The Pete Quiñones Show - Pete Reads John C. Calhoun's 'Disquisition on Government' Part 3

Episode Date: March 25, 2024

54 MinutesIn this reading and commentary Pete continues reading John C. Calhoun's celebrated "Disquisition on Government." John Caldwell Calhoun was an American statesman and political theorist who served as the seventh vice president of the United States from 1825 to 1832.VIP Summit 3-Truth To Freedom - Autonomy w/ Richard GroveSupport Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's Substack Pete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

This week at Dunn Stores find selected gift sets like Botega Gold, Birramaretti and Corona. Now 15 euro or less. Get half price on Christmas favourites, like Ferreiro Collection 32 pieces, was 24 euro, now only 12 euro. And get deal eight of our 12 deals of Christmas, with 12 pack cans of 7 up Pepsi and Club. Half price at just 5 euro 75. Make Christmas for everyone at Dunstores.

Terms and conditions apply by just confused on next grocery shop, excludes alcohol, please drink sensibly. D.R.S fees apply. PST, did you know? Those Black Friday deals everyone's talking about? They're right here at Beacon South Quarter. That designer's sofa you've been wanting? It's in Seoul, Boe Concept and Rocheburoix.

The Dream Kitchen? Check out at Cube Kitchens. Beacon South Quarter Dublin, where the smart shoppers go. Two hours free parking, just off the M50, exit 13. It's a Black Friday secret. Keep it to yourself. Those people who love going out shopping for Black Friday deals, they're mad, aren't they?

Like proper mad Brenda wants a television and she's prepared to fight for it if you ask me it's the fastest way to a meltdown me I just prepare the fastest way to get stuff and it doesn't get faster than Appliances Delivered.i top brand appliances, top brand electricals

and if it's online it's in stock with next day delivery in Greater Dublin Appliances Delivered.combe part of expert electrical see it, buy it, get it tomorrow or you know, fight Brenda if you want to support the show and get the episodes early

and ad-free, head on over to freemamandbeonthewall.com forward slash support. There's a few ways you can support me there. One, there's a direct link to my website. Two, there's subscribe star. Three, there's Patreon. Four, there's substack. And now I've introduced Gumroad,

because I know that a lot of our guys are on Gumroad and they are against censorship. So if you head over to Gumroad and you subscribe through there, you'll get the episodes early and ad-free, and you'll get an invite into the telegram group. So I really appreciate all of the support everyone's giving me, and I hope to expand the show even more than it already has. Thank you so much. I want to welcome everyone back to the third reading of John C. Calhoun's Dquisition on Government. Looks like I'll be able to knock this out in five,

so this will be shorter than the last one. I'm still trying to figure out. what I want to do for the next one. But yesterday we were pretty much finished up talking about, he's still talking about elections, the numerical majority, things like that. So I'm just going to jump right back in. So here we go. That the numerical majority will divide the community, let it be ever so homogenous, into two great parties, which will be engaged in perpetual struggles to obtain the control of the government has already been established.

The great importance of the subject at stake must necessarily form strong party attachments and party antipathies, attachments on the part of the members of each to their respective parties through whose efforts they hope to accomplish an object dear to all, and antipathies to the opposite party, as presenting the only obstacle to some. success. This reminds me a thinking of Carl Schmidt right here. In order to have a just conception of their force, it must be taken

into consideration that the object to be won or lost appeals to the strongest passions of the human heart, avarice, ambition, and rivalry. It is not then wonderful that a form of government, which periodically stakes all its honors and emoluments as prizes

to be contended for should divide the community into two great hostile parties, or that party attachments in the progress of the strife should become so strong among the members of each respectively as to absorb almost every feeling of our nature, both social and individual, or that their mutual antipathies should be carried to such an excess as to destroy almost entirely all sympathy between them and to substitute in its place the strongest aversion. Nor is it surprising that under their joint influence the community should cease to be the common center of attachment or that each party should find that center only in itself. It is thus that, in such governments, devotion to party becomes stronger than devotion to

country. The promotion of the interests of party more important than the promotion of the common good the whole and its triumph and ascendancy, objects of far greater solicitude than the safety and prosperity of the community. It is thus also that the numerical majority, by regarding the community as a unit, and having, as such, the same interest throughout all its parts, must, by its necessary operation, divided into two hostile parts waging under the forms of law, incestant hostilities against each other. What's the way to solve this hostility? To break apart. And then somebody will say, well, eventually it's going to happen in the new, break apart again. Yeah. Unless you want, unless this is the

way you want to live. This is the way you want to live in constant hostility politically. And you want your kids, you want your grandkids, you want your progeny. So live this way. forever. You continually break apart or get away from each other. That's just basically what has to happen over and over again. You want to be what like-minded people. Or you have one person who makes the decisions. The concurrent majority, on the other hand, tends to unite the most opposite and conflicting interests and to blend the whole in one common attachment to the country by giving to each interest or portion, the power of self-protection, all strife and struggle between them for ascendancy is prevented. And thereby, not only every feeling calculated to weaken the

attachments of the whole is suppressed, but the individual and the social feelings are made to unite in one common devotion to country. Each season feels that it can best, that it can best promote its own prosperity by conciliating the goodwill and promoting the prosperity of the others. And hence, there will be diffused throughout the whole community kind feelings between its different portions, and instead of antipathy, a rivalry amongst them to promote the interests of each other, as far as this can be done consistently with the interests of all. under the combined influence of these causes, the interests of each would be merged in the common interests of the whole, and thus the community would become a unit by becoming the common center of attachment of all its parts.

And hence, instead of faction, strife, and struggle for party ascendancy, there would be patriotism, nationality, harmony, and a struggle only for supremacy in promoting the common good of the whole. It seems like at some point, someone, or someone's figured out that the best way to do this would be to find a common enemy outside of the polity. If anyone who remembers 9-11 remembers that New York was attacked, Washington was attacked, but people from all over the country volunteered to go get the bastards. Well, that wouldn't happen normally if somebody commits a crime. If there's a crime committed in Baltimore where somebody gets killed, the whole country doesn't come together unless it's turned into something by the narrative makers. But the narrative of an outside influence attacking all of us,

that has a habit of bringing people together. But is that the way you want to live again? where that's the only thing that can bring people together, an outside enemy. But the difference in their operation is that in this respect, would not end here. Its effects would be as great in a moral as I have attempted to show they would be in a political point of view. Indeed, public and private morals are so nearly allied that it would be difficult for it to be otherwise. That which corrupts and debates the community politically must, also corrupt and debase it morally.

The same cause which in governments of the numerical majority gives to party attachments and antipathies such force as to place party triumph and ascendancy above the safety and prosperity of the community will justice certainly give them sufficient force to overpower all regard for truth, justice, sincerity, and moral obligations of every description. It is, accordingly, found that in the violence strikes between parties for the high and glittering prize of government haunners and emoluments, falsehood, injustice, fraud, artifice, slander, and breach of faith are freely resorted to as legitimate weapons, followed by all their corrupting and debasing influences. In the government of the concurrent majority, on the

contrary, the same cause which prevents such strife as the means of obtaining power, and which makes it the interest of each portion to conciliate and promote the interests of the others would exert a powerful influence towards purifying and elevating the character of the government and the people morally as well as politically. The means of acquiring power or more correctly influence in such governments would be the reverse, instead of the vices by which it is acquired in that the numerical majority, the opposite virtues. Truth, just, justice, integrity, fidelity, and all others by which respect and confidence are inspired would be the most certain and effectful means of acquiring it.

Nor would the good effects resulting thence be confined to those who take an active part in political affairs. They would extend to the whole community. For of all the causes which contributes to form the character of a people, those by which power, influence, and standing in the government are most certainly and readily obtained are, by far, the most powerful. These are the objects most eagerly sought of all others by the talented and aspiring, and the possession of which commands for the greatest respect and admiration.

But just in proportion to this respect and admiration will be their appreciation by those whose energy, intellect, and position in society are calculated to exert the greatest influence in forming the character of a people. If knowledge, wisdom, patriotism, and virtue be the most certain means, of acquiring them, they will be the most highly appreciated and assiduously cultivated, and this would cause them to become prominent traits in the character of the people. But if on the contrary, cunning, fraud, treachery, and party devotion be the most certain, they will be the most highly prized and become marked features in their character. I think we know which one won. So powerful, indeed,

is the operation of the concurrent majority in this respect that, if it were possible for a corrupt and degenerate community to establish and maintain a well-organized government of the kind, it would of itself purify and regenerate them, while, on the other hand, a government based wholly on the numerical majority would just as certainly corrupt and debase the most patriotic and virtuous people. So great is there a difference in this respect that just as the one or the other element predominates in the construction of any government in the same proportion will the character of the government and the people rise or sink in the scale of patriotism and virtue. Neither religion nor education can counteract a strong tendency

of the numerical majority to corrupt and debase the people. Where do you think we ended up? I think it's pretty clear. You catch them in the corner of your eye. Distinctive. By design. They move you. Even before you drive. The new Cooper plug-in hybrid range.

For Mentor, Leon and Terramar. Now with flexible PCP finance and trade-in boosters of up to 2000 euro. Search Coopera and discover our latest offers. Coopera. Design that moves. Finance provided by way of higher purchase agreement from Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Subject to lending criteria.

Terms and conditions apply. Volkswagen Financial Services Ireland Limited. Trading as Cooper Financial Services is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland. There's so much rugby on Sports Exeter from Sky. They've asked me to read the whole lad at the same speed I usually use for the legal bit at the end. Here goes. This winter sports extra is jam-packed with rugby.

For the first time, we've been every Champions Cup match exclusively live, plus action from the URC, the Challenge Cup, and much more. Thus the URC and all the best European rugby all in the same place. Get more exclusively live tournaments than ever before on Sports Extra. Jam-packed with rugby. Phew, that is a lot of rugby. Get Sports Extra on Sky for 15 euro a month for 12 months. Search Sports Extra.

New Sports Extra customers only. Standard Pressing applies after 12 months for the terms apply. Hops and Wild. Wild and Hops. dream team. They're back in Disney's Zootropolis too. Funny fucks. This is a make or break assignment. In cinema's November 28th. No snake has set foot in Zutropolis in forever. Don't miss the wildest adventure of the year. There's a snake. I want the fox and that rabbit. All right, carrots. Any idea where you want to start?

Disney Zootropolis 2 in cinema's November 28. Good luck. I love you! If the two be compared, in reference to the ends for which government is ordained, the superiority of the government of the concurrent majority will not be less striking. These, as has been stated, are twofold to protect and to perfect society. But to preserve society, it is necessary to guard the community against injustice, violence, and anarchy within, and against attacks from without. If it fail in either, it would fail in the primary end of God. government and would not deserve the name.

When I see this, what he's writing right here, when he talks about morality, when he talks about virtue, when he talks about honor, and when he talks about protecting the society, I think he's talking about gatekeeping. It's something that I talk about all the time. How did we get here? We started out a certain, this government started out a certain way. clearly it was designed for certain people of a certain temperament, of a certain color, of a certain religion, including religion, and of a certain background.

And it kind of screwed the pooch by importing millions from the dark continent to labor here. and then, well, what happens in the 1800s? You have people who are, well, I mean, it starts earlier than that, but Marx's theories start making it over here and influxes from all over the world. What was going to happen? What he's talking about here is he's talking about a very tight-knit, homogenous, culturally homogenous society. Well, didn't do everything they could to guard the community against that. To perfect society, it is necessary to develop the faculties intellectual and moral with which men is endowed. But the main springs to their development and through this, to progress, improvement and civilization with all their blessings is the desire of individuals to better their condition.

Do we have that? When you have all of these entitlements out there, you have all of this, is there any, there's whole classes of people now who don't seek to better themselves because they know they'll be taken care of. And now it's become intergenerational. For this purpose, liberty and security are indispensable. Liberty leaves each free to pursue the course he may deem best to promote his interest and happiness as far as it may be compatible with the primary end for which government is ordained. While security gives assurance to each, that he shall not be deprived of the fruits of his exertions to better his condition.

These combined gives to this desire the strongest impulse of which it is susceptible. Four, to extend liberty beyond the limits assigned would be to weaken the government and to render it incompetent to fill its primary end, the protection of society against dangers, internal and external. I immediately think of the borders being wide open and a decision being made this week that people who have not been screened to be here, we have no idea who they are, that they can carry weapons. And libertarians are like, no, I'm fine with that. I'm fine with that. Perfect, perfect.

Liberals are like, I'm fine with that. Yeah, the Second Amendment, the rights in the Constitution, are for everyone in the whole world. I'm a libertarian universalist. If I get those rights, everyone gets those rights. That's bullshit. Not everybody is equipped to know how to deal with those rights. Not everybody is equipped to know how to deal with a modern society.

And, you know, if they pass these laws, then they'll just come for your guns, too, because they can come for their guns, too. Well, I mean, okay, they could try. I brought up the example of, in France, you can buy a suppressor in a hardware store. But an American who's traveling can't go in there and do that. And if they get found with one, they get in trouble. How come France can enforce that law? And we can't.

And someone's like, oh, well, you're just using France. They have harsh gun laws. That's not the point. Now you're just dodging. No. Enforce the law. Okay? Well, the government that's in charge isn't enforcing the law, so we have to abandon the ideas of legal order.

Well, isn't that the same thing? It makes no sense. To say that we can't, that we, because we're not enforcing laws, that we can't enforce laws, or to say because laws are being enforced poorly, that we shouldn't still enforce laws, just gives you a narco tyranny. They see that, they see your arguments, and they run with them, and they exploit them. Every argument you make like that can and will be used against you by people who are smarter and have power and desire power, which a lot of people don't. the effect of this would be insecurity and of insecurity to weaken the impulsive individuals to better their condition and thereby retard progress and improvement.

On the other hand, to extend the powers of the government so as to contract the sphere assigned to liberty would have the same effect by disabling individuals in their efforts to better their condition. Herein is to be found the principle which assigns to power and liberty their proper spheres and reconciles each to the other under all circumstances. For, if power be necessary to secure the liberty, the fruits of its exertions, liberty, in turn, repays power with interest by increased population, wealth, and other advantages, which progress and improvement bestow on the community. By thus assigning to each its appropriate sphere, all conflicts between them cease, and each is made to cooperate with and assist the other in fulfilling the great ends for which government is ordained. But the principle applied to different communities will assign to them different limits.

It will assign a larger sphere to power and a more contracted one to liberty, or the reverse, according to circumstances. To the former, there must ever be allotted under all circumstances a sphere sufficiently large to protect the community against danger from without, and violence and anarchy from within. The residuals belongs to liberty. more cannot be safely or rightly allotted to it. But some communities require a far greater amount of power than others to protect them against

anarchy and external dangers. And of course, the sphere of liberty and such must be proportionally contracted. The causes calculated to enlarge the one and contract the other are numerous and various. Some are physical, such as open and exposed frontiers, surrounded by powerful and hostile neighbors. Others are moral, such as a different, degrees of intelligence, patriotism, and virtue among the mass of the community and their experience and proficiency in the art of self-government. Of these, the moral are, by far, the most influential. A community may possess all the necessary moral qualifications in so high a degree as to be

capable of self-government under the most adverse circumstances, while on the other hand, another may be so sunk in ignorance and vice as to be incapable of forming a conception of liberty or of living, even when most favored by circumstances under any other than an absolute and despotic government. The principle in all communities, according to these numerous and various causes, assigns to power and liberty their proper spheres. To allow to liberty, in any case, a sphere of action more extended than this assigns would lead to anarchy, and this probably in the end, to a contraction instead of an enlargement of its sphere. Liberty, then, when forced on a people unfit for it, would, instead of a blessing, be a curse as it would in its reaction lead directly

to anarchy, the greatest of all curses. No people, indeed, can long enjoy more liberty than that to which their situation and advanced intelligence and morals fairly entitle them. If more than this be allowed, they must soon fall into confusion and disorder to be followed, if not by anarchy and despotism, by a change to a form of government more simple and absolute, and therefore better suited to their condition. And hence, although it may be true that a people may not have as much liberty as they are fairly entitled to and are capable of enjoying, yet the reverse is unquestionably true that no people can possess more than they are fairly incitled to.

And here I will make a statement that always pisses people off. Maybe the government is the way it is because of the way the people is. Maybe the people are out of control. Maybe the people can't show self-control. Maybe the people are violent. Maybe the people want anarchy so that they can do whatever they want. On the many days of Christmas, the Guinness Storehouse brings to the A visit filled with festivity

Experience a story of Ireland's most iconic beer in a stunning Christmas setting at the Guinness Storehouse Enjoy seven floors of interactive exhibitions and finish your visit with breathtaking views of Dublin City from the home of Guinness. Live entertainment, great memories and the gravity bar. My goodness, it's Christmas at the Guinness Storehouse. Book now at ginnestorehouse.com.

Get the facts, be drinkaware, visit drinkaware.com. There's so much rugby on sports extra from Sky. They've asked me to read the whole lad at the same speed I usually use for the legal bit at the end. Here goes. This winter sports extra is jam-packed with rugby. For the first time we've been every Champions Cup match exclusively live, plus action from the URC, the Challenge Cup and much more.

Thus the URC and all the best European rugby all in the same place. Get more exclusively live tournaments than ever before on Sports Extra. Jampack with rugby. Phew, that is a lot of rugby. Get Sports Extra on Sky for 15 euro a month for 12 months. Search Sports Extra. New Sports Extra customers only. Standard Pressing applies after 12 months for the terms apply.

and maybe the government grew out of that. I forget who said it, but someone said you get the government you deserve. Maybe the government is so violent because the people are so violent. Maybe the people are so violent because the government is so violent. Maybe it's chicken and egg. But for a long time, I've thought that maybe the government is a reflection of the people. And if the people are liberal, live and let live, yada, yada, I don't. care, let them all in, I don't care who they are. Maybe the government's going to give you what

you want. Maybe they'll force it upon you. And then when you try and reverse it, they'll be like, no, screw you. Now you're the enemy. Government is for, the kind of government that this, that was designed for the United States was a small government. And it presupposed people who self-control High morals. Yeah. Does that look like the population of the United States to you? Sure, and where I live, people are cool. And where you live, people are cool.

But look at the places that aren't. Are they just going to concentrate on those places? They're not even concentrating on those places to stop them. Maybe in some odd way, they're waiting for us to do it. But then you see the DAs, it's up, then you look and you're like, well, how does this get solved? Well, I think I'm trying to answer that question over and over again. Liberty indeed, though among the greatest of blessings, is not so great as that of protection, inasmuch as the end of the former is to progress and improvement of the race,

while that of the latter is its preservation and perpetuation. And hence, when the two come into conflict, Liberty must and ever ought to yield to protection as the existence of the race is of greater moment than its improvement. Think about that last sentence. And hence, when the two come into conflict, Liberty must ever ought to yield to protection as the existence of the race is of greater moment than its improvement. It follows from what has been stated that it is a great and dangerous error to suppose that all people are equally entitled to liberty. Thank you very much, Mr. Calhoun. It is a reward to be earned, not a blessing to be gratuitously lavished on all alike, a reward reserved for

the intelligent, the patriotic, the virtuous, and deserving, and not a boon to be stowed on a people too ignorant, degraded, and vicious to be capable either of appreciating or of enjoying it, nor is it any disparagement to liberty that such is and ought to be the case. Liberty is not hurt because there are people who can't, people who would treat it in a way that would treat it as a freedom to hurt other people. That's not liberty's fault. On the contrary, its greatest praise, its proudest distinction is that an all wise providence has reserved it as the noblest and highest reward for the development of our faculties,

moral, and intellectual. A reward more appropriate than liberty could not be conferred on the deserving, nor a punishment inflicted on the undeserving more just than to be subject to lawless and despotic rule. This dispensation seems to be the results of some fixed law, and every effort to disturb or defeat it by attempting to elevate a people in the scale of liberty above the point to which they are entitled to rise must ever prove abortive and end in disappointment. The progress of a people rising from a lower to a higher point in the scale of liberty is necessarily slow, and by attempting to precipitate, we either retard or permanently defeat it. If you are in a place that values liberty and you see somebody who is, and what does valuing

liberty look like, it means a moral people. It means an intelligent people. It means a people of a high culture. If somebody is in that polity and they are doing and their actions are destroying it, you get them the hell out of there. You deal with it because it will permanently destroy you. It will permanently destroy what has been built. It will permanently destroy liberty.

Look at this fucking country. We let people in who don't know how to act. We allow people to act out and act any way they want, and we no longer have liberty. And people can say, oh, well, the government did that. The government allowed them to do that. It was, you know, why did no one step up to stop it? Hops and Wild. Wild and Hops.

The dream team. They're back in Disney Zootropolis, too. Funny books This is a make or break assignment In cinema's November 28 No snake has set foot in Zutropolis in forever Don't miss the wildest adventure of the year There's a slew!

I want the fox and that rabbit All right, carrots Any idea where you want to start? Disney Zootropolis too In cinema's November 28th Good luck! I love you! There's so much rugby on sports extra from Sky They've asked me to read the whole lot at the same speed

I usually use for the legal bit at the end Here goes. This winter sports extra is Jam-packed with rugby. For the first time, we've bet every Champions Cup match exclusively live, plus action from the URC, the Challenge Cup, and much more. That's the URC and all the best European rugby all in the same place. Get more exclusively live tournaments than ever before on Sports Extra. Jam-packed with rugby.

Phew, that is a lot of rugby. Get Sports Extra on Sky for 15 euro a month for 12 months. Search Sports Extra. New Sports Extra customers only. Standard pricing applies after 12 months for the terms apply. On the many days of Christmas, the Guinness Storehouse brings to thee, a visit filled with festivity. Experience a story of Ireland's most iconic.

beer in a stunning Christmas setting at the Guinness Storehouse. Enjoy seven floors of interactive exhibitions and finish your visit with Brett taking views of Dublin City from the home of Guinness. Live entertainment, great memories and the Gravity Bar. My goodness is Christmas at the Guinness Storehouse. Book now at ginnestorehouse.com. Get the facts. Be drinkaware. Visit drinkaware.aweer. There is another error, not less great and dangerous, usually associated with the one which just been considered. I refer to the opinion that liberty and equality are so intimately united that liberty cannot be perfected without perfect equality, that they are united to a certain extent, and that equality of citizens in the eyes of the law is essential to liberty in a popular

government is conceded. But to go further and make equality of condition essential to liberty would be to destroy both liberty and progress. The reason is that inequality, quality of condition, while it is a necessary consequence of liberty, is at the same time indispensable to progress. In order to understand why this is so, it is necessary to bear in mind that the main spring to progress is the desire of individuals to better their condition, and that the strongest impulse which can be given to it is to leave individuals free to exert themselves in the manner they may deem best for that purpose, as far at least as it can be done to be consistently with the ends for which government is ordained

and to secure to all the fruits of their exertions. Now, as individuals differ greatly from each other, in intelligence, sagacity, wisdom, energy, perseverance, skill, habits of industry and economy, physical power, position, and opportunity, the necessary effect of leaving all free to exert themselves to better their condition must be corresponding any quality between those who may possess these qualities and advantages in a high degree

and those who may be deficient in them. The only means by which this result can be prevented are either to impose such restrictions on the exertions of those who may possess them in a high degree, as will place them on a level with those who do not, or to deprive them of the fruits of their exertions. But to impose such restrictions on them would be destructive. of liberty, while to deprive them of the fruits of their exertions would be to destroy the desire of bettering their condition. Does this sound familiar at all? It is indeed this inequality of condition between the front and rear ranks in the march of progress, which gives so strong an

impulse to the former to maintain their position and to the latter to press forward into their files. This gives to progress its greatest impulse to force the front rank back to the rear, or attempt to push forward the rear into a line with the front by the interposition of the government would put an end to that impulse and effectually arrest the march of progress. Let's talk about the progress that has been made since 1964 and 1965. Go back to 1954. Go back to World War II. What's the progress?

Technological? Great. Wonderful. Just look at wages since the 70s. These great and dangerous errors have their origin and the prevalent opinion that all men are born free and equal than which nothing can be more unfounded and false. It rests upon the assumption of a fact which is contrary to universal observation in whatever light it may be regarded. It is indeed difficult to explain how an opinion so destitute of all sound reason ever could have been so extensively entertained unless we regard it as being confounded with another, which has some semblance of truth, but which, when properly

understood, is not less false and dangerous. This reminds me of me talking about during the roundtable with Dark Enlightenment, Charles Bediel, and Jose Nino, how this is just widely accepted now. and it wasn't like it it was planned it was it was thrown into the culture it was put it a switch was flipped and we have this attitude all we have to do is flip the switch in the other direction all people have to do is go no no no no i'm not no not no i'm doing that no i refer to the assertion that all men are equal state are equal in the state of nature meaning by a state of nature a state of of individuality supposed to have existed prior to the social and political state and in which men lived apart and independent of each other. If such a state ever did exist, all men would have

been, indeed, free and equal in it, that is, free to do as they pleased and exempt from the authority of control of others, as by supposition it existed anterior to society and government. But such a state is purely hypothetical. Not anymore, John. It never did nor can exist, as it is inconsistent with the preservation and perpetuation of the race. It is, therefore, a great misnomer to call it the state of nature. Instead of being the natural state of man, it is of all conceivable states the most opposed to his nature, most repugnant to his feelings, and the most incompatible with his wants. His natural state is the social and political, the one for which his creator made him,

and the only one in which he can preserve and perfect his race. As then, there never was such a state as the so-called state of nature, and never can be. It follows that men, instead of being born in it, are born in the social and political state. And, of course, instead of being born free and equal, are born subject not only to parental authority, but to the laws and institutions of the country where born, and under whose protection they draw their first blood. With these remarks, I return from this digression to resume the thread of the discourse. Give another drink. It follows from all that has been said that the more perfectly a government combines power and liberty,

that is, the greater its power and the more enlarged and secure the liberty of individuals, the more perfectly it fulfills the ends for which government is ordained. To show, then, that the government of the concurrent majority is better calculated to fulfill them, them than that of the numerical, it is only necessary to explain why the former is better suited to combine a higher degree of power and a wider scope of liberty than the latter. I shall begin with the former. The concurrent majority, then, is better suited to enlarge and secure the bounds of liberty because it is better suited to prevent government from passing beyond its proper limits

and to restrict it to its primary end, the protection of the community. But in doing this, it leaves, necessarily, all beyond it, open and free to individual exertions, and thus enlarges and secures the sphere of liberty to the greatest extent which the condition of the community will admit, as has been explained. The tendency of government to pass beyond its proper limits is what exposes liberty to danger and renders it insecure, and it is the strong counteraction of governments and the concurrent majority to this tendency, which makes them so favorable to liberty. On the contrary, those are the numerical,

instead of opposing and counteracting this tendency, add to it increased strength and consequence of the violent party struggle's incident to them as has been fully explained, and hence their encroachments on liberty and the danger to which it is exposed under such governments. So great indeed is the difference between the two in this respect that liberty is little more than a name

under all governments of the absolute form, including that of the numerical majority, and can only have a secure and durable existence under those of the concurrent or constitutional form. The latter, by giving to each portion of the community, which may be unequally affected by its action, a negative on the others, prevents all partial or local legislation and restrict its action to such measures as are designed for the protection and the good of the whole. In doing this, it's a cures at the same time the rights and liberties of the people regarded individually as each portion consists of those who whatever may be the diversity of interest among themselves have the same interest in reference to the action of the government. Such being the case, the interest of each

individual may be safely confided to the majority or voice of his portion against that of all others and of course the government itself. It is only through an organism which vests each with a negative, in some one form or another, that those who have like interest in preventing the government from passing beyond its proper sphere and encroaching on the rights and liberties of individuals can cooperate peacefully and effectually in resisting the encroachments of power and therefore reserve their rights and liberty. Individual resistance is too feeble, and the difficulty of concert and cooperation too great, unaided by such an organism to oppose successfully the organized power of government with all the means of the community at its disposal,

especially in populist countries of great extent where concert and cooperation are almost impossible. Even when the oppression of the government comes to be too great to be born and forces resorted to in order to overthrow it, the result is rarely ever followed by the establishment of liberty. the force sufficient to overthrow an oppressive government is usually sufficient to establish one equally more oppressively in its place or more oppressively in its place, sorry. And hence, in no governments except those that rest on the principle of the concurrent or constitutional majority, can the people guard their liberty against power?

And hence, also when lost, the great difficulty and uncertainty of regaining it by force. this is where we are. This is where we've been for a long time. So it may be further affirmed that being more favorable to the enlargement and security of liberty, governments of the concurrent must necessarily be more favorable to progress, development, improvement, and civilization, and of course to the increase of power which results from and depends on these than those of the numerical majority. That it is liberty which gives to them their greatest impulse has already been shown.

and it now remains to show that these, in turn, contribute greatly to the increase of power. In the earlier stages of society, numbers and individual prowess constituted the principal elements of power. In a more advanced stage, when communities had passed from the barbarous to the civilized state, discipline, strategy, weapons of increased power and money as a means of meeting increased expense became additional and important elements. In this stage, the effects of progress and improvement on the increase of power began to be disclosed, but still numbers and personal prowess were sufficient for a long period to enable barbarous nations to contend successfully with the civilized, and in the end to overpower them,

as the pages of history abundantly testify. But a more advanced progress, with its numerous inventions and improvements, has furnished new and far more powerful and destructive implements of offense and defense, and greatly increased the intelligence and wealth necessary to engage the skill and meet the increased expense required for their construction and application to purposes of war. The discovery of gunpowder and the use of steam as an impelling force and their application to military purposes have forever settled the question of ascendancy between civilized and barbarous communities in favor of the former.

Indeed, these with other improvements belonging to the present state of progress have given to communities to most advanced, a superiority over the least so, almost as great as that of the latter over the brute creation. And among the civilized, the same causes have decided the question of superiority, where other circumstances are nearly equal in favor of those whose governments have given the greatest impulse to develop progress and improvement, that is, to those whose liberty is the largest and best secured. among these, England and the United States afford striking examples, not only of the effects of liberty in increasing power,

but of the more perfect adaptation of governments founded on the principle of the concurrent or constitutional majority to enlarge and secure liberty. They are both governments of this description, as will be shown hereafter. But in estimating the power of a community, moral as well as physical causes must be taken into the calculation, and in estimating the effects of liberty on power, it must not be overlooked that in it, that it is in itself, an important agent in augmenting the force of a moral, as well as of physical power. It bestows on a people elevation, self-reliance, energy, and enthusiasm,

and these combines give to the physical power of vastly augmented and almost irresistible impetus. These, however, are not the only elements of moral power. There are others, and among them harmony, unanimity, devotion to country, and a disposition to elevate to places of trust and power those who are distinguished for wisdom and experience. These, when the occasion requires it, will without compulsion and from their very nature unite and put forth the entire force of the community in the most efficient manner, without hazard to its institutions or its liberty. We could only wish.

All these causes combined give to a community its maximum power. Either of them, without the other, would leave it comparatively feeble, but it cannot be necessary after what has been stated to enter into any further explanation or argument in order to establish the superiority of governments of the concurrent majority over the numerical in developing the great elements of moral power. So vast is the superiority that the one by its operation necessarily leads to their development, while the other as necessarily prevents it, as has been fully shown. Such are the many and striking advantages of the concurrent over the numerical majority,

against the former, but two objections can be made. The one is that it is difficult of construction, which has already been sufficiently noticed, and the other that it would be impracticable to obtain the concurrence of conflicting interests where there were numerous and diversified, or if not, that the process for this purpose would be too tardy to meet with sufficient promptness the many and dangerous emergencies to which all communities are exposed. This objection is plausible and deserves a further notice than it has yet received. The diversity of opinion is usually so great on almost all questions of policy that it is not surprising on a slight view of the subject. It should be thought

impracticable to bring the various conflicting interests of a community to unite on any one line of policy or that a government founded on such a principle would be too slow in its movements and too weak in its foundation to succeed in practice. But plausible as it may seem at the first glance, a more deliberate view will show that this opinion is erroneous. It is true that when there is no urgent necessity, it is difficult to bring those who differ to agree on any one line of action. Each will naturally insist on taking the course he thinks best, and from and from pride of opinion will be unwilling to yield to others, but the case is different when there is an urgent necessity to unite on a common cause of action, as reason and experience both prove.

When something must be done and when it can be done only by the united consent of all, the necessity of the case will force to a compromise be the cause of that necessity what it may. On all questions of acting, necessity, on all questions of acting, necessity, where it exists, is the overruling motive, and where, in such cases, compromise among the parties is an indispensable condition to acting, it exerts an overruling influence and predisposing them to acquiescence in some one opinion or course of action. Experience furnishes many examples in confirmation of this important truth. Among these, the trial by jury is the most familiar, and on that account will be selected for illustration. This just goes back to when you get attack, 9-11, everybody

comes together. But really the best course of action here is what Rome did. Put one person in charge until the condition was met and dealt with. In my opinion. In these, 12 individuals selected without discrimination, that's not true, must unanimously concur in opinion under the obligations of an oath to find a true verdict. according to law and evidence, and this too, not unfrequently, under such great difficulty in doubt, that the ablest and most experienced judge and advocates differ in opinion after careful examination.

And yet as impracticable as this mode of trial would seem to a superficial observer, it is found, in practice, not only to succeed, but to be the safest, the wisest, and the best that human ingenuity has ever devised. When closely investigated, the cause will be found in the necessity under which the jury is placed to agree unanimously in order to find a verdict. The necessity acts as to predisposing cause of concurrence in some common opinion and with such efficacy that a jury rarely fails to find a verdict. The problem you have with that now is, is that you say, oh, I'm going to get a jury of my peers. Really? Am I going to get a jury at 12 podcasters? Twelve podcasters that, you know, I've had on the show before? Or am I going to get a jury?

two people who emigrated here from India, two people who emigrated here from Asia, a couple who may have been walked over the border a year ago. Is that what happens? And then if you want to have a jury trial, they say, okay, well, here's the thing. You're looking at 20 years for this act, whatever it is, but we'll give you three years if you take this plea. If you don't take the plea, you're getting the whole 20 if it goes to trial. And they scare the shit out of people.

If everybody, I remember Monica Perez said a few years ago, if everybody just decided, screw it, we're going to do a jury trial, it would, the system would, wouldn't know what to do. Wouldn't know what to do. That would be a whole, I guess I was going to say that would be a whole lot easier than, oh, we'd just get everybody to stop paying taxes and everything like that. But that wouldn't be easy because people, the masses can't, the masses can't coordinate. The masses can't plan together. the masses can't organize. So stuck with this. But I guess at this time, it was good to be on a jury. It was good to have a jury trial, I guess. Under its potent influence, the jurors take their seats with a disposition to give a fair and impartial hearing to the arguments on both sides. Meet together in the jury room, not as disputants, not as disputants, but calmly to hear the opinions of each other and to compare and weigh the arguments on which they are founded. And finally, to a

adopt that which on the whole is thought to be true. Yeah, in a monocultural society and a homogenous society, sure, that could happen. Under the influence of this disposition to harmonize, one after another falls into the same opinion until unanimity is obtained, hence its practicability, and hence also its peculiar excellence. Nothing, indeed, can be more favorable to the success of truth and justice than this predisposing influence caused by the necessity of being unanimous. It is so much so as to compensate for the defect of legal knowledge and a high degree of intelligence on the part of those who usually compose juries. Composed juries.

But I mean, the people, even if the person on a jury at this time weren't book-learned, they would know how to milk a cow, build a fence, do things like that. These aren't unintelligent people. They just may not be able to quote, they may not be able to quote Adam Smith or some other jackass from back then. If the necessity of unanimity were dispensed with and the finding of a jury made to depend on a bare majority jury trial, instead of being one of the greatest improvements in the judicial development of government,

would be one of the greatest evils that could be inflicted on the community. it would be, in such case, the conduit through which all the factious feelings of the day would enter and contaminate justice at its source. But the same cause would act with still greater force in predisposing the various interests of the community to agree in a well-organized government founded on the concurrent majority. The necessity for unanimity in order to keep the government in motion would be far more urgent, would act under circumstances so more favorable to. to secure it. It would be superfluous, after what has been stated, to add any other reasons in order to show that no necessity, physical or moral, can be more imperious than that of government. It is so much so that to suspend this action altogether, even for an inconsiderable period, would subject the government, the community to convulsions and anarchy. But in governments of

the concurrent majority, such fatal consequences can only be avoided by the unanimous concurring or acquiescence of the various portions of the community, such as the imperious character of the necessity which impels to compromise under governments of this description. But to have a just conception of the overpowering influence it would exert, the circumstances under which it would act must be taken into consideration. These will be found, on comparison, much more favorable than those under which juries act. In the latter case, there is nothing besides the necessity of unanimity in finding a verdict and the inconvenience to which they might be subjected in the events of a division to induce juries to agree, except the love of truth and justice, which

was not counteracted by some improper motive or bias, more or less influences all, not expecting the most depraved. In the case of governments of the concurrent majority, there is, besides these, the love of country, then which it was not, if not, counteracted by the unequal and oppressive active government or other causes, few motives exert the greater sway. It comprehends, indeed, within itself, a large portion both of our individual and social feelings, and hence it's almost boundless control when left free to act, but the government of the concurrent majority leaves it free by preventing abuse and oppression, and with them, the whole train of feelings and passions which leads to discord and conflict between different portions of the community. Impelled by the

imperious necessity of preventing the suspension of the action of government with the fatal consequences to which it would lead, and by strong additional impulse derived from an ardent love of country, each portion would regard the sacrifice it might have to make by yielding its particular particular interest to secure the common interest and safety of all, including its own, as nothing compared to the evils that would be inflicted on all, including its own, by pertinish, pertinish, adhering to a different line of action. So powerful indeed would be the motives for concurring,

and under such circumstances, so weak would be those to oppose it. The wonder would be not that there should be, but that there should not be a compromise. I think I'm going to stop right there. I mean, he goes back and forth, He makes these incredible points, shows you what government can become. You see what jury can become.

He's talking about these juries. And then he talks about how, well, if it's just done this way, everything's fine. Well, I think we tried that. So, all right. I'll be back for part four. Like I've been saying at the end of these, if you've been getting ads throughout this. and if you wish to not receive, if you wish to get these episodes without ads,

subscribe, you can go to freemanbeonthewall.com forward slash support. You can subscribe through my website right there. You can subscribe through Subscrib Star. Still have a Patreon, a substack, and I added Gumroad, because I know a lot of people like to use Gumroad on our side of things.

So, yep, that's it. please support the show if you can and be back for episode four in a couple days. Thank you very much. Take care.