Do we really need to ask?
And why should we ask such a question, unless it be to learn the proper foundation for a nation, or state?
A state is a body of people who exercise “sovereignty” in a particular territory. Generally, such a body is known as an assembly: town meetings, county meetings, parliament and Continental – among other names. A large collection of such assemblies were the engine of the American Revolution.
This leads to another question, ‘What is sovereignty?’
Historically, sovereignty is the power to dispatch ambassadors to foreign jurisdictions, to raise an army; to act as a supreme court; to annul or reform any of its previous enactments; to regulate immigration; and any other power it may choose to exercise. The only limit placed on such a country, nation or state is determined by the consent of the people who established it.
The next question, ‘If we are to establish a nation, shall it be based on the law of nature… or jungle law?’
Jungle law is the same as mouth law: whatever emits from the mouth of the chief bandit is law – whether he is drunk or sober… idiot or possesses some intelligence. It goes by many names, martial, admiralty maritime and quite a few more.
I would prefer natural law as the basis of our country; it is also known as common law, due process of law and other terms.
If this be our choice, we now must search our history books for examples of societies based on natural law, or examples as close as we can find thereto.
To search the story of man with this focus is quite a task. Going back to the first page of this history, I found only three examples of societies that were based on common-law principles – or close to them. All others, estimated to be thousands, were based on jungle law.
In those common-law examples (Athens, the year minus 509), England, 1st half of 17th century, and America, last half of 18th century), we notice degrees of civilized behavior, the absence of witch hunts; noticeable respect for various rights; cultural and scientific advances; and various levels of commercial activity.
This contrasts sharply with conditions in countries with no experience of common-law rules. There (Africa, Asia, Latin America, and most of Europe), we see the result of jungle law: rule by death squads, and nothing but retrograde motion in every kind of human activity; there, we see cesspools of human depravity.
If we examine this difference just below its surface, we notice that common-law societies, historically, have all been the work of the white man; and we find not a trace of one in the history of non-white races.
We should be fair about this: we find ‘cesspools of depravity’ in both white and non-white categories. In the white category, the three examples given above are the only exceptions. In the non-white category, nothing else has ever existed…
Should we be concerned about this? Those three examples above failed because they allowed non-whites to come into their societies and to exercise power and authority on an equal basis with white citizens. The problem with this kindness is that immigrants work furiously to establish in their new “home” the same jungle law from which they came.
What lies in our future?
Had those three examples noted above never happened, the only inhabitants on the planet would be non-white, living in gullies and caves, eating roots, berries and the remains of hyena or lion kills – and this kind of existence would limit planet-wide population to near 20 million. We know this because, when Europeans first discovered Black Africa, the inhabitants lived in gullies and caves, ate roots, berries and the remains of hyena or lion kills; and their population – if projected to a planet-wide scale – would have reached something like 20 million.
What now? We need a fourth example; but, who will author it?
The above observations are excerpted from my book, The Lost Right, 4th ed.