ne W GA DGe t s Do not ne W HUM A nI t Y M…

             ne W GA DGe t s Do not
              ne W HUM A nI t Y M A K e

               Avery Knapp and Tennyson McCalla




  "   Mice, click-wheels, keyboards, computers,
      Internet(s), [. . . ]none of them change in any fundamental



                                                                 "
      way what the Framers were working with: human nature.




l      et it be understood that what the Framers of our Constitution
       attempted to do was not create a document that would be stuck in
       a particular time, begging to be replaced as the years passed it by
and technology and mores changed. They attempted to create chains,
manacles, bindings, and a gag on the great beast they had been taught
much of their lives to fear (often by experience): the state. By some
estimates, governments killed over 200,000,000 of their own people
in the 20th century, not even counting wars. The Framers' fears of
government power (which are our fears of government power) appear
to have been well founded. The Constitution they created existed in
accord with the philosophy they expounded. Philosophy, unlike fads
and technology, reflects things of eternal nature. The Framers believed
that human nature was one of the eternal things about which they had
a fitting philosophy.

                                   8
8    n                        n e W G A D Ge t s D o n o t n e W H U M A nI t Y M A K e


     What was the nature of man to those great men of 1787? Was he an
animal, incapable of being trusted, incapable of civilization, constantly
in need of supervision? Was he an automaton, ready for instructions
from some authority, ready to be a means to a master's end, capable of
being perfected with the best of directions? No, man was none of these
things, at least not wholly. He was an animal to be sure, as could be seen
by his basest acts of barbarism on the individual scale of a criminal, and
on the collective scale of despotism and war. He could undoubtedly act
the part of a will-less, soulless, robot, and exist in slavish thrall to some
pretended authority on behalf of a prince. But certainly that was not the
totality of man. Man was something far grander in the Founders' eyes.
Man was an individual created by the Author of the Universe, each one
a reflection of the Divine. As the Creator was master of the Heavens,
each man was a master of the Earth. As all were equally creations and
reflections of the Supreme Being, they were equal to one another, and
no one had more natural authority than the next. This state of existence,
where subordination and subjection were absent, this state of nature, as
it was referred to, was a state of perfectly realized liberty.
     To clarify some concepts further, let us hear from some early Ameri-
cans. In 1775 Alexander Hamilton wrote, "The sacred rights of mankind
are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They
are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature,
by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured
by mortal power." Thomas Jefferson wrote the line "...all men are cre-
ated equal..." in the Declaration of Independence, but here's what he
wrote in an earlier draft: "...all men are created equal and independent;
that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable,
among which are the preservation of life, and liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness...". Continuing with Jefferson, we learn: "Rightful liberty is
unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us
by the equal rights of others. I do not add `within the limits of the law,'
Aver y Knapp and Tennyson McCalla                                      n   8


because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the
right of an individual."
      Putting these ideas together, we learn that all people are equal, that
from their equality inalienable rights are derived, and that all unob-
structed actions are rightful so long as they don't transgress the rights
of any other individuals. Any individual's inalienable rights (e.g., free-
doms of contract, property, association, thought, religious belief, etc.)
could not rightfully be infringed upon by any other individual.
      Mice, click-wheels, keyboards, computers, Internet(s), higher
resolutions, light-speed communications, microprocessors, nano-
machines, optical fiber roll-outs, satellites, space travel, wi-fi, LCDs,
LEDs, OLEDS, HDTVs, etc., none of them change in any fundamen-
tal way what the Framers were working with: human nature. So let us
now turn to the present day, a time of the future relative to the Framers.
Man's nature has not changed. Man can still act in a bestial manner as
an individual villain, and his beastly acts can and have been magnified
exponentially with power over other men. No technology has changed
this fact. No new devices have made this less true today than it was in
the Framers' time. On the contrary, the creation of atomic weapons in
the 20th century, and the potential for genetic weapons in the 21st, has
made this point only more profound.
      Reality forced them to work with principles, just as it forces us to
do today. Our modern gadgets and trinkets cannot obviate self-evi-
dent truths. Man can still act as a subject, to be instructed as if he had
no will; to just follow orders, with all of the danger that that phrase
implies. Jefferson again: "Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent
and inalienable rights of man."
      The answer to the question of what we might change if we were
redesigning American democracy for the modern day turns out to have
little to do with the ephemeral, unimportant, and frankly uninterest-
ing aspects of the manner in--and frequency with which--the mob
8    n                      n e W G A D Ge t s D o n o t n e W H U M A nI t Y M A K e


votes, or the means by which we view and rate our elected representa-
tives. These changes merely placate people by giving them the illusion
of more choice. Technology is not the engine that drives freedom--it's
a tool that can encourage or destroy it, and it does both. Freedom is
the engine that allows individuals to better their lives through such
things as technology.
     What we would change has far more to do with the eternal, cru-
cial, and highly compelling issue of rights: unalienable, individual,
civil, constitutional, and human. In drafting the Constitution and the
Bill of Rights, realizing that, as Jefferson said, "The natural progress
of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground," the
Founders attempted to place strict bounds on the delegated powers of
government. In that sense, these documents were a failure. We want to
see even less opportunity for the majority to abuse the minority (the
individual being the smallest minority of all). We would grant even less
power to our servant, government. We demand even more restraints
on that beast known as the state. With those changes, almost none of
the legislation that does pass would pass. These United States, and the
rest of the world, would be far better off for it. Collectivism won the
20th century. Our hope is that individual liberty can win in the 21st.



About the Authors
Avery J. Knapp Jr., M.D., was the grassroots Meetup organizer for Ron
Paul's campaign in NYC and is a radiology resident at Lenox Hill Hospital.
He can be reached at averyknapp@gmail.com.


Tennyson McCalla is a photographer and jack-of-all-trades who became
a volunteer for Ron Paul. He's a young, radical, libertarian, and can be
reached at tennyson.mccalla@gmail.com.