A Reader of 'The Unfinished Revolution: The Battle For America's Soul' Asks a Question and Receives an Answer

Recently, I received an inquiry about my free book, The Unfinished Revolution: The Battle For America's Soul (if you wish to download a copy, please go to: Free Book). The nature of the question was very short: "Why no footnotes?"

I wrote to the individual and outlined my thinking on the matter. After completing my response, I felt that other people who downloaded the book might also have wondered about the issue, so, below I am releasing my answer to the reader's question.

-----

Your question is a good one. However, there may be a method to my 'madness'.

As I indicated at the very end of the Introduction, a variety of sources helped inform my understanding, and those authors who did so are listed in the bibliography. There were a number of reasons for limiting my source-citing to the bibliography.

First, when it came to what might be considered factual issues, the facts often were overdetermined -- that is, they were supported by more than one source. Consequently, rather than give a footnote listing books, authors, and page numbers that are associated with particular sources -- which doesn't really demonstrate the facticity of anything other than that one or more researchers explored a given area -- I gave people relevant sources that could be pursued according to a reader's interests, and those readers who decided to follow up on this or that issue could peruse the bibliography and come away with a fairly good idea of which listings in the bibliography were relevant to the "facts" in the book that touched on issues in which a reader might be interested in pursuing further.

However, footnoting a source will not serve to establish the degree of 'truthiness' (to borrow from Stephen Colbert) to which any given assertion gives expression. One actually has to do a great deal of research to try to work one's way toward what might be the "facts" of any given concept, idea, situation or set of circumstances, and I believe that my book, along with its bibliography, is as good a place to start as any other possibility. 

I've done my research. Some of that research has been summarized in my book and alluded to in the bibliography. If one wishes to challenge any of the "facts" in my book, then one will have to read all of the books in the bibliography, and, in addition, take a look at their bibliographies and decide which sources to read ... and, in turn, take a look at the bibliographies in the latter books, and so on. 

Secondly, in a variety of cases, I actually have specified sources within the text of my book. For example, when I wrote about certain issues involving, say, the Constitution, or the so-called 'Federalist Papers' (I use the term "so called" because there was no book called The Federalist Papers back in the late 1780s ... just a bunch of newspaper articles/editorials written during the run up to the ratification convention in New York state), or Maybury v. Madison, or Thomas Paine, or John Rawls, or Ronald Dworkin, or H.L.A. Hart, or Stanley Milgram or Philip Zimbardo, one knows the precise nature of the source that I am critically exploring. 

Moreover, I indicated at the beginning of the appendix for my book that the contents of the appendix was a response to the essay: "Two Concepts of Liberty" by Isaiah Berlin. However, for someone to assess the merits, if any, of what I have done in the appendix, one will also have to read Berlin's essay and engage in some critical reflection with respect to both that essay as well as what I have written in critical response to that essay.

I am not asking anyone to take what I say in my book at face value. Read the book, read the books cited in the bibliography, and proceed from there. 

Thirdly, and as indicated in the last paragraph of the introduction to Unfinished Revolution, "the arguments, orientation, and conclusions of the current work are my own." I didn't borrow or paraphrase them from anywhere, and, therefore, there is no need to footnote them, and in this sense the book is its own extended footnote to everything I have read that appears in the bibliography. 

In most cases, I take "facts" that are drawn from a variety of sources, and I hermeneutically engage those "facts". As a result, the Unfinished Revolution constitutes my 'reading' or interpretation of various writings, historical circumstances, and philosophical/political/legal perspectives, and, therefore, whatever "facts" might serve as a catalyst for my analysis are merely grist for the mill of critical reflection. 

I believe that I have got my "facts" right, but if anyone wishes to take issue with this contention, then citing a footnote, or quibbling with a footnote, is not going to settle the matter. One always has to go back to original sources and beyond, and in this sense I am challenging the reader by not making it "easy" for him or her through just giving a footnote ... I am suggesting that an individual actually read the books listed in the bibliography in their entirety and think for themselves. 

The material in the books, essays, documents, or articles that are listed in the bibliography are, as indicated in the Introduction, really only a "horizon to the main focus of" the Unfinished Revolution. There is -- at least in my opinion -- a great deal of original thinking that takes place in my book, and this is the primary focus to which the book gives expression ... the rest is merely horizon. To be sure, horizon is important because it helps to establish context, but, nonetheless, while horizon has a role to play, it is secondary to the original ideas that are being given expression within the context of the horizon that is formed by the contents of the materials that are listed in the bibliography. 

Even if a reader wished to take issue with any, or all, of the "facts" that are stated in my book -- and such matters would be the only things that one might select to be the possible subject of a footnote -- this, in a sense, would be to miss the point of the book. The book is a complex, multifaceted exercise into critical thinking about issues such as: sovereignty, rights, liberty, democracy, governance, authority, law, constitutions, morality, justice, human potential, the nation/state, duties of care, economics, corporations, and undue influence.

None of the foregoing issues is really all that dependent on this or that historical fact. In other words, to a great extent, the ideas entailed by such issues can be considered independently of the 'historical facts" ... those ideas/issues are topics in philosophy of law, morality, political science, human psychology, social justice, and the like.

When I felt it was important to cite a source, I did so in the text itself. Thus, and as indicated previously, when I was critically discussing the structural character of the Constitution or the legal opinion in Marbury v. Madison, or The Federalist Papers, I mentioned them and even quoted from those sources.

However, for the most part, whatever "facts" that were mentioned in my book were largely prefatory to the essence of the discussions that ensued. Those discussions were about ideas and concepts, not about this or that fact, and, in addition, I felt that the bibliography constituted a sufficient backing for whatever "facts" appeared in my book. 

Finally, it has been my experience that many people either don't read footnotes or get sidetracked by them and, in the process, lose the thread of the perspective being presented. If a reader is serious about research, she or he will take the clues that I have given in the bibliography and run with them in his or her own manner. Nevertheless, for most people, I feel that footnotes just get in the way and make a written work seem more difficult and uninviting than it actually might be if given a chance.

More than anything, I wanted the readers of The Unfinished Revolution to think about some very important issues that are, I believe, relevant to the mess we all find ourselves in today. I often did cite a variety of "facts" to introduce topics, but my emphasis throughout the book was to develop ideas on which people could reflect in whatever way they considered to be of value to them, and I did not consider footnotes to be very crucial to that purpose.  

-----

(If you wish to download a copy of the Unfinished Revolution, then please go to: Free Book. 

And, I should confess that inadvertently I gave an incorrect link in an earlier posting concerning the free download and sent people to a page that was selling the book for $3.00. One of the two links that I gave in the earlier posting that would assist a person to obtain the book was correct, but the other link was not, and I only discovered my mistake after the fact ... unfortunately, some people might have interpreted the mistake as a possible bait and switch scam -- i.e., offering a free book but sending people to a page where it cost $3.00 -- but it was just an honest mistake that is being corrected. The above link should take the interested individual to the correct download page, and I truly apologize for any confusion or trouble that my mistake generated.)

Free Book: The Unfinished Revolution by Bill Whitehouse

I have decided to release -- for free -- my book: The Unfinished Revolution: The Battle for America's Soul. The book is 659 pages long, and I believe that it gives expression to an extremely important critical exploration concerning topics such as: sovereignty, democracy, rights, liberty, duties of care, rule of law, constitutions, economics, money, and much more -- but from a very different perspective than the ones that usually shape such discussions. 

There are no gimmicks or strings attached to the offer. I am not looking for followers or votes, and I do not aspire to be a leader. Moreover, I will not ask for your e-mail in order to approach you later on via a backdoor sales technique.

In fact, my motto is: 'Neither control, nor be controlled'. However, this motto (when spelled out in some detail as is done in the aforementioned book) does not reduce down to a libertarian philosophy and is far more nuanced in relation to a variety of issues than most libertarian positions tend to be ... for example, I reject libertarian ideas concerning 'free markets,' since the latter idea is little more than an ideological, authoritarian myth -- if not delusion -- rooted in both untenable logic and questionable assumptions. 

The Unfinished Revolution comes in the form of an .exe software package (11-plus megabytes in size), and, therefore, unless you have Parallels or Fusion, or the like, on your Mac, the program only works with a PC. The links for the free download are: 

The Unfinished Revolution: The Battle For America's Soul -- Site 1 

(Due to an inadvertent mistake on my part, the foregoing link had been sending people to the wrong page. The error has now been corrected)

or 

The Unfinished Revolution: The Battle For America's Soul -- Site 2 

The book is intended as a gift. I hope that people will read the book and, possibly, benefit from its contents. 

However, one doesn't have to agree with what is said in that work in order for those words to have constructive, heuristic value. For example, if the contents of the aforementioned book help a person to enhance his or her own understanding of the issue of sovereignty by inducing a person to go through a process of rigorous, critical reflection concerning a variety of issues, then, the book will have served its purpose.

After reading The Unfinished Revolution, you might never think about the issues such as: democracy, rights, liberty, and so on in the same way. This might be a very good thing indeed since democracy in America seems to be going no place -- if not worse -- very rapidly these days.

If you like what you read in The Unfinished Revolution, please let others know about the free offer. I hope that you will pay this gift forward in whatever way you feel to be appropriate.

The Rule of Law, Free Markets, and Maintaining Order: A Sufi Perspective

Yesterday, I was provided with a link to an article entitled: ‘The Myth of the Rule of Law’ by John Hasnas, an associate professor at the Georgetown University McDonough School of Business.  I immediately ran off (virtually speaking) to read the article, and was happy to discover that the piece made a lot of great points ... at least about the rule of law issue.

Ultimately, however, I am not sure that I agree with some of his conclusions concerning the possibility of using a ‘free market’ approach to the idea of establishing order quite independently of the legalistic machinery of the state. This potential disagreement has nothing to do with a belief that the state ought to be ‘the decider’ when it comes to dealing with social interaction since I am fully in agreement with Professor Hasnas when it comes to recognizing the totally arbitrary and politically motivated desire for control which colors, shapes, and orients all legal decisions.

I do believe that ‘order’ should be negotiated by people and not imposed by the state or by a central form of governance. This is my perspective irrespective of whether the form of governance is religious, militaristic, corporate, or political in character.

One problem that I have with the notion of ‘free market’ solutions (and I realize that Hasnas is using the phrase in a much broader sense than in a purely economic manner) involves my concerns around the idea of ‘free market’ forces. More specifically, I believe that such a notion is as mythical as is the idea of the rule of law.

Freedom/liberty is rooted in inalienable rights. Inalienable rights exist prior to the existence of governance or any other form of social interaction.

Inalienable rights are a function of natural law. However, my approach to natural law is quite different from what traditionally is the case when people seek to justify the idea of natural law – namely, by rooting such law in Divine decree or in certain philosophical/scientific ideas concerning the nature of human beings.

I have my own perspective in relation to the nature of reality, Divinity, and life. Nonetheless, I also realize that I cannot impose that perspective on other people by proposing that everyone else should adopt my point of view … this would be very egocentric of me … as it would be in relation to anyone who seeks to follow such a course of action (which, unfortunately, includes most politicians, administrators, lawyers, and judges).

So, if rights are not to be a function of law, or governance, or institutions, or religion, or philosophies of personhood, then to what sort of natural law basis am I alluding? The two basic dimensions of natural law have to do with epistemology and character.

All of us have beliefs and understandings concerning the nature of things. Nevertheless, none of us is able to demonstrate the proof of those beliefs and understandings beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of others … or even in accordance with a lesser standard of the preponderance of evidence.

We might know a few facts here and there – although as Norwood Hanson pointed out quite some time ago even the notion of a ‘fact’ tends to be theory-laden – but, none of us has an a way of assembling those facts into an unassailable theory concerning the nature of reality and the purpose, if any, of existence. What we all have in common is a considerable ignorance and accompanying inability to identify the nature of truth in any given set of circumstances.

Students of the literature will recognize that there is a certain resonance between the foregoing outline of our individual and collective epistemological dilemma and the ‘Veil of Ignorance’ idea advanced by John Rawls that was introduced through his seminal work: ‘A Theory of Justice’. One difference between the two perspectives is that Rawls’ ‘veil of ignorance’ was a methodological device intended to lay the foundations for an analysis of the idea of justice, whereas my approach to ignorance is to point out that ignorance is our actual, existential condition … there is nothing of a methodological contrivance about it.

So, to what does ignorance entitle us? Well, for one thing, if we acknowledge our existential, epistemological condition, then everyone ought to have the right to seek to push back the horizons of ignorance in accordance with his ability and interests – provided that such activity does not interfere with the like right of another to push back those same horizons in accordance with his or her own ability and interests.

The foregoing principle can be summarized in what appears to be a very simple statement but one which has many subtleties – namely, ‘neither control nor be controlled. Among other things, one of those subtleties is that competitiveness (whether economic, religious, political, legal, academic, or athletic) tends to be entangled with issues of control, whereas co-operation tends to explore how solutions to problems can be found that involve neither controlling others nor being controlled by others –- and I believe that the cautionary principle in ecology gives expression to this sort of orientation.

There are, I feel, a number of ancillary rights that are entailed by the essential, natural right noted above.  For example, one cannot really be said to have a right to push back the horizons of ignorance if one must be preoccupied with merely trying to survive, and, therefore, the right -- within limits to be negotiated -- to: food, housing, clothing, health care, and a minimum guaranteed income are all part and parcel of the fundamental right to seek to push back the horizons of ignorance which befogs all of our lives.

Correlatively, every right is two-edged. In other words, rights involve duties of care toward others in order to be able to ensure that those individuals have what is necessary with respect to the issue of survival in order to be in an equitable position to try to push back the horizons of ignorance. To work for ourselves we must work for others.

Duties of care will not be fulfilled without character being present in some minimal fashion. This brings us to the second dimension of natural law..

One does not have to be committed to this or that religious system or this or that philosophical system to be able to understand that human beings have the capacity for character and that social order will prevail precisely to the extent that the principles of character are either present or absent. Developing character is one of the duties of care we have to ensure that rights are honored.

Some people who are religious have character, while others who consider themselves religious to not seem to grasp that idea and its inherent principles. Some people who are atheists have character, while others who share that general approach to life do not seem to exhibit the same sort of behavior.

One can argue that the possibility of character is a function of evolutionary progress over millions of years of change, or one can argue that the possibility of character is a gift of God or the Great Mystery. Nonetheless, in both case, the end result is the same – without character, human beings (and any society of which they may form) are in considerable difficulty.

By character, I am referring to the principles to which almost all religions and humanist traditions (atheistic or otherwise) subscribe and accord a special place within discussions of moral behavior. Patience, love, honesty, sincerity, humility, tolerance, charitableness, courage, integrity, nobility, compassion, love, friendship, gratitude, perseverance, fairness, and so on all give expression to the principles of character.

The key to order is: (a) the recognition of our condition of ignorance and a critically reflective realization of the rights (noted earlier) that ignorance entails; (b) the acquisition of the principles of character that are necessary to be able to properly honor the rights of (a) above; and, (c) a means of dispute resolution concerning the pursuit and implementation of both (a) and (b).

I tend to agree with the point made by Professor Hasnas in his article that stipulates how methods involving mediation/arbitration in relation to dispute resolution tend to be faster, cheaper, and more satisfying to the people who participate in those processes than what tends to be the outcome in relation to the adversarial dynamics that are inherent in legal battles involving the so-called rule of law. In my book: “The Unfinished Revolution”, I discuss how some indigenous peoples in Canada have returned to the teachings of their ancestors and use ‘healing circles’ to deal with some of the most horrendous offenses that one human being can inflict on others – for example, murder, rape, incest, egregious physical abuse, and the like – and, yet, have used healing circles to negotiate their way to not only resolving the conflict and tensions ensuing from the foregoing sorts of offenses but, as well, helping everyone – both victims (at least, the ones who are still living) and perpetrators – to find their way back to the natural laws involving rights, duties, of care, and character development. The results of such healing circles have been truly impressive and tend to far outstrip the ability of a ‘rule of law’ orientation to deal effectively with those issues.

In ‘The Unfinished Revolution’, as well as in another work of mine – ‘Democracy Lost and Regained’ [the book explores the 9^th and 10^th Amendments (mostly the latter) of the U.S. Constitution] – I indicate that if one takes sovereignty – both individual and collective – seriously, then people, not governments, must have control over their own destinies and that, perhaps, the best way of providing people with such control is through the vehicle of an enhanced notion of grand juries which takes the place of centralized, state and federal governments and involves a rotating membership drawn from local communities … although, in principle, one also could develop a trans-community form of grand jury that would work in co-operation with local grand juries with respect to certain issues that spill across localized boundaries.

My idea of grand jury governance is somewhat like the idea of the healing circles noted above. However, my grand juries are rooted in the two principles of natural law outlined earlier rather than in the spiritual teachings of this or that indigenous group … after all, the problem of diverse societies is that they are unable to do what such indigenous peoples do – that is, refer to a given tradition from the past which is part of the heritage of the people who are participating in the healing circles.

The capacity to negotiate is very important to maintaining order in a complex, diverse society. However, I believe there are ways to mediate social disputes that can be effective, practical, and co-operative which are quite apart from, and independent of, the notion of ‘free market forces’. 

People who are truly sovereign will co-operate and negotiate to discover solutions that are in everyone’s interests. Moreover, I believe that such sovereign individuals and collectives will be open to the capacity for creative, imaginative ways of doing things that are inherent in human beings.

Creativity, negotiation, character, duties of care, co-operation, and rights are all human forces. To the extent that we are truly sovereign individuals (and lest it is not clear, I consider a sovereign individual to be someone who is able to observe and put into practice the two foundational principles of natural law that have been outlined previously), we will be free to pursue and exercise those forces in functional, effective ways.

While the foregoing perspective might share certain resonances with the notion of a ‘free market forces-based’ approach to the problem of order in the public space, I really don’t consider the set of six factors that are mentioned at the beginning of the last paragraph to constitute a ‘free market’. Rather, those six forces merely give expression to the interaction of sovereign individuals seeking to establish the sort of order that is necessary to preserve and nurture the quality of sovereignty both individually and collectively.

Legality, Constitutionality, and Civil Disobedience

I recently listened to an interview involving retired judge, Andrew Napolitano concerning the Edward Snowden issue. Judge Napolitano was asked where he came down on the topic.

He drew a distinction between legality and constitutionality.  He noted that Edward Snowden had taken an oath of secrecy with respect to his job and, therefore, he was legally bound to keep such secrets. However, on the other hand, Edward Snowden also had a duty to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

According to the judge, everything boiled down to which duty had priority. Judge Napolitano indicated that it was a no-brainer -- the higher duty was to the Constitution, and he considered Edward Snowden to be a hero for leaking the information concerning the covert activities of the NSA ... incidentally have you heard about the cloud service that permits a person to store all of his or her personal data completely free that is being run by the NSA ... you don't have to do anything ... everything is done for you.

Judge Napolitano went on to point out that Congress and the Executive Office can issue all kinds of directives that purport to be legal actions. Nonetheless, the purpose of the Constitution is to place constraints on what can considered to be appropriately legal -- that is, what is consistent with the Constitution.

While I agree with the general point made by Judge Napolitano, it harbors a deep-rooted problem. More specifically, his position seems to presuppose that the meaning and scope of the Constitution is clear-cut and can be agreed upon by all, and this, sadly, is just not the case.

Many of the decisions handed down by the Supreme Court give expression to a 5-4 split. This means that four justices disagree with the majority concerning the meaning of the Constitution, and, as well, one should not forget that just because five individuals are agreed, generally speaking, with the purported meaning of the Constitution in a given case, this doesn't mean that they are correct ... only that they are agreed.

Waiting for the truth concerning the meaning of the Constitution is a lot like Samuel Beckett's 1953 play: 'Waiting for Godot' in which two characters while away their time engaged in various musings as they wait in vain for someone to show up. Beckett's play was labeled as being 'absurdist' in character ... a characterization that oftentimes is quite applicable to what takes place with respect to Supreme Court deliberations and decisions.

Then, of course, there is the whole matter of whether, or not, the Supreme Court jurists even ought to be doing what they are so busily engaged in doing since the Constitution really doesn't clearly stipulate what the role of the Supreme Court should be. While the power of the Supreme Court "shall extend to all cases in law and equity, arising under the Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties", as well as to a variety of other situations (such as disputes between states or between a state and citizens of another state), nothing is said in the Constitution about the precise nature of that power which was being given to the Supreme Court through the Constitution or how that power should be exercised.

Judge John Marshall took the bull by the horns and laid out a role for the judiciary in the Marbury v. Madison case of 1803. However, if one critically examines the logic of that decision -- and, I have done this, to a degree, in my book: 'The Unfinished Revolution: The Battle for America's Soul' -- a 660 page book that one can purchase for $3.00 through 'BillWhitehoue.Com) -- one comes away with a lot more questions than answers. In my opinion, Marshall's decision in the Marbury v. Madison case is deeply flawed and the problems inherent in his decision have compromised and corrupted the activities and decisions of the Supreme Court ever since ... resulting in many, many difficulties for the American people, if not the world.

Not that I agree with the manner in which the Constitution lays things out with respect to three separate but equal branches of federal government -- for I feel, as the aforementioned book delineates in some detail, that the whole constitutional exercise that began in 1787 in Philadelphia was a concerted attack on the sovereignty and natural law rights of human beings -- nevertheless, one might observe in passing that it would appear to be quite difficult to claim that three branches of government are equal, if one of them -- namely, the Judiciary -- gets to say what is, and what is, not Constitutional.

Moreover, by the time that the Supreme Court gets around to dealing with this or that Constitutional issue, oftentimes during the interim period of 'waiting for Godot', a great deal of damage has accrued -- damage that adversely affects millions of people around the world and not just in the United States. To say, in response to such difficulties, that the U.S. constitutional system might not be perfect, but it is better than all the rest is an exercise that dissembles the truth and seeks to dissuade people away from understanding that "being better" in the foregoing sense is simply not good enough.

If anyone reading this should wonder where I stand on things constitutionally speaking, I believe there are only a few good things in the U.S. Constitution. These are: the Preamble, Article IV, Section 4 of that document (which 'guarantees' a republican form of government to the states), the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments), and portions of the 13th and 14th Amendments -- as long as these are not used to empower corporations and treat them as persons.

One way that might help to improve things -- i.e., to try to make the best of a bad constitutional situation -- would be to pass an amendment concerning a right to civil disobedience whose scope would be determined by the people rather than either the states or the federal government. This could be done through a grand-jury style format, and the decisions of that body would not be reviewable by any other agency of government (local, state, or federal).

Edward Snowden's action -- along with the actions of many other whistleblowers -- should not be considered from the point of view of legalities or constitutionality -- and, here, I part company with Judge Napolitano. Those acts should be considered from the perspective of the inherent sovereignty of individuals being judged against the sovereignty of their peers and what the latter individuals are prepared to accept as viable degrees of freedom concerning acts of conscience in the context of everyone's right to basic sovereignty.

We don't have to wait for Godot. Justice is conceivable as a function of what people -- independent of government -- are capable of achieving. This goes to the very heart of the 9th and 10th Amendments ... important issues that the judiciary rushes by like a scared kid whistling past the cemetery in the darkness of a stormy night.