the main principles had been already asserted by the most advanced minds, such as Greco-Roman writer and historian Polybius: governing bodies must have certain powers and these powers must be separated; the voices of the governed people should be heard and acknowledged; and some sort of codified agreement between governing and governed people would be needed to the provide the strength and vitality necessary to society. Unfortunately, implementation of these principles was shaky at best. Any type of republic that derived these principles from tradition or divine intervention eventually fell into despotism, authoritarian rule or dictatorship of the most brutal nature. The process was repeated again and again, notwithstanding the acquired experience and best efforts of the noblest minds.

The Dark Ages interrupted European attempts to invent the best government - for awhile - medieval Europe was concerned mainly with survival. After all, the end of the world and final justice were expected just around the corner. A weak productive base coupled with mostly localized markets guaranteed that any small changes in climate, excessively aggressive neighbors or spreading disease would become disasters of cataclysmic proportions for the medieval community. This precarious equilibrium often made people believe that exchanging some liberty and property for security is not entirely a bad idea. But the government you get in these circumstances is usually not of your best choice (actually, you have none anyway). If you're lucky, it might help you to survive, but most often not. In either case you have no reasons (or means) to complain. Nevertheless, there were plenty of attempts to develop a foundation for better governance. Great European thinkers like St. Augustine, Erasmus of Rotterdam and Niccolo Machiavelli, to name a few, brought new insights on this subject, mostly from the theological or moral perspectives (quite stretching the latter in Machiavelli's case). Some practical attempts were even successful: a group of angry and well-armed subjects forced John of England to sign the Magna Carta, the first formal contractual agreement to place liberties under protection of the law and above arbitrary powers of the government. The Great Charter of 1215 was a gigantic leap forward in the history of England, Europe, and the world. And the fact that the Magna Carta laid the foundation for the development of the constitutional rule of law in England (actually, three clauses of the Magna Carta still remain part of English and Welsh law), led us to the two great European philosophers of the age of Enlightenment.

They were both English, and both lived through particularly turbulent years of British and European history. By the 17th century, medieval Europe was over for good - the Age of Reason was well established in European mind together with religious renewal, the birth of the scientific method, the printing press, flourishing trade and geographical discoveries, and ever-growing inquisitiveness and skepticism. The Age of Reason brought serious challenges to every ruling government, undermining the authority of kings, dukes, emperors and even local oligarchy. Previously loyal subjects now wanted to understand why they were governed and, most importantly, how they were governed. They wanted reasonable answers - after all, by applying reason, they just dismantled the whole known universe and removed their own planet from the center of thereof. They showed an uncompromising willingness to shed blood on the matters of religious principles. And now they demanded to know the reason why a handful of folks in London or Paris controlled every aspect of their lives, arbitrarily deprived them of property via taxes, blamed citizenry's imperfection as a source for every known ruler's problem and yet constantly wanted more sacrifices?

The first serious answer was given by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan: humans, unlimited by any sort of government and with each person possessing natural rights in every matter, would sink into a state of "war of all against all". Moreover, "in such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". Well, since nobody would like to live in such horrible world, people should create social contracts to establish civic society in which, in exchange for some natural rights, they would be ruled by a sovereign authority of their choice (one that follows the aforementioned social contract). It sounds very familiar to the same old story but with one key difference: the social contract must be upheld by both sides. And this new idea of society based upon mutually binding terms, originated by Hobbes, was revolutionary. It was also simple - find the right person to rule your society (preferably smart and well-educated), sign a mutually acceptable social contract and live happily. And, if your sovereign starts to behave inappropriately, fire him (or her). Just make sure that your society doesn't fall into this dreaded state of unabridged freedom… Something tells me that this stratagem is still very popular with a lot of rulers: "Of course, I am a despot and an authoritarian ruler, I am taxing you beyond your ability to pay, I am controlling everything you say or do and thus breaking our social contract, but without me you would probably do very nasty Hobbesian things to each other, so think carefully before ending our wonderful arrangement".

Fortunately for us, not everybody shared Hobbes' pessimistic views on human nature. John Locke looked a little bit deeper. He argued that reason and tolerance derived from the natural state of liberty are inherently human features. Humans have a right to be selfish and in a natural state of liberty and equality they have a right to protect their "Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions". Thus people would naturally enter into a social contract between free entities to establish civic society. And the next social contract - between a selected government and the governed civic society - would follow. This approach was way beyond revolutionary - it laid the foundation for the entire political future of humankind. Its principles are still argued and contested by every dictator or progressive populist leader in the world. The idea of two social contracts - one enabling people to create civic society, and one between citizens and government, contracted to maintain this civic society, put sovereignty in people's hands, making them true citizens with self-protected liberties, and obligations. One of them, as Locke pointed out, is obligation to remove any government that violates the contract with its citizens. It is not just a right - but a duty to fight despotism and tyranny. Needless to say, the good old idea of separating governmental powers was discussed thoroughly and promoted by Locke as well. Of course, Locke's life's work was not limited to the political philosophy. He also developed a philosophical theory of mind and created the starting point for other philosophical titans, such as Hume, Rousseau and Kant. But his influence on the American Revolution cannot be underestimated. The signers of our Declaration of Independence and the framers of our Constitution were arguing and thinking in Lockean terms, using his philosophy and even his words. Locke's "Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions" begat the "Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" of the Declaration of Independence.

Surprisingly, this brilliant mind belonged not to a professor of law or even a political activist. He was a physician and secretary. Obviously the good one, since his employer, Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, was grateful to Locke for saving his life. Even more interestingly, Locke's employment as personal secretary to Shaftesbury - a royalist turned parliamentarian during the English Civil War, an instrumental figure in the English monarchy's restoration, a member of the notorious oligarch "CABAL" ministry under King Charles II, and a war profiteer, did not disqualify Locke from being the father of modern libertarian theory as well as classical republicanism. I wonder how these facts of Locke's life would be treated in modern media. Something has changed in our perception of intellectual integrity. Somehow we've learned to confuse moral judgments on somebody's personal life or past affiliations with person's trustworthiness.

Let's take one American for example. He came from a reach family, well-known in his state. Being born into privilege and money, he was well connected with men managing the country's economy and finances and worked for one of the country's most influential figures (who was later accused of financial improprieties and ended up in prison). His numerous affairs with women were well reported, while never completely proved. He had strong beliefs that "there never was, nor ever will be a civilized Society without an Aristocracy" and "common people" should not be trusted with voting rights, since they have a tendency to sell their votes to the rich. Would you like to see this guy anywhere near your favorite presidential candidate? Probably, not. Yet, he wrote the Preamble to the United States Constitution…