Common Sense
The roots of this conflict
stretch back through the 17th century, and are integrally
bound up in the transition from monarchy to democracy. It
is this conflict which gave rise to the most militaristic
and forceful versions of radicalism and conservatism:
communism and fascism. Leading historians maintain the
origins of totalitarianism can be traced to the French
revolution. Political and philosophical aspects of the
relation between common sense and leadership help explain
this contention.
American revolutionary radicalism upheld the tradition of
British philosophical realism. Francis Bacon laid the
foundations of modern scientific method by insisting that
the tendency to conflate faith and reason within European
study of philosophy and nature had produced little benefit
for mankind and should be rejected in favour of a clear
separation of these areas of thought. Science should
instead study the methods of practical experimentation
developed principally in the mechanical trades and
armaments industry. These insights informed theorists such
as John Locke in advocating deference to common sense, not
scholastic doctrine, in political philosophy, and in
supporting freedom of worship. This is the meaning behind
Bertrand Russell's jest that Locke invented common sense
and ever since the English have been the only nation to
possess it.
Thomas Reid defined the method of common sense realist
analysis which informed American radicalism. He maintained
science must proceed from truths which are self evident to
common sense and require no empirical investigation to
verify them. They are not necessarily obvious but can be
discerned by any person willing to use their common sense
to reason through a problem to its least imperfect
conclusion. Further truths can thereafter be derived from
these self evident truths.
Thomas Jefferson employed these insights in drafting the
American Declaration of Independence which states: 'We hold
these truths to be self evident: that all men are created
equal with certain, inalienable rights, among which are
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' They also
informed the drafting of the American Bill of Rights, and
in particular those of freedom of speech, trial by jury and
self defence. These rights complement each other and were
present in the earliest form of democracy in Athens.
Jefferson regarded these rights as derived directly from
the self evident truths of common sense as it has always
existed, clarified or not, in human society. He rejected
both the divine right of kings and also the view that
politics is governed by purely relativist considerations
such as those concerning national circumstances. His view
of the existence of these truths is borne out by its
coherence when matched to the facts of history. The first
step towards democracy taken in Athens was the right to
trial by a randomly selected assembly of citizens voting by
secret ballot as the court of last appeal. Athenian
citizens had the right to possess arms. Though Athens
eventually succumbed to foreign rule these rights, upheld
by the Roman republic but abolished for plebeians by the
emperors, were revived in the Anglo-Saxon period. In
England the right to bear arms dates from 837. As a result
the Welsh longbow became the weapon of British choice. The
role of sortition and common sense in English law in
essence replicates Athenian democracy. Since Magna Carta
ultimate de jure power has rested with the right of a jury
to judge both the facts and legal integrity of a case. The
development of modern democracy is very much a history of
how aristocratic violations of this principle were
eventually overcome. Sometimes entitled 'jury
nullification' this right, alongside its similarly
fundamental companion right to bear arms, was reaffirmed in
the 17th century English revolutions
both de jure, with the 1688 Bill of Rights, and de facto,
in the civil wars and in the trial of William Penn. Despite
the orders of a judge to find him guilty for preaching an
outlawed religion, the jury refused to convict him. The
judge jailed them, but a higher court released them. From
this precedent colonial radical leaders could resist arrest
for sedition, and so eventually could organize the American
revolution to defend these rights in their most
unconditional form. Without rights to jury trial and arms
the American revolution could not have succeeded and modern
democracy may never have been established.
In short the American Bill of Rights incorporates rights
which are ancient, basic, fundamental and necessary to a
democracy. The right to trial by jury, as Jefferson made
clear, is ultimately the only means by which a government
can be held accountable to the people. Trials without
juries may be conducted by the government, for the
government, but not necessarily for the people. John Jay,
the first chief justice and founding father of the United
States, reaffirmed the principle of jury nullification. In
this way fugitive slave laws were effectively annulled by
juries. Despite modern obfuscation such jury rights are
fundamental to the US constitution.
The right to bear arms is also necessary to preserve
democratic freedoms. Its chief purpose is to oppose
tyranny, both with regard to foreign invasion, but more
especially in regard to the influence of insidious,
creeping forms of tyranny within the institutions of
government itself, such as those concerning collusion with
terrorism. Such practices are commonplace in autocratic
states, and even British and American governments have
employed them. When governments collude with terrorism the
right to bear arms is the only means by which the right to
free speech can be securely exercised. That is the essence
of this right, and for those who seriously wish to preserve
democratic freedoms there is no viable substitute for it.
Of note here is the NRA discovery that the recently
defeated referendum campaign against the right to bear arms
in Brazil was funded by both leftists and gangsters. It can
therefore be seen that the American Bill of Rights
incorporates practical safeguards which ensure government
remains accountable to common sense understanding because
they serve to prevent limitation of free speech either
directly, by the creation of unjust laws, or indirectly, by
the unlawful use of force.