Dan Deniehy and Charles Harpur were contemporaries. A common strand in their writings is that humanity's destiny is moral perfection. Deniehy argues that the main impediment to achieving that goal is tyranny and despotism. This is a very modern argument of natural rights.

Deniehy moved to Goulburn in 1850 and set up a law practice in the town. This gave him direct access to the regional newspaper, the Goulburn Herald, which he wrote constantly for over the next three years. He developed the moral basis for Republicanism and his political philosophy while at Goulburn before joining the NSW Legislature in 1857.

Like Harpur's for the faith that is in them , Deniehy saw humanity's destiny as achieving moral perfection;

Few individuals who have traced the progress of society even from a semi-barbarous state to its present condition, will venture to deny that man is destined in this world to attain a state of moral perfection., in comparison with which the most refined and polished communities of ancient and modern times are sunk in the shade.

Deniehy was also a technologist and believed progress meant the constant improvement of the political and social systems, presumably until moral perfection of the individual, society and humankind was obtained.

The progress of events as viewed in the visible outside world around us, bespeaks an era of moral and social enjoyment, when an ordinary member of the community looking down through the sombre vista of time upon the philosophy of past ages, dimly shadowed in the distance, will exult in his destiny having placed him so far in advance of the wisest and greatest who preceded him.

So irresistible if the onward course of man in the march of improvement that even the trammels which the despotism of a northern dynasty has for centuries been weaving to enthral the human mind in a state of perpetuity, will at no distant day, snap asunder, and regenerated and intellectual man proclaim from the highest point of the Septentrion the triumph of a great social and moral revolution.

To Deniehy, tyranny and despotism are external afflictions on the moral nature of the individual and society. They hold back humanity from attaining its destiny of moral perfection.

Essentially, tyranny becomes a crime against the individual and the society. Since Deniehy writes that humankind's natural state is pure moral perfection, tyranny becomes a crime against nature as well.

He was so far ahead of his time. This is a very modern version of the natural rights argument.

The Virginian Republicans prior to the American Revolutionary War used the natural rights argument to advance a Bill of Rights in the Virginian government. They argued that natural rights were divine right and granted by God.

Enlightenment liberals like John Locke has trouble reconciling the autonomous individual of liberalism with religion. The religious natural rights argument is an outcome of this.

For the Virginian Republicans it was also an adroit political argument. It countered the monarchs argument of divine right to rule and was pretty unassailable from other quarters. Hate natural rights and well, you must hate God!

Deniehy's argument make no appeal to God or divine right just the perfectibility of humankind as the natural goal of the individual and society. Republicanism as an organisational technology is Deniehy's means to create a system of constant improvement in social organisation.

Explicit in Deniehy's description is the eradication of tyranny. Implicit is the protection of liberty in the organisational technologies of Republicanism such as the constitution.

cam

A common question asked of political rights is where do they come from and how are they granted. There are several different justifications for the inclusion of rights in a constitutional system. These vary slightly depending on how the political philosophy views the individual.

Since the enlightenment focused social endeavour on individual autonomy as the primary source, the notion of universal political rights have risen. This is present in republicanism, liberalism, libertarianism and progressivism. All these political philosophies focus on the individual as the dominant political entity.

Republicanism views the purpose of government as ensuring the liberty of the individual. Tyranny or despotism has no place in a republican system. The rights or just demands of an individual's agreeance to follow the will of the majority in a government system come with the assurance of freedom from tyranny or arbitrary government.

A bill of rights becomes a political technology that ensures the liberty of the individual and describes tyranny. It creates a sphere of exclusion for government that it cannot legislate over.

As covered in a previous article, Dan Deniehy took a natural rights view of republicanism. This describes moral perfection as the end result of human achievement, maturation and growth. Deniehy writes that tyranny and despotism are the dominant affliction against this purpose.

Consequently the tyranny becomes a crime against mankind's destiny - a crime against nature. This is a non-religious argument for natural rights. The religious argument for natural rights is quite simply that rights are granted by God. This is less sophisticated than Deniehy's argument and reliant on faith.

Progressives view rights as an intrinsic function of being human. For this reason they are often called Human Rights by the progressive movement. The progressives view rights as being greater than the simply eradication of tyranny and protection of liberty as republicans do and often include more ambiguous rights of a social nature such as the right to dignity or the right to education.

These are fine principles to maintain, however, they do not have a place in a constitutional document as they are nearly impossible to quantify. For instance writing brutally explicit language on the right to dignity is impossible.

Libertarians view rights in terms of the intrinsic value of the individual. This philosophy often terms them individual rights. Libertarianism does not have the same focus on tyranny as republicanism does and is merely interested in the primacy and dominance of the individual as a political being.

Of these justifications for rights I believe the republican definition to be superior. It is constitutionally achievable through explicit constitutional language and separation of powers.

The focus on the eradication of tyranny and political equity are important principles in democratic and representative systems.

Under republicanism rights are a very essential political technology which better serves the protection of liberty from arbitrary government.

A mate of mine made this tongue in cheek comment the other day to a Canadian fellow;

Why do you hate America so much that you decided to be born somewhere else?

Which is an appeal to the absurd in nationalism and the arbitrary nature with which it deals with individuals, citizens and non-citizens alike. Charles Harpur believed that mankind's natural destiny was moral perfection and it was the imposition of our social and political frameworks which acted as the main deterrents against mankind achieving that goal. He called it "for the faith that is in them" and made the point that Australians, once free of the inequality imposition of an aristocracy, will discover the equality in themselves. This republican philosophy was also the basis for Dan Deniehy pillorying William Wentworth's bunyip aristocracy when Wentworth tried to create a titled upper house in NSW.

Deniehy and Harpur both believed that tyranny was the most destructive external affliction on the moral and ethical nature of human affairs. To Deniehy tyranny becomes a crime against the individual, the society; and since mankind's destiny is moral perfection, it becomes a crime against nature itself. Tyranny is man as violence against natural order.

We recognize absolute tyranny quickly and easily these days; dictators, despots, even tyrants. They stand out like sore thumbs in a world where the most advanced forms of social order are constitutionally based liberal democracies. The technological innovation of the American Republic and the enlightenment was the recognition that tyranny does not have to be absolute to be destructive. We know the insidious form of tyranny as arbitrary government or arbitrary executive governance. The US Bill of Rights was the use of constitutionalism to limit arbitrary government.

The twentieth century has seen Executives claim "state of emergencies" to get around restrictions of constitution, convention and representation. This goes back to the myth of Cincinnatus who left his farm to become dictator in order to save Rome, and then gave up his powers sixteen days later to return to his crops. We have seen this enacted out on an absolute scale in Thailand, where the military had to nullify the constitution in order to save it - a ridiculous notion.

At an insidious level we have seen liberal democratic systems, both presidential and parliamentary, claim the war on terror places our nations in a state of emergency, enabling all manner of arbitrary executive governance. Due to the nature of party discipline in these structures we have seen arbitrary government become a part of legislation, enabling executive whim.

To Dan Deniehy the executive 'state of emergency' is unrepublican and illiberal. It places the government at violence with; the individual, the social order that supports it and even nature. For Deniehy and Harpur the removal of tyranny in government, in all its forms, is an important step toward wider moral improvement.

x-posted on clubtroppo