A First Principles Approach to the Constitution
This essay seeks to clarify the ideas of Classical Liberal philosophers who inspired the foundation of the United States. By applying modern reasoning, I definitively prove inalienable human rights. Today, most people—children and adults alike—only a vague understanding that actions like theft and violence are wrong. To safeguard our republic, we must strive to establish a firm understanding of human rights and law in all citizens.
Introduction
Morality concerns what we "should" and "should not” do.
Note: In this essay, we focus exclusively on "worldly morality"—the realm of material and political laws. "Religious or spiritual morality" is a personal matter and will not be the subject of this discussion.
To understand morality, we must first explore the concept of "value." Value refers to the subjective worth each person assigns to an object or idea. In economics, these individual value judgments collectively shape market prices. Take, for example, a simple item like a bottle of soda. Each person attributes a unique value to it based on their desires at that particular moment. The collective aggregation of these value judgments determines the market price, say $2.00.
Values for items like soda are inherently subjective. But we must ask: do certain concepts or objects possess intrinsic, universally shared value? Are there things that hold universal value for all humanity? If so, this shared value would form the foundation for a common moral system. To uncover these values, we must look for the lowest common denominator: what are the basic values all humans share?
The Common Denominator
Values are deeply rooted in our wants and desires. Through reasoning and empirical data, we can see that all humans pursue goals. Therefore, people require:
i) A fundamental need for freedom to pursue their goals.
ii) A universal desire for ownership of goods (property).
iii) One must be alive to pursue these goals and own property.
Of course, humans have unlimited wants, but the Venn diagram of every person would only converge on these three fundamental needs. From these shared needs, we can derive rights. These three rights are:
The right to life.
The right to property.
The right to freedom.
The importance of these rights is indicated by their proximity to life, as people universally value their own life more than property. For instance, taking a life (violating the right to life) warrants a greater punishment than stealing a loaf of bread (violating the right to property). Violating these "rights" is called "wrong," and the perpetrator would be liable for punishment under the law.
These rights form the backbone of a moral system. One might consider it as a game-theory model of morality: guiding how individuals interact with each other over time, representing a stable "moral Nash equilibrium"— the efficient laws that would naturally arise over time.
The Social Contract
In the context of human interaction, these laws give rise to a social contract. In its simplest form, this contract reads: "I will respect your life, property, and freedom to act, if you reciprocate the same to me." These principles are known as "rights," and violating them is deemed "wrong." The government's sole role is to guarantee these rights, which stem from nature (or as the Founding Fathers put it, "God"). This means these rights exist independently of government, inherent properties of humanity due to their natural or "God-given" nature.
Negative Rights
These three fundamental rights—life, liberty, and property—are negative rights. Negative rights signify that individuals have the right to be free from certain actions or intrusions. For example, the right to life means others must refrain from actions that would physically harm our bodies.
Human-Centric Rights
These fundamental rights are inherently subjective, bound to an individual’s perspective, desires, and choices. However, their commonality among all humans lends them an objective quality; that is, within the human lens, they are objective, but to external observers—such as robots—they are subjective. This is why we refer to these particular rights as "human-centric."
Fundamental Laws of Nature
At the core of natural law lies mathematics. Building on mathematics, we derive physics, with laws governing gravity, electromagnetism, and nuclear forces. From physics, we proceed to chemistry, the laws that govern chemical interactions. Laws governing life’s processes are found in biology, emerging from the interplay of cells with physical and chemical laws. I suggest that at the pinnacle of this hierarchy, human laws—derived from human rights—naturally extend from the fundamental logic that governs our interactions. Human rights, therefore, naturally extend from natural law.
Positive Rights
Just as natural laws like gravity apply impartially to matter in the universe, our moral and legal principles must apply equally to all individuals. A positive right obligates action or provision of something. The one positive right that can be obligated is the obligation to apply laws in a rational and impartial manner.
Who is Guaranteed These Rights?
All humans, regardless of their diverse backgrounds and experiences, are inherently guaranteed these rights. This guarantee stems from the recognition that all humans share the same fundamental wants for life, liberty, and property. Given that humans share at least 99.94% of their genetic code, this unity encapsulates the notion the Founding Fathers expressed: that all people are created in the image of God, and that rights come from God, not man, and they can be taken away by no man or state.
Intricacies of Laws
Each state should uphold the rights to life, liberty, and property. However, the intricacies of laws, rules, and punishments within each state should be shaped by the principles of a market system (i.e., voting through legislative bodies), as already present in the United States. By allowing individuals to cast votes and express their preferences, including in the legal realm, we can create a justice system that protects fundamental rights while allowing the intricacies and balance of punishment or rehabilitation to reflect the will of the people in each locality—rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all approach.
Conclusion
This essay represents the culmination of what I consider to be an essential part of my life's work through my twenties—ideas I have explored obsessively through personal notes, videos, school clubs, and writings.
I have condensed a decade’s worth of notes into this digestible essay. My work, I hope, continues the profound legacy of Enlightenment philosophers who illuminated the concept of natural law, laying the foundations for the fields of physics, chemistry, biology, and beyond.
From my perspective, human legal systems and politics have been unjustly separated from these other scientific domains. It is my duty to reunite politics with its rightful place within the framework of natural law, challenging today’s zeitgeist of moral relativism.