A Declaration of Independence from Big Government PDF Print E-mail
Written by Richard M. Ebeling   
Thursday, 02 July 2009 00:00

The Declaration of Independence, signed by members of the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, is the founding document of the American experiment in free government. What is too often forgotten is that what the Founding Fathers argued against in the Declaration was the heavy and intrusive hand of big government.

Most Americans easily recall those eloquent words with which the Founding Fathers expressed the basis of their claim for independence from Great Britain in 1776:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed – That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

But what is usually not recalled is the long list of enumerated grievances that make up most of the text of the Declaration of Independence. The Founding Fathers explained how intolerable an absolutist and highly centralized government in faraway London had become. This distant government violated the personal and civil liberties of the people living in the 13 colonies on the eastern seaboard of North America.

In addition, the king’s ministers imposed rigid and oppressive economic regulations and controls on the colonists that was part of the 18th-century system of government central planning known as mercantilism.

“The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States,” the signers declared.

At every turn, the British Crown had concentrated political power and decision-making in its own hands, leaving the American colonists with little ability to manage their own affairs through local and state governments. Laws and rules were imposed without the consent of the governed; local laws and procedures meant to limit abusive or arbitrary government were abrogated or ignored.

The king also had attempted to manipulate the legal system by arbitrarily appointing judges that shared his power-lusting purposes or were open to being influenced to serve the monarch’s policy goals. The king’s officials unjustly placed colonists under arrest in violation of writ of habeas corpus, and sentenced them to prison without trial by jury.  Colonists often were violently conscripted to serve in the king’s armed forces and made to fight in foreign wars.

A financially burdensome standing army was imposed on the colonists without the consent of the local legislatures. Soldiers often were quartered among the homes of the colonists without their approval or permission.

In addition, the authors of the Declaration stated, the king fostered civil unrest by creating tensions and conflicts among the different ethnic groups in his colonial domain. (The English settlers and the Native American Indian tribes.)

But what was at the heart of many of their complaints and grievances against King George III were the economic controls that limited their freedom and the taxes imposed that confiscated their wealth and honestly earned income.

The fundamental premise behind the mercantilist planning system was the idea that it was the duty and responsibility of the government to manage and direct the economic affairs of society. The British Crown shackled the commercial activities of the colonists with a spider’s web of regulations and restrictions. The British government told them what they could produce, and dictated the resources and the technologies that could be employed. The government prevented the free market from setting prices and wages, and manipulated what goods would be available to the colonial consumers.  It dictated what goods might be imported or exported between the 13 colonies and the rest of the world, thus preventing the colonists from benefiting from the gains that could have been theirs under free trade.

Everywhere, the king appointed various “czars” who were to control and command much of the people’s daily affairs of earning a living. Layer after layer of new bureaucracies were imposed over every facet of life. “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance,” the Founding Fathers explain.

In addition, the king and his government imposed taxes upon the colonists without their consent. Their income was taxed to finance expensive and growing projects that the king wanted and that he thought was good for the people, whether the people themselves wanted them or not.

The 1760s and early 1770s saw a series of royal taxes that burdened the American colonists and aroused their ire: the Sugar Act of 1764, the Stamp Act of 1765, the Townsend Acts of 1767, the Tea Act of 1773 (which resulted in the Boston Tea Party), and a wide variety of other fiscal impositions.

The American colonists often were extremely creative at avoiding and evading the Crown’s regulations and taxes through smuggling and bribery (Paul Revere smuggled Boston pewter into the West Indies in exchange for contraband molasses.)

The British government’s response to the American colonists’ “civil disobedience” against their regulations and taxes was harsh. The king’s army and navy killed civilians and wantonly ruined people’s private property. “He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people,” the Declaration laments.

After enumerating these and other complaints, the Founding Fathers said in the Declaration:

“In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

Thus, the momentous step was taken to declare their independence from the British Crown. The signers of the Declaration then did “mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor,” in their common cause of establishing a free government and the individual liberty of the, then, three million occupants of those original 13 colonies.

Never before in history had a people declared and then established a government based on the principles of the individual’s right to his life, liberty, and property. Never before was a society founded on the ideal of economic freedom, under which free men may peacefully produce and exchange with each other on the terms they find mutually beneficial without the stranglehold of regulating and planning government.

Never before had a people made clear that self-government meant not only the right of electing those who would hold political office and pass the laws of the land, but also meant that each human being had the right to be self-governing over his own life. Indeed, in those inspiring words in the Declaration, the Founding Fathers were insisting that each man should be considered as owning himself, and not be viewed as the property of the state to be manipulated by either king or Parliament. 

It is worth remembering, therefore, that what we are celebrating every July 4 is the idea and the ideal of each human being’s right to his life and liberty, and his freedom to pursue happiness in his own way, without paternalistic and plundering government getting in his way.

 

Bookmark this article:

Deli.cio.us    Digg    reddit    Facebook    StumbleUpon    Newsvine
 
Comments (11)
Fed as a new systemic-risk regulator?
11 Monday, 27 July 2009 02:04
Alex Vlasenko
Look at --> http://www.cnbc.com//id/32156015

I read it and the first question arosed was what did not let Fed to do those systemic risk evaluation?
As I read some of Alan Grinspan interviews he recognized that Fed money rate policy was wrong and that cheap money provoked development of this current crisis.
What will change if fed become that system risk regulator officially approved?
It will make the same sort of mistakes eventually.
A main (and erroneous) assumption of Mr. Alan S. Blinder (an author of that article) is (IMHO) that if we assign someone as a systemic risk regulator then the latter will prevent systemic disaster.
I believe that if Fed will be the only one who decide about money supply it eventually make a mistake since they are people not the God.

Could you comment it?
The Declaration of Independence
10 Monday, 13 July 2009 11:51
R Harrison
It's truly a marvelous, seminal, and inspirational document which laid the foundation for the inadequate Articles of Confederation and then the Constitution. As the deliberations concerning the latter concluded in 1787, Ben Franklin observed that the Founders had created "a Republic if you (we) can keep it."
Thanks
9 Monday, 06 July 2009 11:40
Ronald C. Finke, JD, ChFC
Numbers are but the pieces of hay in the haystack. Thank you for historical context making it possible for me to gain wisdom about the growth, shrinkage or risks to the haystack as a whole.
Not-so-'disappointed'
8 Sunday, 05 July 2009 20:53
Frederick M.
I pay AIER not to produce dry data, but to help me interpret the world. I found this piece to be exactly the sort of useful 'consumer publication' which keeps me coming back to AIER every year.

In the case of Mr. Levin's perspective, rather to than pass a holistic judgement (= opinion piece = not useful consumer publication; which concept itself I find odd, since the New York Times {and a lot of other papers} devote an awful lot of space to op-eds if consumers don't find them useful in general) I wonder if Mr. Levin would care to elaborate on which part of this piece he found particularly un-economic, or not useful?

As is probably discernible from the tone of my comment, I discerned from the tone of Mr. Levin's that it wasn't the form (as he claimed), but the substance of this piece which troubled him. Now, since I find the piece quite persuasive, I'm hoping Mr. Levin will help my own thinking to 'progress' by shining a light on what flaws he may see.
Approaching a Crossroads?
7 Sunday, 05 July 2009 13:26
Rick Ryan
An excellent reminder of why we have this free country and how unique it was at the time of its founding and still is. But for how much longer?

Based upon the gathering storm of more and more centralized government being imposed upon us almost weekly, with punishing taxes not far behind, can we be far from the point where we must again decide if we have a "Form of government" becoming "destructive of these ends" and requiring alteration or abolition?
Declaration of Independence/Current Administration
6 Saturday, 04 July 2009 13:07
T L Thomas
The current "Community Organizing" administration is taking away our rights of liberty and pursuit of happiness by taking over our capitalist society and establishing its own rules that dictate taxes in round about ways such as "Cap & Trade", "Reform of the Health Plan" and mandating that houses must conform to the Administration's "Green" standards before they can be sold. This must be stopped.
Disappointment
5 Friday, 03 July 2009 11:08
Stewart A. Levin
I joined AIER last year because it produces useful consumer publications and economic research. This is neither. Dr. Ebeling has far more appropriate forums for opinion pieces.
A Declaration
4 Thursday, 02 July 2009 22:14
Brian Erickson
Professor Ebeling

Thank you. Too often I am assaulted by some wanna-be-leader who talks about the Declaration as if it were a political to-do list. An action plan that must be implemented for the "public good." Its nice to be reminded that it was intended to express the simple idea that "each man should be considered as owning himself.."

If this and nothing more was embraced by all, justice would surely prevail.

Happy Independence Day!!
Declaration of Independence & Today's U.S. Government
3 Thursday, 02 July 2009 10:15
Bob Wade
What is often forgotten today is the depth of hostility the Founders' felt against any form of centralized authority--even one with Constitutional limitations. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention were at the time just about equally divided pro and con on the creation of a Constitutionally-limited central government, with those having strong reservations (like Jefferson, Madison, et al) feeling that liberty would be endangered by such a creation, and that the individual Colonies/States (their "countries") were the best safeguard against the growth of a federal tyranny. They just didn't trust it to remain "limited"!

Wonder how they'd view the all-encompassing powers the U.S. government (all branches!) exercises today in regulating the lives of American citizens?
The Declaration of Independence
2 Thursday, 02 July 2009 09:27
Rich Walton
Richard, thank-you for this reminder of where we have come from. The clarity, beauty and eloquence of this document is astounding! Our forefathers were clearly self-reliant and entrepreneurial spirits. Mostly, I fear that this mentality is now the minority in America, as I see my fellow citizens lining up for handouts from the federal government instead of creating ways to get business or income. It is hard to condemn my fellow citizens for following this path, as many have lost everything to an economy that has resulted from a Congress which passed questionable laws and then failed to oversee them.

All I know is that when the federal government gets bigger I get a little smaller and have fewer choices and freedoms available to me. Let us hope for the good of all that the American people can find a way to shed an all-encompassing government and get back to the basic truths stated in the Declaration of Independence.
Government Independence
1 Thursday, 02 July 2009 09:14
Joe DeFalco
Unfortunately in a very suttle but by clear actions the Government today is slowly making paupers of our children and their children ... A copy of this article should be sent to every member of the Senate and Congress to raise their conscienceness of their duty to the american public ..

Add your comment

Your name:
Subject:
Comment:
  The word for verification. Lowercase letters only with no spaces.
Word verification: