ling this, the laws and the government that implements the faulty laws are illegitimate. Law must conform to the “maker’s will” in order for them to gain their legitimacy. In 1776, the key point that the founders were confronting was the “divine right of kings” and the underlying assumption that “might makes right.” History up to this point had shown that the authority of the king ultimately relied on his might. History has also shown us too often that might does not, in fact, equal right. Clearly in Iran today, just as in the American colonies of 1776, might is not right.
Let’s now return to the second paragraph of the Declaration, where Jefferson defines the nature and purpose of government:
“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.”
Government does not give us rights, for rights have already been given to us by God. The purpose of man entering into civil society is that these God-given rights might be more secure. Clearly the theocracy of Iran is inconsistent with the God-given rights of man. Jefferson and our founders concluded that when the government fails to secure these God-given rights, the people are fully within their rights to overthrow the illegitimate government.
Freedom is God-given. Mr. Ahmadinejad and his tyrannical government have and continue to deny this freedom. He and his government are illegitimate.
Finally, Jefferson gives those seeking the establishment or restoration of their God-given rights a warning concerning prudence.
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”
Jefferson’s concern is on two points: the length of suffering a people must endure as well as the likelihood of success. Freedom loving people in Iran need, of course, consider whether a revolution is, in fact, timely in light of this concern. The people of Iran might, in fact, conclude that the timing is not right for revolution. What they need not fret is over the legitimacy of their demand for liberty:
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Despite Mr. Ahmadinejad’s attempt to deflect, we need to be worried about freedom in Iran. And Mr. Ahmadinejad should himself be worried.