1776, Part 1: The Ideas That Made the Modern World

Episode Topic: The Ideas That Made the Modern World 

Explore the revolutionary convergence of 1776, where liberty and prosperity intertwined, as you interrogate the profound legacy of the Declaration of Independence alongside Adam Smith’s economic breakthroughs in The Wealth of Nations.

Featured Speakers:

•  Vincent Phillip Muñoz, University of Notre Dame
• James Otteson, University of Notre Dame

Read this episode's recap over on the University of Notre Dame's open online learning community platform, ThinkND: https://go.nd.edu/956aa7.

This podcast is a part of the ThinkND Series titled 1776: The Ideas That Made the Modern World.

Thanks for listening! The ThinkND Podcast is brought to you by ThinkND, the University of Notre Dame's online learning community. We connect you with videos, podcasts, articles, courses, and other resources to inspire minds and spark conversations on topics that matter to you — everything from faith and politics, to science, technology, and your career.

• Learn more about ThinkND and register for upcoming live events at think.nd.edu.
• Join our LinkedIn community for updates, episode clips, and more.

Transcript

Welcome and Setup

Speaker 2 0:06

Thank you Professor Munoz. I would like to extend to join him in welcoming everybody. It's a great pleasure to be here with you. 2026 is a rather auspicious year. So it is the semi quincentennial, not only of the Declaration of Independence, but also of the publication of the Wealth of Nations. We will not be having. It was published on March 9th in 1776. We're not having class on that day, but we're pretty close, so we'll be there for most of it. My name is James Sison. I'm a professor of business ethics here in the Mendoza College of Business. colleague of Professor Munoz. Um, one thing I wanted to say before we begin, in addition to welcoming all of you, as you may know, if you don't, I will tell you we are live streaming this to the world. So I will say hello to the world, including, uh, uh, my mother, who I think is watching. Hi mom, how are you? so, we're gonna talk about these two documents, the Declaration of Independence. Professor Munoz is gonna talk about that. That is, uh, one of his areas of expertise. I'm gonna talk about the, uh, wealth of Nations. I have three lectures on the wealth of, it's a thousand pages long, and we're gonna get all of it in just three classes, so we'll do our best. but one thing I wanted to let you know before we begin is Professor Munoz and I did not share with each other what we're gonna talk about. He's gonna talk about other than the documents, but we're not, we didn't share what we're gonna say. We didn't tell each other or run it by each other. So we may or may not agree about things. So it could be the case that we might actually disagree about a few things, which is fun. That's part of what it's, uh, what's great about being at a university like Notre Dame. We wanna have a spirit of open debate, so there may be some things that we disagree about. Of course, I will say that if there are disagreements between Pro Professor Munoz and me, I'm the one who's right and I'll just let you know right now. So my part of it, what I thought I would do today is, um, just give you a little bit of a foretaste of what we'll do when we get to my section. Um, then I'm gonna turn it back over to Professor Munoz to talk about the reading that you had. so I'm gonna talk about Adam Smith. there is years Adam Smith lived during a time that we now recognize are now called the Scottish Enlightenment. It was quite a time of learning. Almost every field of human inquiry was seeing the, the, the leading edges of it going on in the improbable place of Scotland in the 18th century. Scholars today date the Scottish Enlightenment approximately with Smith's years. So 1720s or so to 1790s or so many of the luminaries, um, that you will have heard of. people who are at the forefront of things like geology, mathematics, medicine, political economy. Adam Smith was close friends with someone you may have heard of named David Hume, who was one of the great philosophers in the English language. They were close personal friends. I'm gonna talk not just about Adam Smith in general, but we're gonna talk about his now most famous book, the Wealth of Nations. But I wanted to motivate this a little bit. I'd like to give you a few numbers to think about. Uh, so what you're looking at there is population for the last 12,000 years. So what you see for the last 12,000 years is a whole lot of, not much. And then there's quite a spike there, isn't there? Um, so you can see from 10,000 before Christ all the way up to 2000, virtually nothing. A little bit of growth around the time of Jesus. And then something happens. Maybe you've seen graphs like this before. Why am I showing you that? So that's just human population. I give you a few numbers there. In the year 10,000, before Christ, there were approximately 4 million human beings on the planet. We don't know exactly. Estimates go from anywhere between two and a half to 5 million. 4 million is a conservative estimate, but demographers who study this think that that was about the number of human beings who were on the planet for the previous a hundred thousand years of our approximately 300,000 years of homo sapiens being on the planet. So there really wasn't much change at all. That long, low red line went back, goes back quite a ways. It doesn't really change. And then something dramatic happens. So the first thing I'd like you to think about is, what, what might that be? So that's human population. Let me show you another graph, which is more, relevant to Adam Smith's wealth of nations. This is wealth. What I'm showing you there is the total amount of wealth created by all human beings on the planet aggregated and in constant 2011 international dollars, which adjust for inflation and deflation over time. So that is in constant dollars. What did we have? Again? A whole lot of nothing. And then holy cow, something happened. Something happened. Well, what happened? Now, I'm, you might already be generating a theory about this, or maybe you have some ideas about this. if you say it's the industrial revolution, you might wonder why didn't the industrial revolution happen earlier? Why did it happen so late? So here are some numbers for you to think about. The growth in wealth against, again in constant dollars. What do we have about$247 billion or$1,100 per person per year, around the time of Christ.$1,100 is not much. So that's about$3 per person per day. That's just below, or just right near what the United Nations today considers to be the level of absolute or extreme poverty. So that's what almost every human being lived in for most of our history. In 2024, what do we have?$173 trillion. So we went from 247 billion to 173 trillion in constant dollars, about a 700 fold increase in wealth, and it didn't go up nicely and continuously at all of a sudden, happened very, very recently in human life. this is per capita just for the last 200 years. Just for the last 200 years. So the Declaration of Independence was published in 1776. Wealth of Nations was published in 1776. Going back for the last 200 years, what do we see? in 1820? Do you remember the number from the year one? 1100? So for 1800 years, the total growth went from$1,100 per person to$1,500 per person. That's$3 a day per person to$4 a day per person. That is a very slow rate of growth. It's not very much at all. And then after 1820, it went to 21,268 of 14 fold increase. Again, something dramatic is happening. So to summarize, something bigly happened. And you're one of our Lord. 232 million people,$247 billion in wealth,$1,100 per capita. 1820. We went to 1 billion in, uh, in total people on Earth. 1.262 trillion. That's a 0.1% average annual growth. That's it. 0.1%. and per capita grew at a poultry measly 0.02%. That's very small. Look what happened from 1820 to 2004. So we octupled our population. The human population went from 1.62 to 173 trillion. That's 2.4%. Now, maybe 2.4% doesn't impress you. It still sounds fairly small, but note that it's 24 times the rate of the previous 1800 years per capita. 21, 20 1,268, a 1.33%. Again, maybe not an impressive number, but it's some. 65 times greater than what happened before. Now what do we have 34 times as many people over the last 2000 years? 700 times as much times. That's not percent, that's why I give you the percentages there. It's 700 times as much wealth, 19 as much. 19 times as much per capita or per person and per capita is just calculated by taking the total amount and dividing by the number of people who are alive at the time. Alright, so let's raise some questions. And these are questions that I would like to address once we get to my section of the course and talk about the wealth of nations. So first of all, what happened? Something dramatic happened. Now is there a physiological difference between humans in 2024 and humans in the year one? No, that wasn't it. Something else happened. Something changed. Are you working on an idea about what that might be? So something happened. What happened? Why did things increase so dramatically and so recently in human life, in human history? And let me emphasize when I say recently, if human beings, if homo sapiens, modern humans have been on the planet for approximately 300,000 years, which is a, that's, uh, that's seems to be where the consensus is about 300,000 years. This is, that means that for nine greater than 99.9% of the time of human beings being on the planet, we were that long, low red line with virtually no change at all. Nothing changed. Nothing happened. And then in the last 0.1% of our existence, this happened. If you think of the time we've been on the planet as a clock of 24 hours, this would've been in the last 58 seconds of, of the 24 hours. So it just happened almost in the blink of an eye. What, what happened? And now a little bit of a philosophical question just to what your appetite. Okay. Talking about money. Is money the only thing that matters? Are there other things that matter in life? I will not, hold you in suspense. What's my answer to that? No. Money is not the only thing that matters in life. Certainly not the, I think the, the most, um, the only thing that matters in life. But here's something I will try to convince you of when we get to my turn. That, what money can do is enable us to pursue the things that do matter in life. Because when we're living on$3 per person per day for everything, food, clothing, shelter, medical care, tickets to the Notre Dame basketball game tuition at Notre Dame, that doesn't go very far. That is a very sm very close to subsistence existence. You're not thinking about writing the great American novel. You're not thinking about taking a family trip to Disney World. You're not thinking about whatever other things that you might think round out a life of meaning and purpose. You're thinking about can we eat today? Can my children survive today? So although money is not the most important thing in life, or the only thing that's important in life, it can enable other things, um, by turning, by resolving some of the more pressing needs and allowing us to turn our attention to some other things. So let me look ahead to what we're gonna do when we get to my section. Um, something dramatic happened near the end of the 18th century that led to an unprecedented mat, historically unprecedented material, increase in human prosperity. What might that be? Now, I don't wanna give you my view now, I'm just gonna be silent about it. I'm joking. That's gonna give you an idea of what I think. Um, but before I do, I wanted, I asked you to read, did you all read the students in the class? Did you read that little piece from the Economist? so The Economist Magazine, which is a, a free trade oriented British newspaper, British magazine, been publishing for about 150 years. Uh, they wrote a little piece to commemorate. It was right at the end of December last year. Next year is gonna be the, the 250th, anniversary of the Wealth of Nations. So they wrote a piece talking about how Adam Smith's reputation is undeserved. Um, and if one of my students is Cole Cherry in the room, where are you, Cole? All the way in the back. Yes. My student, Cole Cherry brought this to my attention. Thank you, Cole. so here's what the economist had to say. Adam Smith's. So he is often called, has been called the father of Economics. his book has been, praised, even venerated by some, the Economist, which you might otherwise have expected to actually give some praise to. That book says, oh, it's all, um, it's all overstated. And they gave three reasons. Here are the three reasons. Can you read those reasons? First of all, um, they said Smith was a flowery, I'm quoting, I you can't make this up. He was a flowery writer who employed long wind, long winding sentences. Okay, true but irrelevant. Smith got some things wrong. For example, he relied on something called the labor theory of value or what we now call the labor theory of value. But the Economist says, without which there could have been no Karl Marx. Okay, we'll come back to that. And then finally, Smith built on the ideas of others. Okay, so when we get to my section, what I'm gonna try to do, what I will argue and try to present to you, make the case to you, that Smith in fact deserves that title of Father Eco of Economics and that the Wealth of Nations is one of the most consequential books of the second millennium. So I'm gonna try to convince you of that and make that case. Those three claims could be, have been brought against a number of people. You could say the same thing about Plato. You could say the same thing about Aristotle. You could say the same thing about Newton. Doesn't mean we don't read them or they, there's no value in them. So I think those are quite weak, quite weak. Objections. So my part of the program will be, I'm gonna try to convince you that in fact Smith does deserve the praise and that book does deserve the veneration that it gets. Fair enough? Mm-hmm. Alright, ladies and gentlemen, I will turn it back over to Professor Munoz.

1 13:37

Alright,

Speaker 2 13:37

there you are.

1 13:38

Thank you.

Speaker 2 13:39

Thank you.

Why Start With 1619

Socrates Versus Thrasymachus

1619 Essay Father and Flag

What Schools Teach

What Government Is For

Rights Based Conclusion

1 13:39

So it is beginning of the semester, so something you might think about as you. As you come to this class, but your other classes are as well, which is, well, why am I in this class? But, what does the professor want me to get out of this class? It's an interesting thing to think about, right? And your evidence is the syllabus. So what they're trying to teach you something. What are they trying to teach you? What are they trying to do with you? Okay, so, what are we trying to do? What do I hope you get out of your time? Time here, or at least my, my parts of your, your time here. say three things and they correspond to the three parts. My, my next three classes. first, um, what did the founders think they were saying in the Declaration of Independence, and, and we'll start that tonight probably, but we're gonna try, uh, next week in particular starting tonight, but next week in particular, what, what was the founder self understanding? Of the Declaration of Independence. the next class is, and, and we, we have to confront this directly. What about slavery? And, and you can look at this question in two ways. It's both are equally interesting. how could Thomas Jefferson, the drafter of the declaration, how could many of the signers of the declaration they own slaves? H how, what do we make of that? Right? How do we, how do we square that circle? Can that, can it be squared? Can, or you can ask the same question in a different way, which is how do a bunch of slave owners declare that all men are created equal? How do they come to say that or see that? Right? And we're gonna enter into that discussion. Through the greatest debate in our nation's history about the Declaration of Independence, which is between Abraham Lincoln and Steven Douglas, who both offer interpretations of the Declaration of Independence. Okay. And then, the third thing we're gonna do is we'll, turn to Lincoln, uh, during the Civil War, Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. So the Gettysburg Address, uh, the second inaugural, and then Frederick Douglas'. Two speeches by Frederick Douglass, which, uh, one I want you to read, and the other you, you might find of interest to read. Okay. So some of the greatest commentators on the declaration in American history. Okay. So that's what we're trying to do. What do I want you to be able to do? Well first try to understand the declaration as the founders themselves presented. The presented right. Understand how Americans have argued about the declaration. All right, Lincoln and Douglas, the highest or most elevated debate in American history. and then see how, Lincoln at, Gettysburg talks about a new birth of freedom. And that's my way of getting us into, thinking about what does the declaration mean for us today. Okay? So that's what I hope you get out of it. That's not o the only things I hope you get out of it, but at least those three things. And that's why I, have, assigned the readings I have. Now, there's all sorts of other things we might, additionally read and maybe I'll suggest if you wanna do more reading, you could, do, do this reading or that reading. Okay? Okay. Those are my basic games. Okay. Now, I asked you to read, uh, this famous essay from the, uh, New York Times 1619 project. And how many of you had read it before, before this class? Many of you. Oh, many of you. Okay. One might also ask, why would Professor Munoz start the class this way? I know you probably know this by now, but if you don't, I mean, this, this piece of writing, which won, uh, the author, the, uh, I think it's the Pulitzer Prize and all sorts of awards, is one of the most controversial pieces, opinion pieces, pieces of journalism published in the last 20 years, extraordinarily controversial, created a firestorm. People still argue, why would I start a class which is supposed to be about patriotism and unity in this way, right? Uh, if I, do, you know what's going on in Texas right now? Supposedly, I mean, I don't, but in, in higher education, there's this controversy right now in Texas, some, i, I think it's at Texas a and m. I'm not sure where I might be wrong, but have you read about this? It. Is Plato Plato's on the syllabus and they're removing Play-Doh. Do you know what I'm talking about? Yes. No. Anyone know the details? I don't. Well, I, I was, I was thinking on the drive in here, if this class was audited in Texas, the class might be prohibited, or at least that reading the way I started off. Right? I mean, this is the quintessential DEI reading. So, so why do I start off the class this way? Do mean, do you, do you think about this when you look at your syllabi? Jeremy's saying, well, maybe you put it up there to knock it down. Maybe Jeremy knows something about my reputation. Okay. Okay. Could be, but no, actually I don't think so. There are some things I disagree with and that historians have criticized. I'll mention that, but that's not the primary reason. Maybe Cole again, perhaps knowing mates like, Hey, professor Munoz probably appreciates or respects or admires the declaration and so let's get some dissenting voices. That would be, that would make sense. Maybe there's something to that, but that's not quite it. That, that was good. Maybe the declaration wasn't, uh, what it's been cracked up to be. Okay. Which would make this class deeply ironic, but still interesting. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Uh, the, the author, Nicole Hannah Jones went to Notre Dame. That's true. Okay. Yeah. So maybe it hits home to us. Okay. In some way. Yeah. There is a Notre Dame connection that was part of it. Yeah. Okay. Andrea? I say the declaration is a living document. David says that the declaration might mean different things to different people and it be interpreted differently and Yeah. That starts to get at it. have any of you, uh, read, do you read Plato? Are you allowed to read Plato in the business school? What's his method? You have these dialogues, Plato's arguing with people. The Socratic method. Questions. Who does he question? But what does he examine? What does he get outta these people? He questions like the first Book of the Republic. Have you read this? Right? What, what's the famous argument in the first book of the Republic? The firmer, the famous first book of the Republic, uh, this, this fellow through Semus, he's a sist. He, he, um, earns his living by standing on a stage and teaching people things supposedly somewhat dubious profession. Right. And he, he, he teaches for pay. Right. It's kinda like what they do in the business school. I, I made a strategic mistake in preparing this class. I went to my dean, my dean's office, not my dean personally, and said, Hey, we wanna teach this class, you know, what's the rate of pay if we teach this class? I mean, we're gonna do it, but you're like, how do, where does the money come from? Do I have to like, make a special requisition or whatever? Foolishly, which is why on my notes and letters and on the business school, I should have gone to the business school dean, because you know what the Dean's response was? Oh, we're not gonna pay you any extra for that. So I, we're not doing this for pay, as a matter of fact. Right. Okay. So the first book of the Republic, in fact, every platonic dialogue, what you see is Socrates engages these people and he examines their opinions. Right? And so in this first book of the Republic, he takes on th SUSE's opinion about justice. And th SUSE's opinion is there is no justice. The strong impose what's in their interest on everyone else. And they call it justice. So there is no justice. There's only power. And Socrates goes through that argument. And what's really interesting is if you read the dialogue, he has these young people, Glaucon and Addie Mantis, who are Socrates companions, and they're watching this dialogue. And these are young, ambitious guys. They're like Notre Dame students. And in a way, thymus is teaching is extraordinarily attractive to them, right? Thymic is saying, well, if you really know, if you really look under the, under the hood, there's no morality and you can do anything. And, and Socrates has to now, now do you get the drama here? Socrates, the teacher has to convince these two young men, extraordinarily talented and ambitious young men don't follow through sinus. And how does he, how can he do that? He has to defeat him in argument, enticing the, the young folks, his, his young companions to stay with them. And then if you've read The Republic, you know, it goes on and on and on, right? There's another nine books. In fact, you finish it, you're still not sure what justice means, right? So Socrates begins with opinions. And this essay in the 1619 project is so interesting. It's so well executed, right? Uh, and, and this is the real reason I give it to you. It's such a thoughtful essay, and it articulates two opinions about the Declaration of Independence. And if you go back and read it with fresh eyes and whatever you think of the author, just leave that aside. Just read the essay. The author starts with a depiction of her father. Do you remember this? And, and what, what's her? Opinion or what's her thoughts about the father that she's, that she emphasizes in this essay? What does she say about him? Who, who is he? How would you describe him? So sh we should say what everyone I think knows already. She's black, right? She's black American. Right. And her father is a black American. And he served in the army. And, and what, what does he do? He's patriotic. How do we know he is patriotic. He like keeps a flag up in the yard. He keeps a flag up in the yard and she writes in a way, she's a great storyteller. And how does she draw attention to how important this flag is? Did you pick up these details? Did you notice that she draws this? What? What's the image or. Idea you have of her father, right? He loves America, right? Has America been good to him? No. What, what do we know about him in his life? Encountered racism in the army, grew up in a time of segregation. The country was unjust, at least in the small portrayal, unjust to him, but he loves America. Okay. Anyone want to add anything to that? Did this, did you, did you notice this? Okay. What's her opinion about the Declaration of Independence? Or let, let me, let me re retract that. What's her opinion in the context of the, of this? This story about the declaration. What's her opinion of her father? She doesn't understand this patriotism. Why is her father like this? Right? And let me read you this quote here. So when, so when I was young, she writes, when I was young, that flag outside of our home never made sense to me. How could this black man that's her father, how could this black man having seen firsthand the way his country abused black Americans, how it refused to treat us as full citizens, proudly fly its banner? I didn't understand his patriotism. It deeply embarrassed me. She continues. I had been taught in school through cu cultural osmosis that the flag wasn't really ours. She's speaking of black Americans, that the flag wasn't really ours. That our history as a people began with enslavement and the we had contributed little to this great nation. It seemed that the closest thing to black Amer, I'm sorry. It seemed that the closest thing black Americans could have to cultural pride was to be found in our vague connection to Africa, A place we had never been that my dad felt so much honor in being an American, felt like a marker of his degradation, his acceptance of our submission. I mean, just pause here. Whatever you think of her, I mean, she's a beautiful writer, right? And these images of his patriotic. Older black man flies the flag, proudly, indeed takes care, better care of his flag than his own home. And you wonder there, like, okay, was no. And then his daughter, a product of elite education, the New York Times, who, what's her attitude towards her father? How would you describe it? How bewildered. Bewildered. Okay. What else? She's embarrassed. It'd be like, like her parents came to class and they, they spoke. All right. How many of you would like that? Like your dad, you don't know. You're, you're being a fool, right? Isn't that what she conveys? It's like you believe in justice or the justice of the declaration, A justice that's not there. Isn't that what she's saying? So it brings up the question. This, I mean, this piece, one of the most influential pieces of journalism, right? In the last, I don't know, uh, certainly the last generation, right? Of your lifetime, uh, this arguably is, I mean, perhaps the most influential New York Times essay so we might take up as one of our questions, what's the more accurate understanding of the declaration of in depend. The portrayal, her father or Nicole, Hannah Jones. It's an interesting question, right? It's an ideal and a lie, I think. And what she's trying to do is to try to reconcile the two. Right? So that's her starting point, one starting point, right? And, and I think, maybe you could say this is, uh, her starting vantage point is the vantage point of elite opinion. Elite American opinion, I think is captured by her right now. It is interesting. She's, in a way, she's trying to find a way to save black Americans in a way, save the declaration. So it's, I think it would be wrong to see her as anti-American. In fact, she says black Americans are the true Americans, which is, is a very interesting argument. Okay. But our, but our main task is not to understand her position, but to understand the declaration. Okay. Let me, oh, we have a 15 minutes. Good. now this is gonna be hard in this room being televised, but I'm kind of con curious to know what, what, what, if anything, were you taught about the declaration, say in high school, not whether you agree or disagree with it. Just what were you taught? I, I, I'm curious to know how, so there's a, if anyone is looking for an interesting undergraduate thesis, I have a suggestion. Uh, and it's perfect since it's 2026. See if you can find old high school textbooks and see how the declaration is portrayed. Like, can you find a textbook, uh, you know, from the 1910 and 1920 and 1930, and so every 10 years or whatever, different time periods and in different regions of the country, and just look at the pages on the Declaration of Independence is the same thing taught, or different things taught, or some things taught in one place in different places. It'd just be, I, I have no idea. I've never done this. It just be very interesting. I mean, maybe you do it and it's not interesting, but I suspect you'll find different things. But what, what, if anything, were you taught? That the declaration, they might have said All men are created equal, but they didn't really believe that, or they didn't understand it to be all, didn't include all, didn't include women, it didn't include minorities. Something like that. Tell me your name. Lexi, okay. Is that. How many of you were something like that? Okay. Not too many hands, but some hands maybe, I dunno. 20 to 30% of the room. 20 or 30% of the room. We were taught, it was a document advocating for a revolution in a new system of government. So basically we were taught some facts about it. How many of you got sort of like, got a lot of facts about the declaration? Okay. A lot more hands. I think that's usually how it's taught today. And, and why would people just teach the facts about the declaration? You don't want to like, the last thing you wanna do if you're a teacher is have some student go to the principal and say, right. Most professors, most teachers don't want to court controversy, but I'm tenured, so I, I get Okay. I, I think that's often how it's portrayed. Okay. Here's the method I propose to try to figure out what, how we should think about the declaration. I suggest we start off just by reading it and see what they say and try to understand it on its own terms. Right. See if we can understand the argument. Right. And then after we can understand the argument. Then we can address the, really, the deeply difficult question about what does All Men created equal? Does it include All men? Does it? What about slavery? Right? So let's take it on its own terms and then we'll dive into the, the deeper, more troubling questions. Okay. That's, that's what I propose we do. So go back and reread the declaration again. Okay. Now I got, I have 12 minutes. We don't have a lot of time, so I want to use all, all my time. What's the purpose of the declaration? Kinda like I said. Okay. We should look at the syllabus and try to figure out what's the, what's the purpose of this class, according to your professor, like, why are they making you do this? What's the, why'd they write this thing? Tell me your name again. Colby. Colby, To, to complain. Okay. But to detail their grievances, Colby says, well, they certainly do that. That's the part of the declaration no one ever reads. Right. It's interesting what's in there. Right. King seems like a bad guy. To outline a set of values or principles by which to build a new nation. Okay. That that's true. I think, yeah. As is what Colby said. What else? But if you could, like, what's the, why are they doing it? Like there, there's, I mean, they actually say, say why they're doing it. Yeah. Well, lemme again, who hasn't spoken yet? This is a big class. We gotta get as many people. Okay. So to establish a new nation, which required us to break from, from the British crown, okay, to de I I expected someone to say, to declare independence. if we read the last paragraph. I don't think we read this part at the football games. You know, my other, other way to explain this class was so at the beginning of the football games, you actually know what those ideas mean. Someone wanna read. I've gotta read since I, I have the microphone. Last paragraph. We therefore, the representatives of the United States of America and General Congress assembled appealing to the supreme judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions do in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare. So this is the purpose to declare that these united colonies are and of right ought to be free and independent states that they're absolved from all allegiance to the British crown, et cetera, et cetera, are and of right. Ought to be free. What is this of right? What do they mean by that? I mean, it's not like. They're, you know, like leaving home and just saying, I'm outta here. I'm free.'cause I want to be, what does the of Right add to it? Yeah. It's like they're, it's like a justification that doesn't come from necessarily from God or our talent. Yeah. There's a art, it's injustice, right? Like, we deserve to be free. It's just we are separating renouncing our allegiance. They're making an argument about justice. We've been treated badly, therefore we have a right to leave and start a new nation. Well, what's the argument? That's why they talk about right to the decent opinions of mankind. It is, it's interesting. It's not just a Declaration of Independence, it's an argument about political justice in universal terms. Abraham Lincoln will say later, we'll get to it. He says, he says, all hail to Jefferson right in the middle. I'm paraphrasing here in the middle of like a revolutionary war. He introduces principles of justice right. About why the Americans of Right were, we're justified in breaking from their allegiance. Okay. The, the declaration is, it, it's a, it's, it's a, it's not a legal argument, but it's in the shape of a legal argument and there's two key syllogisms. Okay. Lemme just give these to you. I should have printed them so you have a handout, but you can write them down. They're pretty simple. And if we had more time, we'd go through the text. Okay. The argument in two simple syllogisms, the the first major premise point, A governments are instituted to protect rights, okay? Governments are instituted to protect rights. Point B, the King of England has failed to protect the rights of Americans. Actually, I should be more precise in a, governments are instituted to protect natural rights. Point B is the king of England has failed to protect the natural rights of the Americans. That's what all the grievances, document point B, right point C, the government by the King of England over the, over the Americans fails. The purposes of government. Okay, that's the first still logistic argument. Second, still logistic argument. When government fails to act according to its purposes, it is the right of the people to alter and abolish it. When a government fails to act according to its purposes, it is the right of the people to alter and abolish it. That's the right of revolution. Okay, point B, or I guess we're on de F here. So Point E Americans are people who live under a government that have, that has failed to secure the ends of government. So f the conclusion, Americans have the right to abolish the King's government over them. You see the structure of the argument. Therefore, given the premises, we have a right to be free. Everyone see that? Just everyone got it down? Okay. What are the key points? The key points are the premises, right? What are the two premises? Governments are instituted to protect rights. Where where does that come? Why is that true? And the second one is, there's a right of revolution. You can overturn the government, throw it off if it doesn't secure your rights. So why should governments be instituted to protect rights? I mean, what else could a government be instituted to do? I mean, I was listening, uh, to NPR today. It might surprise some of you, but I do. Right. Listening to NPR today and, uh, they had a, talking about Donald Trump and Donald Trump was speaking about the economy and what do you think Donald Trump said about the, now his approval ratings are very low about the economy. Uh, what do you think he said about the economy? It's the greatest economy we've ever had. Right. And the purpose of government economists would tell us, some economists would tell us is what to make us rich. Right? Sorry, am I confusing government with Mendoza or Right. Sorry. I should bite the hand that feeds me. Right, right. So some people would say the purpose of government is to make us rich, isn't it? What other, what else might a government do? To keep people safe. That gets to protecting rights. What about to make us good? To make us virtuous? Why is that not the purpose of government? Aristotle says in the politics, right? That's the other class I'm teaching. The purpose of government is to make citizens doer of noble deeds, doer of doers, of noble deeds to make you excellent. Protecting rights seems a lot lower than making you excellent, or what about getting you to heaven? Isn't that the highest end? I, right? I mean, that's the answer you're supposed to give, right? Like, what is the purpose of life and everything is to get to happen. It's not to get rich or to be safe or even to do noble de deeds. It's to give it. Why isn't that the purpose of government? I mean, what, what does the, what do the gospels say? The purpose of government is render under Caesar. What is Caesar's render Nor God? What is God's? Well what's Caesar's? It is interesting, right? To like, to follow the gospels, you have to know what belongs to Caesars. What do we know from that statement? Render under Caesars. What belongs to Caesar? Render under God's what to God. And like what, what can we derive from that? So you're supposed to pay your taxes. Okay, so what does that mean about legitimacy of government? It's legitimate for government to collect taxes, right? Which, if it's legitimate for government to tax, uh, collect taxes, that presupposes I think that it's legitimate for government to exist. Jesus isn't an anarchist, right? Can we? It's a fair construction, right? But also is you're supposed to render under God's. What is God's? What does that is? What is God's Caesars? I mean, he's saying rendering to Caesar, rendering to God's, this stuff belongs to God and this stuff belongs to Caesar and taxes are over here right with me. So is it, does the stuff about God belong to Caesar? How did Caesar understand his power? Where did Caesar understand or claim his power to come from? Anyone know God's from the divine? So what's Jesus saying about Caesar's own self understanding of his power? It the Caesars who say, my power comes from God. You should treat me like a God. What's Jesus saying to that understanding? That's wrong. Right? Caesar's own self understanding and presentation is erroneous. Saying that is the type of thing that gets you killed. It undermines political authority, at least the political authority that claims to divine and write. Everyone following me here? So, okay, I'm, I'm out of time. So lemme just conclude here. It's not clear what belongs to Caesar other than some taxes in existence from the gospels. Right? And the founders are gonna make an argument. The legitimate purposes of government are to protect your natural rights. And the articulation of rights is in the Declaration of Independence. So that whole understanding of our country on which our country is based, a country that is contributed in part to the generation of all that wealth in those charts is based on the idea that government is to protect rights. And what we're gonna do in next class is try to understand why the founders said that I, okay. Okay. Thanks for joining us. We'll see you next week.