As I was reading from Hume's Essays Moral, Political, Literary, I ran across this opening sentence in Essay XII Of Civil Liberty:  "Those who employ their pens on political subjects, free from party-rage, and party-prejudices, cultivate a science, which, of all others, contributes most to public utility, and even to the private satisfaction of those who addict themselves to the study of it." 

Something for me to ponder.  In Politics, Aristotle claimed that political science was the highest science.
Hume’s Essay VIII of Parties in General states that “faction subvert the government, render laws impotent, and beget the fiercest animosities among men of the same nation, who ought to give mutual assistance and protection to each other”.

How is it that we can cultivate the science of government without being drawn into the factions?  How are we divided so quickly into different groups?

Hume points out that we can divide into groups based on our interests, our beliefs and our affections.  Affections, that is an interesting word.  I understand how we “naturally [wish] that right may take place, according to [our] own notions of it.”

According to the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary Online, Affections is defined as passion, a mend of mind, desire, along with several others. 

I think that Hume might be saying that we have attachments based on the groups we belong to.  That registers with me, I know that during election times candidates work to let us know what groups support them, hoping that we will vote based on our loyalty to different organizations. 

As I have been pondering these ideas, I see how easy it is for us to be pulled away from the goal and purposes of government toward the emotion of politics. 

John Adams said, “Government is instituted for the common good, protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of people…” (The Report of a Constitution or Form of Government for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 28-31 October 1779).  I believe that.  The more challenging part is to define those words into actionable principles that can be agreed upon.  Because this is so challenging we divide into different groups based on what we believe those words to mean and how to apply those words.     
 
As I got older, I realized how little I understood the science of government.  In school I was taught some basic ideas of how our government ran but there is so much more that I didn’t understand or was not taught.  Some of the ideas I was not taught were:

1. Why do we form government. 
2. What is the purpose of government.
3. How do we know what good government is or is not.
4. How do we find the principles of government.
5. How do we decide if a proposal is based on the principles of good governance.

I have tried to correct this lack of knowledge over the years.  I have read different books and listened to different people and yet even with this find that I have so much still to learn about government.  There are several things that I have learned over the years that have influenced my thinking.  A couple of these are:

1. Government starts in the home.  The family is the foundation of government.
2. A good foundation is critical.
3. Government should be founded on the principles of Natural law.

 
As I have been trying to apply these ideas I have paid a bit more attention to issues in the community.  Why?  Because I have learned it is my responsibility to learn for myself if ideas are true or false.  I can’t depend on what others tell me is the right way to think.  That is hard to do.  There are so many voices.  How do I wade through all of the ideas, and voices?  I want to decide based on my beliefs and principles and be “free from party-rage and party-prejudice”.    I want to be on the side that “contributes most to public utility” or to do the things that bring us together towards a better environment for everyone.  Yet what is that path?  Where do I find it?  That brings me back to natural law and what natural law is.  As I have studied what some of the great thinkers* said about natural law I have concluded that there are two basic ideas in the world.  1. Those that believe in natural law, and 2. Those that do not believe in natural law.  These divisions can’t be unified, for they see the world so differently that they can’t agree.   I have chosen to believe in natural law. 

Using the help of many ideas I am defining natural law as a system of justice common to all people at all times which is recognized through correct reasoning that is tied to obedience to God. 

I believe that there is a right and wrong way to behave and that my job is to determine the right and align myself with it, regardless of my own beliefs.  In other words, I could want to live differently than natural law lays out but if I want to live a principled life, I must align myself with the laws that are set out otherwise I suffer the consequences of breaking those laws.  I struggle with this every day.  I would rather enjoy my sweets and goodies instead of healthy and good for me food.  I would really love to eat whatever I wanted when I wanted but the principes of health tell me that there are consequences and that I need to align myself with those principles if I want to find happiness.  The same applies to every area of life to include government.  There are principles that must be discovered through correct reasoning that are based on Natural Law. 

Luckily for me I live in a time of abundance.  Abundance of energy and knowledge.  I have access to the great minds of many people who have been studying these ideas and trying to share them+ out.  Learning about government principles takes time and energy.  Taking the time to read through people’s ideas and dissecting them down to the principles is work. I turn to my core book to verify the ideas and in order to help me focus on what is truly important.  This allows me to spend less time involved in factions based on interests, beliefs, and affections and more time on what is best for everyone in society.   

I love the words, “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 (The Declaration of Independence). 

These words changed my life.  I was luckily exposed to these words in school.  They have sunk deep into my heart and have returned to me again and again.  The US Government set up a system founded on the idea that all men were equal before God and the law.  Our job as citizens is to help promote and follow that idea.  We of course have faults; we see them every day and through all of history.  We also see the progress we have made by trying to follow these ideas. 

I would like to leave a better place for my children.  That requires me to make some changes in my life.  The more I can align myself with true principles, the happier I will be. I chose to spend my free moments† trying to understand natural law and the principles that flow from them so that I can understand better and pass that better understanding on.  To continue the progress that great men and women have tried to make.

What a wonderful time we live in that we have so much abundance.  We have time when most people except a very few have had to do more than any other generation.  We have abundant energy.  We are so blessed.  Now with our time, how will we use it?  Will we use it in ways that will make the world a better place?  Will we work to discover the correct principles around us so that we can see better?  Or will be caught up in cunning craftiness of men who try to deceive us (see Ephesians 4: 14)?  Will we be caught in the factions that surround and divide us?  
 
 


*Cicero, William Blackstone, Thomas Ried, Lysander Spooner, CS Lewis, Mortimer Adler, and Audrey Rindlisbacher

+see Thomas Jefferson Education, Blackbelt in Freedom and Depth
​
†I could fill Volumes with Descriptions of Temples and Palaces, Paintings, Sculptures, Tapestry, Porcelaine, &c. &c. &c.—if I could have time. But I could not do this without neglecting my duty.—The Science of Government it is my Duty to study, more than all other Sciences: the Art of Legislation and Administration and Negotiation, ought to take Place, indeed to exclude in a manner all other Arts.—I must study Politicks and War that my sons may have liberty to study Mathematicks and Philosophy. My sons ought to study Mathematicks and Philosophy, Geography, natural History, Naval Architecture, navigation, Commerce and Agriculture, in order to give their Children a right to study Painting, Poetry, Musick, Architecture, Statuary, Tapestry and Porcelaine.  (John Adams to Abigail Adams, 12 May 1780, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/04-03-02-0258

I knew that this story is one of those stories that does not have a happy ending.  However, it is an important book to read and think about what the author is asking you to consider.   Reading this in Feb 2026 is even more poignant because I can see again lynch mobs in parts of our society.   Of course, they don’t call themselves lynch mob.  They call themselves protesters.  But they have decided they don’t like something so are out vandalizing, harming others, chasing people, yelling, screaming, fighting, and many other things in the name of justice.  They have decided to take the law into their own hands.

In this story, a man is said to be killed and cattle were stolen.  The cattle had been disappearing before, and the cow hands and ranchers were upset about it. But when a friend is killed, action needs to be taken.  Or so the characters in this book thought.  They gathered a group to go hunting for the rustlers of cattle and a murderer of a hired hand.  They did not want to wait or include the sheriff and the judge.  Justice was needed!

         “We shall observe order and true justice, Judge”, he told him.   
          Tetley looked at him.  “In time,” he said.
          “Mapes,” he said, turning to Butch.
          “Yes, sir?”
          “You said Risley had made you deputy?”
          “Yes, sir,” said Butch.
          “Then suppose you deputize the rest of us.”
        “It’s not legal,” [Judge] Tyler told him.  He appeared infuriated by Tetley’s smiling, elusive talk.  “No deputy has the right to deputize.”
          “It’ll do for me, Butch; go head and pray,” Smith yelled.
         Butch looked at Tetley. Tetley didn’t say anything or even nod.  He just smiled, that thin little smile that barely moved the corners of his mouth.
          “How about it, boys?” Butch asked us.
          “Mapes,” Tyler bellowed at him, “It’s ineffective.  Your violating the law yourself, in such an act.”
       Men called out to Mapes: “Go ahead, Butch”; “I guess it will take as well with you as any, Butch”; “fire away, sheriff.”
         “Raise your right hands,”….(p. 93)

This group of men were determined to catch the rustlers and murderer regardless of the situation.  They were not going to wait for the sheriff or a new day or better weather.  Off they went with their determination to lynch, not catch the guilty parties.  Several men had encouraged them to follow the law, but emotions were high and they felt that their way was the right way.   I knew before I got to page 100 that things are not going to turn out well or the right way.  Sure enough, they find 3 men that they believe are guilty.  There is not enough evidence to clear them, but they think there is enough evidence to hang them, so they do.  It was pointed out to them before they hung the men that it would be really easy to verify these men’s story if they just waited until morning and checked out their story.  But these men came for a lynching and were not interested in anything else.  Several of the men in the party were convinced that hanging was deserved.  Shortly after they find out that they hung the wrong men.  

The opening chapters of the book talk about justice and what justice means. There are many pages of trying to reason with the mob.  But the men are never fully convinced that they need to slow down and do things the right way.

One answers that justices is…”seein’ that everybody gets what’s comin’ to him…” (p. 46)
And
“True law, the code of justice, the essence of our sensations of right and wrong, is the conscience of society.  It has taken thousands of years to develop, and it is the greatest, the most distinguishing quality when has evolved with mankind.” (p. 49)

Another feels that they have seen enough injustice in the land by men that they need to make sure justice is served this time.

Why did these men not want to wait for a trial?  “Law, as the books have it, is slow and full of holes.” (p 156) They decided that they would not get justice the way they wanted it so lynched the men. 

Shortly after they found they had accused and hung the wrong men one of the character’s says:
                “My God,” Gil said, “I knew it didn’t feel right.  I knew we should wait.” (p. 189)

What is the author asking me and you to do with this story?

Does he want us to understand that in the heat of emotion people in a crowd will act in ways they would not if they were alone?  Does he want to show us that it is hard to stand up against others because we fear what they will say about us or treat us?  Does he ask us to consider what we would do if we were one of the men called to join the mob? 

Is the author trying to warn us that when we see an injustice we should not let our emotions rule over our decisions?  That our first reaction might not be the best reaction?  

“We desire justice, and justice has never been obtained in haste and strong feeling” (p.33)
Is that true? 

What happens if the law decides differently than what we want it to decide? 
In this case there was no murder and the cows they recovered were not stolen but bought.   The men in this mob left and acted without collecting all the information that they needed to have to make the decision to hang rustlers.  Now they each have to either find someone to blame or live with guilt that they didn’t deliver justice that day but injustice.  These men decided that they would not get justice from the society and laws that were established.  Yet how did they do? 

​Reflecting back on my own life, I can see where I have made decisions in the heat of the moment, some of them were wrong.  Some of them needed to be done but with a different approach.  Overall, taking the time to sit back, collect more information, and wrestle with the ideas would have been a better choice.

So why read Politics?  I have been wondering what have I gained by reading this book. There are ideas in the book that I agree with.  I held them before I read the book.  There are ideas that I disagree with.  What benefit does this book add to my understanding? 
I notice these ideas as I thumb through my book and look at my margin notes:
 
“the best form of government, i.e. that under which the state will be most happy (and happiness, as been already said, cannot exist without virtue), it clearly follows that in the state which is best governed and possesses men who are just absolutely, and not merely relatively to the principles of the constitution….” (Book 7, Chapter 9)
 
“But if the citizens of a state are to judge and to distribute offices according to merit, then they must know each other’s characters; where they do not possess this knowledge, both the election to offices and the decision of lawsuits will go wrong.” (Book 7, Chapter 7)

“And in democracies of the more extreme type there has arisen a false idea of freedom which is contradictory to the true interests of the state.  For two principles are characteristic of democracy, the government of the majority and freedom.  Men think that what is just is equal; and that equality is the supremacy of the popular will; and that freedom doing what a man likes.  In such democracies every one lives as he pleases, or in the words of Euripides, ‘according to his fancy.’ But this is all wrong; men should not think it is slavery to live according to the rule of the constitution; for it is their salvation.”  (Book 5, Chapter 9)

“For men are easily spoilt; not every one can bear prosperity.” (Book 5, Chapter 8)

“In the first place it is evident that if we know the causes which destroy constitutions, we also know the causes which preserve them; for opposites produce opposites, and destruction is the opposite of preservation.  In all well-attempered government there is nothing which should be more jealously maintained than the spirit of obedience to law, more especially in small matters; for transgression creeps in unperceived and at last ruins the state, just as the constant recurrence of small expenses in time eats up a fortune.”  Book 5, Chapter 8)
“The citizens begin by giving up some part of the constitution, and so with greater ease the government changes something else which is a little more important, until they have undermined the whole fabric of the state.” (Book 7, Chapter 7)
​
“Revolutions are effected in two ways, by force and by fraud” (Book 5, Chapter 4)
 
“..general willingness of all classes in the state to maintain the constitution.” (Book 4, Chapter 9)
 
“But we must remember that good laws, if they are not obeyed, do not constitute good government.  Hence there are two parts of good government; one is the actual obedience of the citizens to the laws, and the other part is the goodness of the laws which they obey;…” (Book 4, Chapter 8)
 
“…the law is supreme…” (Book 4, Chapter 4)
 
I marked many other things, but these are the ideas that stood out to me as I flipped through the pages.  Aristotle is trying to determine what type of political association is best suited for securing happiness (virtue) for its citizens.  He takes the time to analyze all the types of governments he knows looking at what happened to them, pointing out the good and the bad. 

His arguments are also incomplete.  There are more forms of government than he outlined.  Many of his foundational ideas about people I find flawed so why continue reading a book that has ideas in it that I don’t agree with?   

Taking each government type and looking at opposites, gives a clearer picture of the importance of following the argument to the end.  Ideas can sound good, but when they are carried out do they end good? In this particular case, governments established seemed to have some good intentions that the people united with.  What were the results of must of them?  Collapse.  Each had flaws and problems in them that could not be overcome with the foundation they had. 
​
As I reflect on the ideas that stood out to me (listed above) I had to ask why these points stood out to me more than the other points I marked and made notes about.  These quotes apply to the current situation I am in.  Aristotle has some reminders to us today about governments.  His works are hard to get through, and his history is old and sometimes even lost on us but his points still ring true even among his false assumptions.
These last weeks I have been watching a group or two of people that have decided to be their own lynch mob.  They don’t want to go to and through the law, they want to destroy the law and all that it stands for…the state.  It is painful to watch, it hurts may heart.  My reason begs for something different.  I feel like I am Sparks in The Ox-Bow Incident.  Awkward, not knowing what to do but knowing what is happening is wrong. 

I read this book in isolation from the other Narnia books and found that I had ideas that I missed in previous readings. 

King Tirian, the last of the Kings of Narnia, hears word that Aslan is in Narnia.  As he is on his journey, he discovers that things are just not working out well.  There seems to be a problem with what Aslan is saying, and there are problems with the Calormen.   The talking beasts of Narnia ask why this Aslan is so different.  They notice and name the issue, but they still accept that Aslan is the person who is directing Shift the ape to command those in Narnia.  King Tirian sees the miserable faces of those around him who have been accepting the ideas of Shift.  King Tirian recognizes that something is wrong.
 
“Ape,” he cried with a great voice, “you lie damnably.  You lie like a Calormene.  You lie like and Ape.
 
He meant to go on and challenge the Ape but was struck and knocked down.  What is it that makes King Tirian different from the others?
 
The king escapes and seeks to expose the false stories of Shift, along with gathering a force to remove the Calormen soldiers from Narnia, but runs into many troubles.  He persists and, though he is outnumbered, will continue to challenge Shift.
 
“Here stand I, Tirian of Narnia, in Aslan’s name, to prove with my body that Tash is a foul fiend, the Ape a manifold traitor, and these Calormenes worthy of death.  To my side, all true Narnians.  Would you wait till your new masters have killed you all one by one?”
 
So why is Tirian so willing to see what could become of the plan Shift has laid out, but those of Narnia are not seeing?  Why do the Narnians not question the differences that they see between the new and old Aslan? 
Tirian seems to have a sense of conscience that he will not go against.  The animal that has been posing as Narnia is freed from Shift and states:   “I see now that I really have been a very bad donkey.  I ought never have listened to Shift.  I never thought things like this would begin to happen”. 

Is one of the reasons that Shift had so much influence?  That it would never get this bad?   

At the beginning of the story, Shift tells the donkey, “You know you’re no good at thinking, so why don’t you let me do your thinking for you?”

Or is the reason that the thinking was delegated to Shift, it was just easy to listen to someone else tell you what you want to do? 
 
How can we apply this story to our own lives?  Where do we stand in the story?  Do we stand with Aslan and Narnia or with the false Aslan and Calormen?  Which belief system do we choose to embrace, support, and follow?
 
This book was published in 1956.  World War II is over, and the Cold War is in progress.  Is Lewis trying to warn up of what is going on?  Warn us that we have a choice to make?  We have to choose between the real Aslan and those who pretend to be Aslan.  Will we choose to follow leaders who promise “to make things better for everyone,” or “it's for your benefit,” or will we choose leaders who expect us to think and figure out how we can make the world a better place?
 
 
 

At the end of Book 3, I had this note: Everyone is miserable. Look at the Elites - they are miserable too because they know someone else will conspire to take all that they gained away from them. Every level suffers.

Over and over again I see only miserable people when it comes to socialistic governments. On the sides of many pages I have written the name of many dystopias. It is like the are all trying to show us that any form of government besides a enlightened, extended, commercial, limited, representative, federal, democratic republic (The U.S. Constitution and the 196 Indispensable Principles of Freedom by O. DeMille p. 100) will not work the way people hope it will. It took a lot of experience and trial and error to get to creating what the US Founders did.

In Book 9 (around lines 585) we are asked what are we filling our selves and our society with? Are we focusing on only of the parts of man (desire, action, reason)? and society?

I feel that as a society we are only focusing on the 'desire' of things or some would say equity for all but overall we have missed the boat because that is only one part of our being. To be balanced and whole we need all 3 parts combined. Trying to separate things out into castes and pretending to call it balanced is not right any more than only focusing on 1 or 2 of the traits that make us a human or a community. Until we unify the 3 traits as best as possible as an individual and a society we will be miserable in the end because we are incomplete. There will not be justice in the state if there are caste systems. Justice will occur when all the people are able to live their mission. When everyone is equal before the law and do not and can not infringe on the rights of others. Any other state is a shadow or an illusion. 

"These people, who had experience on their own hides twenty-four years of Communist happiness, knew by 1941 what as yet on one else in the world knew: that nowhere on the planet, nowhere in history, was there a regime more vicious, more bloodthirsty, and at the same time more cunning and ingenious than the Bolshevik, the self-styled Soviet regime. That no other regime on earth could compare with it either in the number of those it had done to death, in hardiness, in the range of its ambitions, in its thoroughgoing and unmitigated totalitarianism-no, not even the regime of its pupil Hitler, which at that time blinded Western eyes to all else.....Even in 1943 tens of thousands of refugees from the Soviet provinces trailed along behind the retreating German army-anything was better than remaining under Communism" (p. 342)

I have read other books that support this idea: Mao, Wild Swans, and Red Scarf Girl.  I don't think this is a way to provide equality for all unless you mean that some of the elites will decide how much everyone else will suffer, so that we can all have the same amount of stuff (nothing) and not voice our complaints.   For communism and the gulags to continue, they just need other people's money. 

I really hope that it does not get to this point:
"All you freedom-loving "left-wing" thinkers in the West!  You left laborites! You progressive Americans, German, and French students! As far as you are concerned, none of this amounts to much.  As far as you are concerned, this whole book of mine is a waste of effort.  You may suddenly understand it all someday - but only when you yourselves hear "hands behind your backs there!" and step ashore on our Archipelago. (p. 468)"

Are we that stubborn that we will refuse to listen to the voices of those who have suffered from oppressive governments?  

Are we so willing to give away the freedoms we have so that government can decide what we can and can't do?

Are we afraid of liberty, freedom & choice just as George Bernard Shaw says: "Liberty means responsibility.  That is why most men dread it."

After reading Volume 2, the biggest takeaway for me was that America is founded on the principles of religion and education. 

“The Americans show, by their practice, that they feel the high necessity of imparting morality to democratic communities by means of religion”.
And
“I do not know whether all the Americans have a sincere faith in their religion, for who can search the human heart? But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions.”
Yet according to Paul Johnson’s A History of the American People, we have allowed this foundation to disappear.  The “authority of the state, and notably the courts-and especially the Supreme Court-did everything in their power to reduce the role of religion in the affairs of the state, and particularly in the education of the young…”   In many cases, there is hostility to religion and morals, just as there is hostility by some towards those who see the education system as a harmful place to send their children. 
Democracy in America, published a long time ago, may be challenging to read, but I believe it can show us the way to reestablish a culture of freedom as we focus on building families and communities that adopt a different perspective on religion and education.  If we can look at the moral laws that Christianity teaches and bring them back into the home and community, it could change everything. 
The family is the foundation of a community; if we start fixing the family, we will fix the community around us.  Learning to build a family culture will take work and energy; that is true, but starting to educate ourselves in the great classics will help speed the process along.  In Volume 2 of Democracy in America, the author compares the European way (aristocracy) and the American way (democracy) of doing things.  Looking at each side and picking the best of both worlds will build incredibly strong families and communities.  Reading books that share the family culture will give us much to discuss and practice.  If we don’t focus on building a family culture that promotes freedom and education, we will find ourselves more and more enslaved to the culture around us that tells us that we need leaders to direct us.  That we need to go back to an aristocracy, or worse, a tyranny.  

Premises of Communism
I have just finished reading The Naked Communist by W. Cleon Skousen.  I think this book does a good job of introducing what Communism is and also gives brief histories of the people who influenced and promoted Communism.   One of the areas that I have been pondering a bit more is the ‘Major Premises of Communism’ from the author’s point of view using the writings of those that promoted it (I won’t provide the quoted source below, just the premise.  if you would like to know who said each statement, please see the book for more information).
Major Premises of Communism:

1.  Everything in existence came about as a result of ceaseless motion among the forces of nature. 
2. Human beings are only graduate beasts.
3. There is no such thing as innate right or wrong
4. That all religion must be overthrown because it inhibits the spirit of world revolution.

 
 
I think that another premise should be included, or maybe it fits under #2, and that is the belief in human nature.  This worldview believes that humans should start as a blank slate.  I have been listening to the book: The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker. If you believe that man is born as a blank slate than that would also mean that you can fill that slate with information or experiences that will program the mind to create a perfect society; A classless society that promotes universal peace and prosperity.  It would make creating the perfect mind, child, or society a little bit easier if we were just trained to be what is wanted or needed.  Having a complex innate human nature means that not everything is trainable.  Society could / would have flaws that demand correction by the Dictator of the Proletariat; therefore, there would always be a need for government.   Can Communism ever reach its goals without blank slates?   

This book goes really well with the essay "The Law"  by Bastiat.  The author actually uses many quotes from the essay.  

One of the quotes that I like from the Law is:  "The law is collective force organized to oppose injustice." A very concise and clear definition of what law should be. When you take this definition to the introduction of the Declaration of Independence you have a clear idea of what injustice is.

There is also a clearer set of explanations of the 5 Laws of Decline that are in the book LeaderShift.   Along with this idea (laws of decline) is listed the 6 duties of society. 

As I ponder what my biggest take away is, I keep coming back to the idea that all good government MUST start in the home.   There are two basic ways to set up your family system - through persuasion or force.  Depending on your personal beliefs you will practice and teach either the ideas.    In our homes we learn to balance the ideas of chaos (no force) and coercion (absolute force).  The only way that we will be able to have a home of harmony and agreement is to education our self in many areas and then practice those ideas.  We need to know when and how to use persuasion and force correctly and in ways that promote our personal growth and freedoms along with how to keep harmony in the home.   Once we are able to establish harmony in our home we can then take those principles to society and help society to establish justice.   In our home we create rules or laws to help us establish safety and justice.  It is the same with society, laws are just a bit more complex since it involves more people and different beliefs (which is why written, clear laws are so important in societies).   For government to be truly justice it must begin in the home and then move out toward the community.

I have been reading John Locke's "Concerning Civil Government, 2nd Essay" and "A Letter Concerning Tolerance" this week. Very good reading. Here is just one of the many nuggets from "Concerning Civil Government", Chapter 9: the power of the society or legislative constituted by them can never be supposed to extend farther than the common good, but is obliged to secure every one's property... (#131)”.

More Thoughts on Locke’s Essays
As I was reading the Declaration of Independence again last night a section caused me to think and question what is meant. The sentence: That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness".
In the past I read right on over that without once questioning it. Yesterday, I questioned what was the intent of safety? Today so many laws or orders have been given in the name of "safety" that I really struggle with the idea that we should have all this regulation to keep up "safe". What was the original intent? Can you really keep people safe? How? When have things gotten out of balance? The idea that comes to mind as I studied the wording of the Declaration is that Safety AND Happiness are to balance each other. This leads to another question: How is that balance measured and achieved?
 According to Ebenstein & Ebenstein (Great Political Thinkers), the Declaration is "pure Locke" and many of the main ideas of the Constitution and Declaration are based on Locke’s ideas. Therefore, I turned back to Locke in order to find his definition of safety. In Concerning Civil Government he writes: "...the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom" (Chapter 6, #57). He continues: "The great and chief end, therefore, of men uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property; (Chapter 9 #124)......the power of the society or legislative constituted by them can never be supposed to extend farther than the common good, but is obliged to secure every one's property... (#131)”.
 Whenever Locke talks about safety and security in either "A Letter Concerning Toleration" or "Concerning Civil Government, Second Essay" it seems to be in connection with protecting the property and labors of man and to protect or deliver the people from "subjection of a foreign power" (Concerning Civil Government, Chapter 19 #217). In Locke’s writings he always talks about the limits that should be placed on the government. The idea that the law should be applied equally to all, that it must not be oppressive or based on personal whims, that the consent of the people need to be involved and that the legislature must not transfer its lawmaking power to anybody else. (Great Political Thinkers p. 432)
When you take all of this into account and refer back to the statement in the Declaration, I can see that government’s foundation should be for the Safety and Happiness of the people. I think without understanding the ideas that Locke taught and the extremely important idea of that he stated were necessary to protect the people these ideas can be taken and abused as they have been in recent years by our government officials. We the people have forgotten that we do not have to consent to all the government says. And that it is our job to make sure that the government does not overstep its powers. Many of the changes that have occurred in the last year have not been laws set up by the legislature but by the judicial and executive branches. And because we have not followed the pattern set up by our Founding Fathers both the safety and happiness of all people are out of balance.  The law is not being applied equally to all, is based on personal whims and is oppressive to some.  It is also not law; it is based on orders that have not been voted on.  Unfortunately that is because we the people have consented to follow past orders and judgments setting a precedent that said it was okay for other officials outside of our elective representatives to determine laws.  If we had all read John Locke’s writings in High School, would we have a different government then we do today?