Fuck the Fourth

This day is supposed to commemorate the signing of the Declaration of Independence and the founding of the United States. Obviously, anarchists should not be celebrating the second point but some anarchists in the libertarian movement see the Declaration of Independence as something worthy of commemoration. Well, shit some anarchists in the libertarian movement will say that the founding of the United States was a step in the right direction. A step toward freedom. Yes, formation of a State is a step towards freedom. But I won't talk about that.
So the Declaration of Independence. Now, the "founding fathers" were first and foremost liberals. Liberals in the sense that I have previously mentioned. Now, as liberals, their political philosophy is grounded in social contract theory, the idea that a long time ago people just implicitly agreed to be enslaved. This is basic liberal apologetics. We need the state because our ancestors implicitly agreed to it. Lysander Spooner refutes this idea in his essay No Treason as does Mikhail Bakunin in The Immorality of the State. But my point is that anarchists should not be embracing a document which was trying to be a social contract. It says it there in the document:

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.

Okay, so it establishes some doctrine of natural rights.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

This is the part that bugs me. Consent of the governed. I hate that concept so much. Minarchists love pulling that out almost as much as they love shouting "America is a republic not a democracy!"(1) Consent? What consent? I don't consent? Who are the governed? The people? And they claim to oppose democracy (i.e., majority rule).

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.

This document was not something that should be worshipped by anarchists. There again with the right of the people. The People have no rights. Only The Individual has rights.(2) Who is this mythical people? They're probably all the same race aren't they...
That's another thing... This point has been brought up before but yeah this time is not something we should look back on with nostalgia. It doesn't seem like the whole "all men are created equal thing" went very far. Like, okay maybe they mean "men" as a synonym for "human" but even then, didn't go very far. What with women and blacks not being afforded the same rights... hm. And well it was just the rich white men. Yeah. Nothing so wonderful.
But this day is supposed to be about independence. Right? I really see it only as a celebration of the ability for groups declaring their autonomy, not individuals. That's crazy talk. Individuals can't be autonomous.
Lastly, I could have titled this post "F*ck the Fourth" or something but come on, if that bugs you, there's a problem. You know what that asterisk represents, I'm doing you a favour by not putting it there in the first place.
1. On a side note, at the time that the US Constitution was written, this was correct. Democracy meant what direct democracy means today. Republic was used as the equivalent of liberal democracy. Why haven't minarchists heard this term? As far as I know, the "republic not a democracy" line goes back to Ayn Rand too, so there she goes again, just trying to piss people off. Just trying to be different. Just kind of annoying. Like, as far as political science is concerned, a republic is a type of liberal democracy.
2. Well I didn't really want to talk about rights because I don't think they are necessary for the purposes of a discussion about government. I'm not really sure about the whole rights thing and I mean, if you use an argument like the one about the sovereignty of the individual, that's a great argument but if you're dealing with a determinist it does nothing because it's based on the principle of free will.