Monday, Monday

On self-evident truths, and the common law of baseball

It was a bad week for John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and the common law. First, as previously noted, Virginia’s dolt of a Senator, Tim Kaine, asserted that:

“The notion that rights don’t come from laws and don’t come from the government, but come from the Creator — that’s what the Iranian government believes. . . the statement that our rights do not come from our laws or our governments is extremely troubling.”

It is hard to overstate the depths of ignorance this statement reveals. The statement that “our rights do not come from our laws or our governments is extremely troubling” means that all rights are positive rights. (Kaine went on to say, in his next paragraph, that “I believe in natural rights,” but apparently Kaine is equally ignorant of the law of non-contradiction, and he might really believe that “A cannot be non-A.” Of course, we shouldn’t be surprised from a political party that believes a man can become a woman just by changing their wardrobe and pronouns—a position that party only started believing about five minutes ago. So you have to wonder. . .)

I can only assume that Kaine has never studied the logic of the famous second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, or if he has, he rejects the teaching, as do most leftists today. Here’s an easy test: just ask a leftist “what is a self-evident truth” as expressed in the Declaration, and “do you believe there are ‘self-evident truths’?” And when they flunk this test, refer them first to Thomas Aquinas’s Treatise on Law, which comes from Book II of the Summa Theologica, Questions 90 through 96, but most especially Question 94, Article 2. Here’s the key passage:

Any proposition is said to be self-evident in itself, if its predicate is contained in the notion of the subject: although, to one who knows not the definition of the subject, it happens that such a proposition is not self-evident. For instance, this proposition, "Man is a rational being," is, in its very nature, self-evident, since who says "man," says "a rational being": and yet to one who knows not what a man is, this proposition is not self-evident.

You can see why Democrats can easily fail this test, since they proclaim literally to be unable to define what a man or woman is today. In other words, Democrats like Kaine (and Supreme Court Justice Brown-Jackson) are self-evident idiots.

Let’s break it down for the slow learners like Kaine. Start again with “the statement that our rights do not come from our laws or our governments is extremely troubling.” That is literally the teaching of the Declaration:

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, 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 effect their Safety and Happiness. [Emphasis added, for Sen. Kaine’s benefit.]

This isn’t a chicken and egg problem: rights come first, and are the standard by which the justice and legitimacy of governments are to be judged. For slow learners like Kaine, just focus on the all-important word “secure.” Governments are the means, and not the ends of political life. Most leftists like Kaine worship government (as discussed previously here), and as such are all about means, and not ends. And one thing that is evident from modern leftist government is that our rights are not secure under their rule.

Quiz: Does anyone over the age of six really think the Iranian government believes in government by the consent of the governed, let alone the rights of conscience as the ground of religious liberty?

Which brings us to the second aspect of the matter. Apparently Kaine has never read or studied Thomas Jefferson’s “Statute for Religious Freedom of 1786.” In brief, it connects religious liberty and freedom of conscience (what moderns might call “pluralism” or even “diversity”) with natural rights generally. Like the Declaration of Independence, which was strongly influenced by John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, the Statute for Religious Liberty was written under the direct influence of Locke’s Essay on Religious Toleration. (For more background, you can read my extended treatment of Jefferson’s statute here.)

Exit question: Does Kaine really think anyone in the Iranian government knows or believes the ideas in Locke’s “Essay on Religious Toleration”? Does Kaine have any functioning brain cells at all? His education is clearly so defective that he is the walking embodiment of Ray Bradbury’s comment in the afterword of Fahrenheit 451 that Kaine “never said anything that would make a sub-moron's mouth twitch.”

Which brings us finally to the other great anti-Lockean moment of the week: Baseball Karen of Philadelphia, demanding the loose home run ball because she allegedly touched it first. Now there is as sort of “common law of baseball,” that is, the unwritten rules of the field wherein, for example, you don’t bunt when your team has a large lead, you don’t show up an opposing fielder for making a mistake, don’t excessively celebrate a home run, etc. To repeat, these are unwritten rules, of course, but obeyed by long custom and practice (and occasionally enforced by a pitch thrown at the batter of the offending team after egregious violations of these norms)—just like the common law. (There is, however, a sort of common law origin to some formal baseball practices, such as the Infield Fly Rule.)

Likewise there is a common law of the stadium bleachers. I’m sure everyone has seen replays of scrums in the stands after foul balls and home run balls, wherein there is a mad scramble and free-for-all with the winner being the first person who takes firm possession of the ball and holds it aloft. Stray baseballs that land in the stands often pass through several hands before being finally secured.

One finds the formal common law holding on this kind of thing in the famous 1805 New York case of Pierson v. Post, in which the New York Supreme Court ruled that between contesting parties of hunters chasing after the same wild deer, the person acquiring the property right to the deer was the person who finally shot it and took physical possession, even if the other party initiated the pursuit of the deer first.

Thus the right of the father to have kept the foul ball, even if acquired some distance from his seat, is simply an application of Locke’s doctrine of property right by prior appropriation, long a cornerstone of water law in America, among other things. In other words, the father has a long legal tradition, stretching back to the middle ages, firmly on his side. There are intelligent criticisms of Locke’s famous doctrine, along with common law applications, but saying “It’s mine because I touched it first" isn’t one of them.

Another sign of the sad decline of the great common law tradition.

Meanwhile, the Savannah Bananas have made a statement!

• And now, by popular demand, a short rough cut of some of my Icelandic mischief over the last few days:

Still haven’t found any gas station sushi to review, however.