A Criticism Of David Hume's Declaration Of Independence

Hume on Independence “Absolute monarchy is inconsistent with civil society, and so can be no form of civil government at all; and that the supreme power in a state cannot take from any man, his taxes and impositions, any part of his property, without his own consent or that of his representatives.” (Hume 487). Britain at the time of the American revolution was a parliamentary monarchy, a system utilizing both “traces” (Hume 466) of government. With the monarchical side tracing its power towards a deity, while the parliamentary side based on the consent of the people. Hume argues both these routes have their reasoning, however it is clear he favors tracing power from the people, because it opens the door to the idea of original contract where citizens reserve the power to resist when aggrieved by their government. It is this resistance when aggrieved that the second continental congress apply in their work The Declaration of Independance. However Hume discusses at length the flaws and implausibility of the idea of the original contract. Despite Hume’s criticisms of the original contract, he still believes that consent of the governed is the ideal foundation of government, regardless that government typically doesn't occur
that way. Due to the lack of representation, lack of power derived from the people, the prevalence of monarchy, the superiority of power with a foundation in citizens, and missing consent amongst american subjects- Hume would say that the Americans were justified in declaring independence. Hume's view on the role of government clearly influenced the Declaration of Independence. His view on government can be narrowed to a few points. There are two types of morally duties. The first type, which are impelled by a natural instinct or immediate propensity. (Hume 479) The second type are performed entirely from a sense of obligation. And that government can only derive power from people and religion.
Examples of the first type of moral duties includes, love of children, gratitude to benefactors and pity to the unfortunate, but also contains actions that work against society, such as the desire to indulge in unlimited freedom, or to seek dominion over others. The second type of moral duties control the first set and allow for society to function, they include: justice towards others property and respect towards promises and obligations between people. In the interest of peace and public order the second duties must be supported by a government, or civil society cannot exist (Hume 480).
Regarding the philosophical routes of governmental power, he tears apart the idea that government can be legitimately derived from a deity.
Even accepting deities as real, he claims that, a man cannot be the voice of god on earth in “any other sense than every power or force, being derived from him,” (Hume 467). This trace to power also creates a indisputable right, that if taken as truth delegitimize all forms of rebellion. Dealing with power in the people, hume argues that the first government was one of consent, where a group of people on there own volition, yielded some of their liberty for laws and justice. Before the days of armies, no man possessed enough force to subject the multitudes, so there power must have been given
voluntarily.
Power derived from the people is also not a flawless idea, and in practice does not happen. Some philosophers argue that since government started from consent, upon maturity it can be rooted in nothing other than consent (Hume 469). Humes points out the flaws that even if one’s ancestors consented to be ruled, it should not follow that one has given consent. Also in modern times (of Hume) what is called consent is so forced that it could hardly be called so. For example the poor artisan living day to day knowing no other language, could not feasibly move and survive in a different country. If a man’s choice is be ruled or die it is no real choice. The vast majority of the time no real consent happens anyway. Throughout the known world leaders claim subjects as their property and claim their right to rule from conquest and succession, no consent is in that equation. Therefore the “consent” given by the colonist ancestors who traveled here with the understanding they would be British subjects does not legitimize current rule.
According to Hume, it is necessary to establish allegiance and fidelity. Two principles he says are necessary for the civil society. The general interest or necessities of society are sufficient to establish legitimacy in government, in layman's terms, as long as government protects and support allegiance and fidelity it is legitimate (Hume 481). This is not to say he doesn't agree with the original contract, only that the theory isn’t clear cut in practice and leads to paradoxes (Humes 486). In fact regarding just foundations of government, Hume calls one founded on consent of the people “surely the best and most sacred of any” (Hume 474). Would Hume agree with american independance?
“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 to abolish it” (Declaration of Independence 1). Self-evident truths are facts inherent in people by simply being born, not something granted to people by government, no outsider or institution should have the right to deprive you of these rights. Following this, governments are systems