The Theory of Government: From Ancient Legal Codes to the Spiritual Dimensions of Power

People United, David Saputo, Jared Dalen

The nature of government, its legitimacy, and its relationship to individual liberty have been central questions in political philosophy for centuries. From Étienne de La Boétie’s Discourse on Voluntary Servitude to Frédéric Bastiat’s The Law, thinkers have grappled with the paradox of why people submit to authority, even when it oppresses them. Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince and The Discourses on Livy add a layer of realism to this discussion, offering a pragmatic view of power that contrasts with the idealism of Locke and Montesquieu. The debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists in the early United States further enriches this discourse, highlighting the tension between centralized authority and decentralized liberty. James G. Blaine’s Twenty Years in Congress: From Lincoln to Garfield (1884) provides a historical lens through which to examine these ideas, offering firsthand insights into the evolution of American governance during a period of profound change. Pinckney G. McElwee’s The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the Threat it Poses to our Democratic Government (1959) adds a critical perspective on the 14th Amendment, challenging its role as a safeguard of civil rights and warning of its potential to undermine democratic governance. Edgar Cayce’s spiritual insights introduce a metaphysical dimension to this discussion, exploring how spiritual principles might inform our understanding of power, freedom, and the human condition. The inclusion of Sumerian law, one of the earliest known legal systems, provides a historical foundation for understanding the evolution of governance and justice. Finally, Plato, one of the foundational figures in Western philosophy, offers a vision of the ideal state and the role of wisdom in governance. This essay weaves together these diverse perspectives into a critique of power, the social contract, and the chains—both visible and invisible—that bind humanity.

Étienne de La Boétie: The Paradox of Voluntary Servitude

In his Discourse on Voluntary Servitude (1577), Étienne de La Boétie posed a radical question: Why do people willingly submit to tyranny? La Boétie argued that rulers derive their power not from their own strength but from the consent of the governed. He observed that tyranny persists because people voluntarily surrender their freedom, often out of habit, fear, or the allure of minor privileges. La Boétie’s work is a profound critique of the psychological and social mechanisms that sustain oppressive regimes, emphasizing that freedom is not merely a legal condition but a state of mind.

La Boétie’s insights resonate with later thinkers like Voltaire and Goethe, who also questioned why people cling to their chains. Voltaire’s quip, “It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere,” and Goethe’s observation, “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free,” echo La Boétie’s central thesis: that the greatest obstacle to liberty is often the willingness of individuals to accept their own subjugation.

Niccolò Machiavelli: The Realpolitik of Power

Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince (1532) and The Discourses on Livy (1517) offer a starkly pragmatic view of governance that contrasts with the idealism of later thinkers like Locke and Montesquieu. In The Prince, Machiavelli advises rulers on how to acquire and maintain power, often advocating for ruthlessness and deception when necessary. His famous dictum—“It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both”—reflects his belief that the stability of the state sometimes requires actions that conflict with traditional morality.

In The Discourses on Livy, however, Machiavelli reveals a more republican sensibility, praising the virtues of a free and participatory government. He argues that a well-ordered republic, modeled on ancient Rome, is the best safeguard against tyranny and corruption. Yet, even here, Machiavelli emphasizes the importance of strong leadership and the occasional need for decisive, even authoritarian, action to preserve the state.

Machiavelli’s work complicates the theory of government by introducing the idea that power, in practice, often operates outside the bounds of morality and law. His realism challenges the idealism of Locke’s social contract and La Boétie’s faith in the possibility of voluntary freedom, suggesting that the struggle for power is an inherent and inescapable aspect of human society.

The Federalist and Anti-Federalist Debate: Centralization vs. Liberty

The debate between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists in the early United States provides a practical lens through which to examine the tension between centralized authority and individual liberty. The Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, argued for a strong central government capable of uniting the states, maintaining order, and promoting economic development. In The Federalist Papers, they defended the proposed U.S. Constitution, emphasizing the need for a system of checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power.

The Anti-Federalists, including figures like Patrick Henry and George Mason, feared that a strong central government would undermine state sovereignty and individual rights. They argued that the Constitution, as written, lacked sufficient safeguards against tyranny, particularly in the absence of a bill of rights. The Anti-Federalists’ emphasis on decentralization and local governance reflected a deep skepticism of concentrated power, echoing La Boétie’s warnings about voluntary servitude and Bastiat’s critique of oppressive laws.

The Federalist-Anti-Federalist debate ultimately resulted in a compromise: the adoption of the Constitution alongside the Bill of Rights, which explicitly protected individual liberties. This compromise reflects the enduring tension between the need for effective governance and the imperative to safeguard freedom—a tension that remains central to the theory of government.

James G. Blaine: Twenty Years in Congress

James G. Blaine’s Twenty Years in Congress: From Lincoln to Garfield (1884) provides a historical perspective on the evolution of American governance during a period of profound transformation. Blaine, a prominent politician and statesman, offers firsthand insights into the workings of Congress, the challenges of Reconstruction, and the shifting dynamics of power in the post-Civil War era.

Blaine’s account highlights the complexities of governance in a rapidly changing society. He describes the struggles to reconcile competing interests, the role of political compromise, and the challenges of maintaining unity in a nation still recovering from the trauma of civil war. Blaine’s work underscores the importance of leadership, pragmatism, and adaptability in navigating the complexities of governance—a theme that resonates with Machiavelli’s emphasis on the practical realities of power.

At the same time, Blaine’s narrative reveals the limitations of government in addressing deep-seated social and economic inequalities. The failures of Reconstruction, the persistence of racial injustice, and the rise of corporate power during the Gilded Age illustrate the challenges of creating a government that truly serves the interests of all its citizens. Blaine’s observations complement the critiques of thinkers like La Boétie and Bastiat, reminding us that the struggle for freedom and justice is an ongoing process.

Pinckney G. McElwee: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Threat to Democracy

Pinckney G. McElwee’s The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the Threat it Poses to our Democratic Government (1959) offers a critical perspective on one of the most consequential amendments in American history. While the 14th Amendment is often celebrated for its role in expanding civil rights and ensuring equal protection under the law, McElwee warns of its potential to undermine democratic governance.

McElwee argues that the 14th Amendment’s broad language and expansive interpretation by the courts have enabled the federal government to encroach on state sovereignty, eroding the principles of federalism and local self-governance. He contends that the amendment has been used to justify judicial activism, allowing unelected judges to impose their will on the democratic process. McElwee’s critique echoes the Anti-Federalists’ concerns about centralized power and La Boétie’s warnings about the dangers of unchecked authority.

At the same time, McElwee’s work raises important questions about the balance between individual rights and democratic governance. While the 14th Amendment has been instrumental in advancing civil rights, its application has sometimes come at the expense of democratic accountability. McElwee’s critique challenges us to reconsider the role of the judiciary and the limits of constitutional interpretation in a democratic society.

Edgar Cayce: The Spiritual Dimensions of Power and Freedom

Edgar Cayce, often called the "Sleeping Prophet," offers a spiritual perspective on the nature of power, freedom, and governance. Through his thousands of readings, Cayce emphasized the interconnectedness of all life and the importance of individual responsibility in shaping collective reality. He believed that true freedom arises not from external structures of governance but from inner spiritual alignment and the recognition of our shared humanity.

Cayce’s teachings suggest that the chains of tyranny, as described by La Boétie, are not only political but also spiritual. He argued that fear, greed, and separation—the root causes of oppression—are manifestations of a deeper spiritual imbalance. To break these chains, Cayce believed, humanity must cultivate compassion, cooperation, and a sense of unity with all beings.

Cayce’s vision of governance aligns with the ideals of thinkers like Locke and Montesquieu, who emphasized the importance of individual rights and the rule of law. However, Cayce’s spiritual perspective goes further, suggesting that the ultimate purpose of government is to facilitate the spiritual growth of its citizens. In this view, a just and equitable society is one that supports the development of human potential and fosters a sense of shared responsibility for the common good.

Cayce’s insights also challenge the Machiavellian view of power as a tool for domination. Instead, he saw power as a spiritual force that could be used to uplift and transform society. By aligning with higher spiritual principles, leaders could create systems of governance that reflect the divine order and promote the well-being of all.

Sumerian Law: The Foundations of Justice and Governance

The Sumerians, one of the earliest known civilizations, developed a sophisticated legal system that laid the groundwork for later legal codes, including the Code of Hammurabi. Sumerian law, as reflected in documents like the Code of Ur-Nammu (circa 2100–2050 BCE), emphasized principles of justice, fairness, and accountability. These early legal codes sought to regulate social behavior, resolve disputes, and maintain order in a complex and hierarchical society.

Sumerian law was rooted in the belief that justice was a divine mandate, reflecting the will of the gods. This spiritual dimension of governance echoes Edgar Cayce’s emphasis on aligning human systems with higher principles. The Sumerians also recognized the importance of written laws to ensure consistency and transparency, a principle that resonates with Francis Bacon’s emphasis on the rule of law and Montesquieu’s advocacy for legal systems that reflect the customs and needs of society.

At the same time, Sumerian law reveals the limitations of early governance systems. While it sought to protect the vulnerable, it also reinforced social hierarchies and inequalities, reflecting the broader tensions between justice and power that have persisted throughout human history. The Sumerian legal tradition reminds us that the struggle for justice and freedom is as old as civilization itself.

Plato: The Philosopher-King and the Ideal State

Plato, one of the foundational figures in Western philosophy, offers a vision of governance that emphasizes the role of wisdom and virtue in creating a just society. In The Republic, Plato argues that the ideal state should be ruled by philosopher-kings—individuals who possess both intellectual insight and moral integrity. He believed that only those who understand the true nature of justice and the good can govern effectively, as they are guided by reason rather than self-interest.

Plato’s critique of democracy, as articulated in The Republic, is particularly relevant to modern discussions of governance. He warned that democracy, while appealing in its emphasis on freedom and equality, is prone to instability and corruption. Without the guidance of wisdom, Plato argued, democratic societies risk descending into chaos, as individuals pursue their own interests at the expense of the common good.

Plato’s vision of the ideal state challenges us to reconsider the relationship between knowledge and power. While his emphasis on philosopher-kings may seem elitist, it raises important questions about the role of education, virtue, and wisdom in governance. In a world where power is often wielded by those who lack moral and intellectual insight, Plato’s ideas remind us of the importance of cultivating leaders who are guided by higher principles.

The Enduring Struggle for Freedom

The works of La Boétie, Machiavelli, Bacon, Locke, Montesquieu, Vattel, Voltaire, Goethe, Bastiat, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist debate, James G. Blaine, Pinckney G. McElwee, Edgar Cayce, the Sumerian legal tradition, and Plato collectively illuminate the enduring struggle for freedom in the face of power. They remind us that government, while necessary for order, is inherently prone to corruption and abuse. The challenge, as these thinkers recognized, is to create systems of governance that protect individual rights while preventing the concentration of power.

At the heart of this challenge is the paradox of voluntary servitude: the willingness of individuals to surrender their freedom in exchange for security, comfort, or the illusion of control. As La Boétie observed, the chains of tyranny are often self-imposed, sustained by habit, fear, and the false belief that freedom is too burdensome to bear. To break these chains, we must first recognize them—and then summon the courage to cast them off.

Conclusion

The theory of government is, at its core, a theory of power and its limits. From La Boétie’s critique of voluntary servitude to Machiavelli’s realpolitik, and from Locke’s social contract to the Federalist and Anti-Federalist debate, these thinkers offer timeless insights into the nature of authority and the conditions of freedom. James G. Blaine’s Twenty Years in Congress adds a historical dimension to this discussion, while Pinckney G. McElwee’s critique of the 14th Amendment challenges us to reconsider the balance between individual rights and democratic governance. Edgar Cayce’s spiritual perspective invites us to explore the deeper dimensions of power and freedom, reminding us that true liberation begins within. The Sumerian legal tradition provides a historical foundation for understanding the evolution of governance and justice, highlighting the enduring struggle to balance power and fairness. Plato’s vision of the philosopher-king challenges us to consider the role of wisdom and virtue in governance, offering a timeless ideal for creating a just and equitable society.

Their works challenge us to question the legitimacy of power, to resist the chains we revere, and to strive for a society where government serves the people, not the other way around. In the words of Goethe, “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” To achieve true freedom, we must first see the chains for what they are—and then choose to break them.

In Lak’ech,

David Saputo