A couple of times I have been verbally assaulted in emails by people who claimed that only nations had "sovereignty". Apparently they have never heard of "popular sovereignty", a concept dating back to the middle of the 17th century, formulated as part of social contracts. "Popular" sovereignty is no more of a nation than "individual" sovereignty is.
John Locke, as Hobbes before him, claimed that social contracts were unbreakable. He stipulated however that if the legislatures did not work for the good of the citizens, they could replace the legislature.
"Popular sovereignty," therefore, becomes "the notion that no law or rule is legitimate unless it rests directly or indirectly on the consent of the individuals concerned."
http://www.basiclaw.net/Principles/Popular%20sovereignty.htm
Thomas Jefferson and others wondered how individuals could consent to give to a social contract powers they themselves did not have to begin with. We cannot give bread to a food bank if we don't have bread; how can we give consent to others to make rules for us if we don't have the original power to make rules for ourselves? They therefore concluded that individuals did, indeed, have such natural rights that only individual sovereignty could morally defend.
""Natural rights [are] the objects for the protection of which society is formed and municipal laws established." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Monroe, 1791
But, "Individual sovereignty was not a peculiar conceit of Thomas Jefferson: It was the common assumption of the day..." Joseph J. Ellis
"And thus, [ascertained to him by natural and eternal equity,] every man is sole lord and arbiter of his own private actions and property--a character of which no man living can divest him but by usurpation, or his own consent. -John Trenchard, January 20,1721 The Freeman
"The relationships between federalist political structure and the sovereignty of the individual must be carefully examined..." James M. Buchanan
In contrast to the Articles of Confederation, in which the sovereignty of the States, not all of which followed the rule of "natural rights", formed the United States, it was the sovereign people who created the United States under the Constitution. And the people were sovereign in their individual, not collective, capacities. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments saw to that.
"Legislation for communities, as contradistinguished from individuals," Hamilton wrote with Madison in Federalist No. 20, "is subversive of the order and ends of civil polity."
It even comes to us from the Czeck Republic's first President, Václav Havel: ""The sovereignty of the community, the region, the nation, the state--any higher sovereignty, in fact--makes sense only if it is derived from the one genuine sovereignty, that is, from human sovereignty, which finds its political expression in civic sovereignty." Cato Journal
Elizabeth Price Foley, wrote that the U.S. was created on two “foundational principles”, limited government and individual sovereignty.
No individual can willingly give to the "common sovereignty" what he himself does not already possess. This brings many questions to mind concerning taxation, the use of military and police force, etc. But those belong in another debate, and they can be rectified where they are wrong, to respect common or popular sovereignty, and often individual sovereignty.
http://www.basiclaw.net/Principles/Popular%20sovereignty.htm
Thomas Jefferson and others wondered how individuals could consent to give to a social contract powers they themselves did not have to begin with. We cannot give bread to a food bank if we don't have bread; how can we give consent to others to make rules for us if we don't have the original power to make rules for ourselves? They therefore concluded that individuals did, indeed, have such natural rights that only individual sovereignty could morally defend.
""Natural rights [are] the objects for the protection of which society is formed and municipal laws established." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Monroe, 1791
But, "Individual sovereignty was not a peculiar conceit of Thomas Jefferson: It was the common assumption of the day..." Joseph J. Ellis
"And thus, [ascertained to him by natural and eternal equity,] every man is sole lord and arbiter of his own private actions and property--a character of which no man living can divest him but by usurpation, or his own consent. -John Trenchard, January 20,1721 The Freeman
"The relationships between federalist political structure and the sovereignty of the individual must be carefully examined..." James M. Buchanan
In contrast to the Articles of Confederation, in which the sovereignty of the States, not all of which followed the rule of "natural rights", formed the United States, it was the sovereign people who created the United States under the Constitution. And the people were sovereign in their individual, not collective, capacities. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments saw to that.
"Legislation for communities, as contradistinguished from individuals," Hamilton wrote with Madison in Federalist No. 20, "is subversive of the order and ends of civil polity."
It even comes to us from the Czeck Republic's first President, Václav Havel: ""The sovereignty of the community, the region, the nation, the state--any higher sovereignty, in fact--makes sense only if it is derived from the one genuine sovereignty, that is, from human sovereignty, which finds its political expression in civic sovereignty." Cato Journal
Elizabeth Price Foley, wrote that the U.S. was created on two “foundational principles”, limited government and individual sovereignty.
No individual can willingly give to the "common sovereignty" what he himself does not already possess. This brings many questions to mind concerning taxation, the use of military and police force, etc. But those belong in another debate, and they can be rectified where they are wrong, to respect common or popular sovereignty, and often individual sovereignty.
© FAMN LLC (MI)
No comments:
Post a Comment