Rejecting Libertarianism

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

I have taken the last few weeks, and committed them to reading, thinking, and reflecting.

Something seemed wrong, very wrong with Libertarian thought to me. I couldn't quite put my finger on it. But I think I can now.

1. Liberty. Liberty can become tyranny if the individual uses his Free Will for evil. The French Revolution is a testament to this. Sure, they were free of the church and the king, but they were enslaved to ideology, bloodlust, vice, sin...to evil. Liberty gave rise to a Dictator, Napoleon. Liberty is not the end all.

2. Equality. Equality is simply a lie. We are born different. I'm white, you may be black. I scored a 145 on a 10 min IQ test that I took, you may only score 140. I grew up on a rural town, you may have grown up in the city. I'm hard working, you may be lazy. I was born into a middle class family, you may have been born rich or poor. To sum it up. We're all different. Inequality is a fact of life. Even God sees damned sinners and saved saints differently. Even to say equality under the law is undesirable. That creates mandatory minimums and whatnot without any case by case analysis. We are, indeed, special snowflakes. We are not a monolith. This means that some will win, and some will lose. That means that some are superior to others who are inferior.

3. Fraternity. Fraternity is the lust for sameness, which is the brother of equality. This gives rise to the Jacobins and the Nazis. To reject our natural diversity, to divorce ourselves from our neighbors is ludicrously. There is no reason that the Irish, Welsh, English, and Scots cannot accept each other as countrymen instead of seeking to divorce from each other.

1.2 Virtue. Virtue must be coupled with Liberty, else you have Tyranny. That doesn't mean paying lip service to Virtue as you decriminalize heroin. It means restoring traditional values, in so that we police ourselves. The choices of your neighbors shape your society. It concerns you. It can hurt you. This is about culture. About religion. About common objective morality. I am not content with policing only myself. We are in a social contract together. We owe each other our lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. We have a duty to each other to ensure the blessings of liberty are afforded to posterity...they can not be allowed to be turned from blessings to damnings.

2.2 Hierarchy. Hierarchy is a good thing. It builds order, which fosters liberty and virtue. Revolutionary changes are Marxist by design, which Evolutionary changes slowly build upon existing traditions. Take post WW1 Europe as example. Democracy created totalitarian governments, with Democracy being Socialistic by design. Would not Europe have been better off with the Kaiser instead of Hitler? Democracy is a false idol. It has destroyed everything good and beautiful of our ancestors, and has created ideological problems that will boil over into war, or submission.

3.2 Diversity. Diversity is what makes us human. While the animals lust after tribal instinct, we humans want nothing more than to live in our own tribe, but enjoy visiting another tribe. This is a two part understanding. First a rejection to globalism and multiculturalism as an attempt to destroy natural diversity that is present among largely homogeneous populations. Look at the Scots, Irish, English, and Welsh. Every single one of the 50 states should have its own culture. Each town from there. Each family. Each person. We are distinct, and we shall not dilute ourselves out of existence! But. We must not be hostile to neighbors who share similar values. Thus, the Austrians and Germans both sharing a Christian heritage should get along, while it is understandable that Christians and Muslims may not get along. They are more than just different tribes, they are different peoples. They cannot mix. If they do, the tribes will fight for dominance. There must be a objective right and a wrong, else there is now Law. If that objective foundation is the same, peace. Different, war.

We have to break free of the darkness of the "Enlightenment". It's a toxic Ideological disease that has destroyed our civilization, from religion, to manners, to customs, to Philosophy, to our buildings and monuments. We no longer have pride in ourselves. We are shamed as the hordes invade us. Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society. A wise civilization plants trees that men know they will never see the shade of.

We need reactionary reform. Not revolutionary. We need to go back to what has worked in the past, with our eyes towards the future.

Government at the most local of levels, but also economy. Capitalism concentrates power into the hands of Walmart and McDonald's and destroys localism. That MUST END. We are held in bondage to our wages. We must have the strength to break free from the capitalist/socialist double sided coin. Free Enterprise.

I am arguing a philosophy that is ancient. One that predates America. One that has been forgotten. If we are ignorant to our own history, we are to always remain intellectual juveniles. The whiggish whitewash of history has brought us to our knees. Please, stand with me.

I don't know what to call it. I'm not sure it has a name.

But it sure as hell isn't Libertarian.

Inspired by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Erik Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, G.K Chesterton, JRR Tolkien, CK Lewis, Thomas Aquinas, St Augustine, Edmund Burke, The World as it is.

Abandon Utopia with me. Let's fight for Liberty...and Virtue.

Thoughts?

 

[Ronin Truth]

The keys to libertarianism are only, the non aggression principle (NAP) and self ownership. Which of those two are you rejecting? Who has told you otherwise?

 

[acptulsa]

We need reactionary reform. Not revolutionary. We need to go back to what has worked in the past, with our eyes towards the future.

Government at the most local of levels, but also economy. Capitalism concentrates power into the hands of Walmart and McDonald's and destroys localism. That MUST END. We are held in bondage to our wages. We must have the strength to break free from the capitalist/socialist double sided coin. Free Enterprise.

I am arguing a philosophy that is ancient. One that predates America. One that has been forgotten. If we are ignorant to our own history, we are to always remain intellectual juveniles. The whiggish whitewash of history has brought us to our knees. Please, stand with me.

I don't know what to call it. I'm not sure it has a name.

But it sure as hell isn't Libertarian.

Ah, but it does have a name, and libertarian is it. Localism and liberty are exactly what libertarianism is about. Micromismanagement is what does not work, and micromismanagement is the evil libertarianism exists to fight.

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

I am rejecting both, but let me explain.

I obviously believe strongly in private property. Here is Hans Hermann Hoppe on Immigration.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/hans-hermann-hoppe/on-free-immigration-and-forced-integration/

When we form a government, it is our government (or that of the Kings). There is no expectation for secularism or to not impose morality. Do we not have a right to live in a town based on a social contract that we volunteer to be apart of? It is not Just to be tolerant of Evil within your own society. Thus self ownership is the private ownership of property, but the public ownership of culture. You don't get to be a radical Jihadi st communist and live in my town. I will not tolerate you. I will not invite you. Check out the article.

As for the NAP, that would certainly be a step up from what we have now, don't hit. But it But why must that be the extent of what is morally enforceable? Adultery destroys the family unit, harms children in development, ect. Why should that be permitted in a voluntary society? I want to live where it is highly taboo, illegal even. I want my government to reflect my morals. So let's break apart the leviathan, and allow me to go live in my preferred society!

I'm rejecting the idea that self ownership and the NAP will somehow save us from the perils of unjust liberty.

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

Ah, but it does have a name, and libertarian is it. Localism and liberty are exactly what libertarianism is about. Micromismanagement is what does not work, and micromismanagement is the evil libertarianism exists to fight.

It seems much more similar to traditionalist catholicism to me....mind you, I'm not a catholic.

 

[acptulsa]

I'm rejecting the idea that self ownership and the NAP will somehow save us from the perils of unjust liberty.

Unjust liberty?

The problem is, as Will Rogers said, you can only get as much liberty as you give. Just as soon as you restrict people from doing bad, you restrict people from doing good with the same stroke.

You are extolling the virtues of one size fits all laws, because that's the only kind of laws there are. But one size fits all anything does not always fit, and you know it.

It seems much more similar to traditionalist catholicism to me....mind you, I'm not a catholic.

What are you talking about? What resembles traditional catholicism? And how traditional is the catholicism it resembles? Are we taking about the tradition that says the Bible must remain in Latin, so no Catholics know who they're worshipping?

 

[undergroundrr]

Any despot wants freedom for himself. A libertarian is comfortable with everybody else being free too.

 

[acptulsa]

Any despot wants freedom for himself. A libertarian is comfortable with everybody else being free too.

This. And anyone who thinks a despot is their despot is in for a major letdown.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

1. Liberty. Liberty can become tyranny if the individual uses his Free Will for evil. The French Revolution is a testament to this. Sure, they were free of the church and the king, but they were enslaved to ideology, bloodlust, vice, sin...to evil. Liberty gave rise to a Dictator, Napoleon. Liberty is not the end all.

In no way was the French Revolution a libertarian revolution.

It was a democratic and socialistic revolution.

Both democracy and socialism are incompatible with libertarianism.

2. Equality. Equality is simply a lie. We are born different...

Libertarians don't think that people are the same, or should be treated equally, except insofar as everyone's property rights should be respected.

1.2 Virtue. Virtue must be coupled with Liberty, else you have Tyranny. That doesn't mean paying lip service to Virtue as you decriminalize heroin. It means restoring traditional values, in so that we police ourselves. The choices of your neighbors shape your society. It concerns you. It can hurt you. This is about culture. About religion. About common objective morality. I am not content with policing only myself. We are in a social contract together. We owe each other our lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. We have a duty to each other to ensure the blessings of liberty are afforded to posterity...they can not be allowed to be turned from blessings to damnings

What specifically are you proposing?

You'd like the state to criminalize non-aggressive behavior which you deem immoral (e.g. heron use)?

If so, then libertarians would disagree, both on principle, and because enforcing personal morality doesn't work very well anyway.

See: the (totally failed and counterproductive) war on drugs.

2.2 Hierarchy. Hierarchy is a good thing. It builds order, which fosters liberty and virtue. Revolutionary changes are Marxist by design, which Evolutionary changes slowly build upon existing traditions. Take post WW1 Europe as example. Democracy created totalitarian governments, with Democracy being Socialistic by design. Would not Europe have been better off with the Kaiser instead of Hitler? Democracy is a false idol. It has destroyed everything good and beautiful of our ancestors, and has created ideological problems that will boil over into war, or submission.

As I said, democracy and libertarianism are incompatible.

3.2 Diversity. Diversity is what makes us human. While the animals lust after tribal instinct, we humans want nothing more than to live in our own tribe, but enjoy visiting another tribe. This is a two part understanding. First a rejection to globalism and multiculturalism as an attempt to destroy natural diversity that is present among largely homogeneous populations. Look at the Scots, Irish, English, and Welsh. Every single one of the 50 states should have its own culture. Each town from there. Each family. Each person. We are distinct, and we shall not dilute ourselves out of existence! But. We must not be hostile to neighbors who share similar values. Thus, the Austrians and Germans both sharing a Christian heritage should get along, while it is understandable that Christians and Muslims may not get along. They are more than just different tribes, they are different peoples. They cannot mix. If they do, the tribes will fight for dominance. There must be a objective right and a wrong, else there is now Law. If that objective foundation is the same, peace. Different, war.

You're proposing that the state use coercion to maintain ethnically homogeneous populations?

If so, libertarians would object, as they're in favor of freedom of association and dissociation.

We have to break free of the darkness of the "Enlightenment". It's a toxic Ideological disease that has destroyed our civilization, from religion, to manners, to customs, to Philosophy, to our buildings and monuments. We no longer have pride in ourselves. We are shamed as the hordes invade us. Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society. A wise civilization plants trees that men know they will never see the shade of.

Enlightenment political thought is deeply flawed, yes, chiefly on the subject of democracy.

Government at the most local of levels, but also economy. Capitalism concentrates power into the hands of Walmart and McDonald's and destroys localism. That MUST END. We are held in bondage to our wages. We must have the strength to break free from the capitalist/socialist double sided coin. Free Enterprise.

If you're opposed to the free market, then you must be advocating for some state intervention (e.g. price controls, subsidies, regulation).

Which, and why?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

What are you talking about? What resembles traditional catholicism? And how traditional is the catholicism it resembles? Are we taking about the tradition that says the Bible must remain in Latin, so no Catholics know who they're worshipping?

As far as decentralization, he's talking about the Catholic principle of subsidiarity (which is a fine principle, as far as it goes).

His economic vision is similar to distributism, i.e. Catholic economics.

It's based on a romanticization of pre-industrial society, and an attempt to reconcile Catholic social teaching with economic science.

Needless to say, it ends up being an irrational hodge-podge of interventionist thinking.

...very much like Islamic economics, incidentally.

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

In no way was the French Revolution a libertarian revolution.

It was a democratic and socialistic revolution.

Both democracy and socialism are incompatible with libertarianism.



Libertarians don't think that people are the same, or should be treated equally, except insofar as everyone's property rights should be respected.



What specifically are you proposing?

You'd like the state to criminalize non-aggressive behavior which you deem immoral (e.g. heron use)?

If so, then libertarians would disagree, both on principle, and because enforcing personal morality doesn't work very well anyway.

See: the (totally failed and counterproductive) war on drugs.



As I said, democracy and libertarianism are incompatible.



You're proposing that the state use coercion to maintain ethnically homogeneous populations?

If so, libertarians would object, as they're in favor of freedom of association and dissociation.



Enlightenment political thought is deeply flawed, yes, chiefly on the subject of democracy.



If you're opposed to the free market, then you must be advocating for some state intervention (e.g. price controls, subsidies, regulation).

Which, and why?

Far too many libertarians fully embrace the French Revolution. Thus the utter hatred of religion and the praises of communist nationalists who were "freedom fighters".

I'm proposing a return to multiple centers of competing hierarchical power. The state, as you note, will never ban drugs to a society that lists after them. So make the social damages of public exile and shaming from the common social hierarchy (like excommunication from the church) have merit again. The church is a teacher of virtue, or at least it should be. Personal faith aside, this is where it is cultivated how one should live, in charity ect. I'm advocating for competing non coercive power structures...whose enforcement mechanism is social.

When people don't want drugs either by fear or virtue, you lose most demand. I want that, instead of the Libertarian "meh, legalize it all, society be damned". It wouldn't have been able to be illegal in the first place if it wasn't an issue that Statists can exploit. We must fix ourselvesm...and not just lip service. We actually have to change our culture to be more traditional.

No, not coercion to maintain homogeneous populations. But it is not your right to move into my hypothetical town. Read that Hans Hermann Hoppe article.

I'm not opposed to the free market. I'm opposed the the perversion of it. Free Enterprise is a 100000 small businesses competing, failing, succeeding, producing wealth. The crap we have today drives industrialized nations ynderground, tricks them into service economies, converts them to fiat money, and destroys the entrepreneurial spirit by allowing the market to consolidate under coca cola and pepsi, destroying competition.

I've read a bit about distributism, though I'm not entirely comfortable with it...so I am content to just continue with Austrian Economics, with heavy emphasis on individuals instead of corperations.

I'm not going statist, if that's what your thinking. I'm advocating for Traditionalism coupled with a Liberal Society (as in free).

Free yet hierarchical. Ordered Liberty. Effective Social Contract. Respectable and Responsible Local Government.

I'm very much turned off by the Westphalian State. I'm talking about literally going back to the "Dark Ages" and Classical and Ancient Western thought.

Something has to change....and it can't be towards the unknown. Let's benefit from the experience of our ansestors.

One more word in freedom of Association. Just to be clear. Islam has no place in Christian Nations. You have the freedom to try to get in, but we have no obligation to let you in.

I'm a big fan of at least making them build a Trojan Horse before our way of life gets decimated by cultural imperialism.

 

[danda]

while I don't agree with the OP on several points, there are legitimate arguments against libertarianism, or at least concerns. In particular private property rights is built on some tenuous logic. (homesteading principle, mixing labor with the land, etc ) Native americans and other cultures did just fine without property rights, at least of land. And by definition if I claim a piece of land as mine and society enforces that, then that has limited the freedom of all to travel on or use that land. Even though others might use it more efficiently and productively than me. Thus a core principle of libertarianism ( private property ) is in direct conflict with other core principles:
1) non-aggression: because enforcement of the private property may require force / aggression on a peaceful individual.
2) freedom: eg, of movement, of travel. because I may not go where I please and others may own all the land around me.

The restriction of liberty argument can be made for any tangible object. The libertarian argument of property rights may be more a practical/utilitarian argument than a moral/ethical one.

I think that in a truly enlightened culture living in a state of pure liberty, sharing would be the norm and outright theft would be exceptionally rare.

It seems to me there is room for a brand of libertarianism that is based on the NAP, but with a lessened or non-existent stance on property rights beyond one's own body. Such a crede could form the basis of a sharing culture.

I've thought about this a few times but have not read any works on it. I wonder if anyone can point me towards any written works in this area???

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

As far as decentralization, he's talking about the Catholic principle of subsidiarity (which is a fine principle, as far as it goes).

His economic vision is similar to distributism, i.e. Catholic economics.

It's based on a romanticization of pre-industrial society, and an attempt to reconcile Catholic social teaching with economic science.

Needless to say, it ends up being an irrational hodge-podge of interventionist thinking.

...very much like Islamic economics, incidentally.

Yes and no.

Pre industrial society has its fair bit of merit. Why is population boom a good thing? Have you seen the cities? I'm not impressed by everyone owning an iPhone, if they still have terrible education. Look at the wealth gap that the left talks about so much. Why is that okay? Do we really encourage such vast wealth and power to a handful of oligarchs. I want local farmers, not industrial farmers. Industrialization gave birth to marxism. It's not so good in my opinion.

Usury, can you say central banking? I shouldn't even need to explain this.

I do not see how fractional reserve banking and oligarchy are components of free enterprise. Capitalism today is not the capitalism I favor.

Islamic Economics is very much so marxist, get real. Other than usury, I see few parellels. Why are we afraid to explore this?

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

Simply, that gutting of actually producing things in favor of consuming things means that we do not create wealth, no matter what our gdp says.

Consumer economy is farce. Trade is good, yes. But we have to be able to actually produce something other than bank notes.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Far too many libertarians fully embrace the French Revolution.

Very true, but that's because they don't understand the true nature of the French Revolution.

I'd bet that not more than 1 in a 100 libertarians has ever read any history of the event outside school.

...and, needless to say, what they got in school would have been leftist propaganda.

In other words, it's not a problem with libertarianism per se.

Thus the utter hatred of religion and the praises of communist nationalists who were "freedom fighters".

Again, this is a reflection of the fact that libertarians live in this society, were taught in these schools, watch this TV, etc.

Individual libertarians may praise Nelson Mandela (for instance), out of ignorance, but that does not reflect on libertarianism itself.

I'm proposing a return to multiple centers of competing hierarchical power.

What specific form of government do you have in mind?

Something like Moldbug's patchwork?

If so, I'd argue that monarchy is preferable.

See my exchange with ThePaleoLibertarian, beginning here, to see why.

Also, see here and here for a more general case for monarchy.

No, not coercion to maintain homogeneous populations. But it is not your right to move into my hypothetical town. Read that Hans Hermann Hoppe article.

If I own some apartments in this town, will I be free to rent them out to whomever I please?

Or will the state forcibly prevent me from renting them out to people who don't belong to the dominant ethnicity of the town?

I'm not opposed to the free market. I'm opposed the the perversion of it. Free Enterprise is a 100000 small businesses competing, failing, succeeding, producing wealth. The crap we have today drives industrialized nations ynderground, tricks them into service economies, converts them to fiat money, and destroys the entrepreneurial spirit by allowing the market to consolidate under coca cola and pepsi, destroying competition.

Free enterprise means property rights are respected, that's it.

It doesn't mean any particular market structure (like having 100,000 small businesses instead of 100 large ones).

If you want to use the state to ensure that there are 100,000 small businesses (as by breaking up larger firms), that is not a free market.

If you don't want that, and are genuinely in favor of laissez faire, well then what's your beef with libertarianism on economic issues?

I've read a bit about distributism, though I'm not entirely comfortable with it...so I am content to just continue with Austrian Economics, with heavy emphasis on individuals instead of corperations.

What's the problem with corporations in a free market?

...i.e. sans subsidies, state granted monopolies, etc.

I'm talking about literally going back to the "Dark Ages" and Classical and Ancient Western thought.

I have a pretty good idea of what you have in mind.

A feudal arrangement, more or less, and I appreciate the logic behind that.

But there are serious problems with that political order, which I don't think you see yet.

See above re monarchy as a better alternative.

 

[euphemia]

A libertarian is comfortable with everybody else being free too.

Until someone disagrees.

 

[acptulsa]

Until someone disagrees.

Until someone disagrees with the principle that everyone should be free. When someone says we should actively support our own enslavement, things get very touchy.

Up until then, there may be disagreement, but it will be a remarkably comfortable disagreement.

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

Very true, but that's because they don't understand the true nature of the French Revolution.

I'd bet that not more than 1 in a 100 libertarians has ever read any history of the event outside school.

...and, needless to say, what they got in school would have been leftist propaganda.

In other words, it's not a problem with libertarianism per se.



Again, this is a reflection of the fact that libertarians live in this society, were taught in these schools, watch this TV, etc.

Individual libertarians may praise Nelson Mandela (for instance), out of ignorance, but that does not reflect on libertarianism itself.



What specific form of government do you have in mind?

Something like Moldbug's patchwork?

If so, I'd argue that monarchy is preferable.

See my exchange with ThePaleoLibertarian, beginning here, to see why.

Also, see here and here for a more general case for monarchy.



If I own some apartments in this town, will I be free to rent them out to whomever I please, or will be the state forcibly prevent me from doing so?



Free enterprise means property rights are respected, that's it.

It doesn't mean any particular market structure (like having 100,000 small businesses instead of 100 large ones).

If you want to use the state to ensure that there are 100,000 small businesses (as by breaking up larger firms), that is not a free market.

If you don't want that, and are genuinely in favor of laissez faire, well then what's your beef with libertarianism on economic issues?



What's the problem with corporations in a free market?

...i.e. sans subsidies, state granted monopolies, etc.



I have a pretty good idea of what you have in mind.

A feudal arrangement, more or less, and I appreciate the logic behind that.

But there are serious problems with that political order, which I don't think you see yet.

See above monarchy as a better alternative.

It may be a but of the no no true Scotsman issue...but that's a fair point on the French Revolution.

Yes, I contend monarchy as well would be okay. As would aristocracy or Republic *not...not what we have today* as Plato talks about. If you enjoy monarchy, I suggest reading Liberty or Equality by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, it's a free pdf download on Mises.

To the apartments. It depends, what does the social contract say? If your town says no guns, and they insist on bringing in guns, you have no right to breach the terms of the social contract. Otherwise, sure, bring him in. This puts the future of society in charge of you, the property oener, instead of just letting the state bus people in.

As I've said with economic issues. I am simply recognizing the issues that distributism points out....though I don't know a good non statist way to solve it yet. Like Kuehnelt-Leddihn, I hold that I'm an Austrian, but I would like to explore the question a bit. I hate neo-fascist globalism. Even Hayek and Mises agreed that free enterprise should be local. Let me ask you this...if there is no difference between 100,000 and 100 options...why is there a difference between 100 and 1? Competition is getting pushed out in all cases.

There are serious issues with any political order. I'm just attempting to point our nose back in the right direction, I have no illusions of utopia.

I contend that we have devolved since the Enlightenment. I want to pivot and go back, closer and closer to the society of Adam and Eve.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

while I don't agree with the OP on several points, there are legitimate arguments against libertarianism, or at least concerns. In particular private property rights is built on some tenuous logic. (homesteading principle, mixing labor with the land, etc )

The economic justification for private property rights is not at all tenuous.

Free Market Economy --> Maximum Prosperity

Native americans and other cultures did just fine without property rights

They lived at subsistence level, died young, and suffered from extraordinary levels of violent crime in comparison to industrial societies...

Thus a core principle of libertarianism ( private property ) is in direct conflict with other core principles:
1) non-aggression: because enforcement of the private property may require force / aggression on a peaceful individual.

Aggression =/= force

Aggression is unjustified force.

Force is justified in defense of property, on the libertarian view.

2) freedom: eg, of movement, of travel. because I may not go where I please and others may own all the land around me.

A. That is not a libertarian principle.

B. That right would be physically impossible to exercise. Everyone cannot be in the same place at the same time.

...which is precisely property rights are necessary, to define who gets to be where (or use what) when.

The alternative to having rules about that is to have the issue settled by violence, law of the jungle.

 

[acptulsa]

I contend that we have devolved since the Enlightenment. I want to pivot and go back, closer and closer to the society of Adam and Eve.

I trust you won't be terribly offended if I jump off long before you get back to the Middle Ages, and you her me laughing at you as you go.

There is something to what you say about humanity devolving since the Enlightenment. As to any theory that the Enlightenment was a product of devolution, not so much...

'About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final.

'No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.'--Calvin Coolidge