
The 3 Pillars of the American Idea
Unalienable rights and self-evident truths are
Expand the number of core ideas under consideration to three and you get unalienable rights, self-evident truths, and free market economics.
You could call them the three pillars of the American Idea.
These three pillars are the direct gifts to America of three great thinkers of the Scottish Enlightenment: Francis Hutcheson, Adam Smith, and Thomas Reid.
Their thinking—known today as 'common sense realism'—took America by storm at precisely the right time to shape America fundamentally.
Francis Hutcheson
Francis Hutcheson: 'Our rights are either alienable or unalienable …'
Related Stories
5/12/2025
5/11/2025
A revolution in thinking about our rights preceded the American Revolution. In the words of George Washington, America's founding took place during a time 'when the rights of mankind were better understood and more clearly defined than at any former period.' Hutcheson's analysis of our rights showed the way.
The meaning of Hutcheson's distinction was sharp and clear in the founders' time but to understand it today you and I must first be clear about the meaning of 'alienable.' Here is its complete definition in my dictionary: '
adj. Law.
Capable of being transferred to the ownership of another.' Your right to your car is an alienable right; because your car is your property, you can sell your car or give it away—but our rights to our lives and our liberty are unalienable, that is, not property, not capable of being transferred to the ownership of another.
Hutcheson was challenging John Locke's account of our rights—and in so doing he helped ignite the American Revolution. Locke, you see, had
Hutcheson's distinction provided the intellectual foundation for two of the greatest achievements in world history, Adam Smith's 'The Wealth of Nations' and the Declaration of Independence. Adam Smith's focus was our alienable rights; the American founders focused on our unalienable rights.
The Declaration and 'Wealth' both entered the world they were to transform in the same year, 1776.
1776 marks the economic and political boundary between the world in which you and I live and all that had gone before.
Adam Smith
Francis Hutcheson mentored Adam Smith. Upon Hutcheson's death, Smith was appointed to the prestigious professorship at the University of Glasgow Hutcheson had held.
Smith's epoch-making 'Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'
is the foundation of free market economics.
Hutcheson's analysis of our rights set the direction Smith took. In 'Wealth' Smith famously demonstrated that the division of labor is the source of the wealth of nations. In one of the most frequently quoted passages from 'Wealth,' Smith makes clear the source in human nature of the all-important division of labor: 'This division of labour … is the necessary … consequence of a certain propensity in human nature … ; the propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another.' The division of labor depends on the right to
exchange
(alienate) our property and labor. We can 'truck, barter, and exchange' because our right to our property is, as Hutcheson had shown, 'naturally alienable.'
The social order that resulted from the new thinking of the Scottish and the American Enlightenments was a far cry from the world that assigned supremacy to hereditary monarchs and hereditary aristocrats. The great economist Ludwig von Mises described that new social order like this: It 'assigned supremacy to the common man. In his capacity as a consumer, the 'regular fellow' was called upon to determine ultimately what should be produced, in what quantity, and of what quality, by whom, how, and where; in his capacity as a voter, he was sovereign in directing the nation's policies.'
Thomas Reid
When Jefferson wrote 'We hold these truths to be self-evident …' he was relying on the thinking of Thomas Reid.
Reid's 'An Inquiry Into the Human Mind on the Principles of Common Sense' was published in 1764, the same year he was awarded the prestigious professorship formerly occupied by Francis Hutcheson and Adam Smith.
As I write in my book 'Reclaiming Common Sense': 'Reid's philosophical purpose was to provide a foundation for morality and for knowledge. He argued that there is an endowment of human nature that makes both morality and knowledge possible, and he called it common sense … With it we are able to make rational judgments and moral judgments. Common sense is the human attribute that makes it possible for us to be rational creatures and moral agents.
Reid's fundamental insight was that our ability to make sense of our experience presupposes certain first principles. Because these principles are implicit in our conduct and our thought, they cannot be proved; there are no other truths from which they can be derived. However, to deny or even to doubt any of them is to involve ourselves in absurdity. Consequently, the principles of common sense have the special authority of first principles: we cannot operate without them.'
The Progressives
From their beginning, the purpose of the Progressives has been the step-by-step—that is, the progressive—undoing of the America of the founders. Their relentless campaign has done tremendous damage. If you and I are to do our part in helping to restore America, we need to go into action armed with a clear understanding of the American Idea. That is why I wrote the two common sense books listed below.
From
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Bloomberg
2 days ago
- Bloomberg
The Hidden Cost of Norway's $2 Trillion Fortune
A new book argues wealth is making Norway complacent, an Austrian heiress extracts herself from the 1%, and Australia's former PM talks Trump. By Save Welcome to the weekend! Donald Trump's tariffs continue to pose challenges for manufacturers, including YKK, the world's largest supplier of a product introduced in 1893 with the name 'clasp-locker.' What product is it? Find out with this week's Pointed quiz.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
They're rich. They're anti-Trump. And they don't want their big tax cut.
Kimberly Hoover has been to most Michelin-star restaurants on the East and West coasts. She and her wife, multimillionaires from their real estate firms, own homes in or near New York City, Washington, Miami and Quebec. Their lives are filled with skiing, fine wine and long trips to Europe. Hoover's accountant estimates that the new tax law that President Donald Trump signed this month will save her several million dollars over the next few years. While many Americans might rejoice at that kind of windfall, Hoover worked hard to stop it from becoming a reality, arguing to lawmakers that she has more money than she needs. Subscribe to The Post Most newsletter for the most important and interesting stories from The Washington Post. 'At some point, it starts to feel wrong. It starts to feel excessive. It starts to feel somehow inappropriate. And at some point, it just doesn't feel good,' said Hoover, who spoke while on break from a sapphic literature conference she helps sponsor in Albany. 'Imbalanced is really not good for anyone, even if you're on the positive end of that imbalance, because it's unsustainable.' Hoover's experience reflects an unusual irony of Trump's signature tax legislation: Many of its biggest beneficiaries fiercely oppose the president - and even oppose policies he is pushing that will make them richer. The mismatch is partly a result of a crucial, if ongoing, evolution of the role class plays in American politics. During the administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush, affluent Americans who benefited from tax cuts were more likely to be Republicans. The political party they supported delivered material benefits that boosted their pocketbooks. Democratic voters, by comparison, were more likely to be working or middle class. Now, more than half of upper-income families - defined as those earning more than $215,400 per year - vote Democratic, according to a 2024 Pew Research survey, as more highly educated voters shift to the left. The top fifth of earners went from supporting Barack Obama in 2008 by a 2.5-point margin to supporting Joe Biden in 2020 by close to 15 percentage points. 'Affluent Americans used to vote for Republican politicians. Now they vote for Democrats,' one 2023 paper found. That shift intensified during the 2024 presidential election, when large numbers of Black and Latino voters, who tend to be lower-income, defected to the Republican ticket for the first time in decades, according to several political scientists, exit polls and studies. 'There's been a lot of talk about how even though the Republican coalition has changed and gotten more working class, their policies have not,' said Matt Grossmann, a political scientist at Michigan State University. 'But there's been less attention to a similar but true fact on the other side - a lot of Democratic politicians were elected by very rich constituents who are more likely to benefit from Republican tax policy than Democratic policy.' As a result, many of the provisions of the GOP tax law will benefit a voting bloc that is increasingly Democratic. The $3.4 trillion legislation extends a lower tax rate for the top tax bracket, rejecting the president's suggestion of a new tax on million-dollar earners. It expands and makes permanent a smaller federal estate tax, allowing up to $15 million to be passed on tax-free ($30 million for couples). It also makes permanent a large deduction for businesses formed as pass-through entities, while raising the cap on what filers can deduct in state and local taxes. (The GOP's 2017 tax law also permanently lowered the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent.) When all these provisions are combined, Trump's second tax bill devotes roughly $1 trillion in tax cuts for those earning more than $400,000 per year - roughly the size of the law's cuts to Medicaid, the federal health insurance program for the poor. (Most of the bill's cost, though, comes from provisions that largely benefit middle-class households, such as a larger child tax credit and standard deduction.) Steve Lockshin, a financial adviser and co-founder of the estate advisory platform Vanilla, represents clients with at least $50 million and whose fortunes are sometimes in the billions of dollars. A tax cut of about 2 percent for a middle-class family translates into about $1,800 per year, according to the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan think tank. But for Lockshin's clients, saving several percentage points in taxes can mean hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, per year. One provision that has become particularly beneficial to his clients is the law's expansion of 'Opportunity Zones,' which allow investors to defer capital gains taxes by reinvesting profits into designated economically distressed areas. The program allows wealthy individuals to delay or, in some cases, permanently avoid paying taxes on capital gains if they make investments in specified zones. 'The general mentality is the same across the board with my clients: 'I want to pay the least I can. I also want the best for my country, and I would invert the two if it had a meaningful impact,'' Lockshin said. 'And if you are wealthy - but aren't pro-Trump and just along for the ride - most of my network is thinking, 'While Rome is burning, at least I'll save a few dollars in taxes.'' Opposition to tax cuts has surfaced in many wealthy liberal enclaves. At the Harvard Club in New York City, 'everyone under 50 feels this way,' said Bob Elliott, chief executive of Unlimited, an investment firm. 'The classic question is how much do you worry about it benefiting yourself versus the societal consequences - that's the trade-off,' Elliott said. 'Many of the people who don't like the bill are saying, 'Really, even if I get money, it's still at the expense of taking people off Medicaid.'' Nonpartisan estimates have found that the GOP tax law will lead to more than 13 million fewer Americans having health insurance. Some experts say rich people have self-interested reasons to oppose the tax cuts that go beyond the broader social consequences. Many of the law's short-term benefits come with long-term drawbacks, said Constance Hunter, chief economist at the Economist Intelligence Unit, a research firm. That, she said, is because many people at least intuitively understand the concept of 'Ricardian equivalence' - the idea that deficits will need to be paid for eventually through higher taxes, so consumers adjust their behavior accordingly by saving more in preparation. 'I think there are a number of people, some of whom are affluent and that span the political spectrum, who realize we cannot keep expanding our deficits indefinitely, especially at a time when our economy is showing resilience and growing,' Hunter said. 'A lot of wealth is held by business owners, and while certain provisions may be providing tax cuts now, these are likely to be accompanied by greater financing costs for business owners,' as reflected in the higher interest rates needed to combat increases in inflation. Drew E. Pomerance, a Los Angeles lawyer in business and commercial litigation, said that his net worth is in the tens of millions of dollars and that he will probably save tens of thousands of dollars from the law every year. While he said 'it never ceases to amaze me that people vote against their own economic self-interest,' he also said he will benefit from the bill but thinks 'it's terrible for America.' 'Don't get me wrong: I like money. I like having money. I'm not opposed to having money,' he said. 'But at the expense of what it does to the rest of the country, it should not be a priority to give me and other rich people more money.' The willingness of some liberals to vote against their economic self-interest should give them pause before they accuse conservatives of doing the same, said Michael Strain, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank. He said Republican voters in lower-income states are often unfairly maligned this way, pointing to the 2004 book 'What's the Matter With Kansas?' 'Nothing is the matter with Kansas. The people of Kansas vote for a variety of reasons, one of which is economic self-interest,' Strain said. Some multimillionaires, such as Morris Pearl, who served as managing director at the investment firm BlackRock, say they are getting money from the tax cut they do not need. (Pearl, like Hoover and Pomerance, is part of Patriotic Millionaires, a group of rich Americans devoted to trying to raise taxes on the rich.) Pearl's mother-in-law died last year, and he and his wife benefited from the 2017 changes to the estate tax. He has taken advantage of the low-tax Opportunity Zone rules, though he does not remember where or how much he has invested. He will probably continue to do so now that they have been extended. 'It's great for me personally, financially,' Pearl said. 'But even looking at my own and my family's long-term self-interest, I would prefer less inequality and less of a country of very rich and very poor, and more of a country with lots of people doing all right.' In August, Pearl is traveling to a fundraiser for Democratic lawmakers in California. Every year, he donates hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic politicians, which he described as the first thing he would cut back on if his fortune started to shrink. Thanks in part to the GOP tax law, Pearl added, that is not going to happen any time soon. Related Content Hulk Hogan was a well-known Trump supporter. Their ties go back 40 years. Mendelson reaches deal with Commanders on RFK site amid growing pressure Amy Sherald cancels major Smithsonian show over 'censorship'
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Will Frank White recall get delayed? What county legislators and lawsuits say
As the future of a planned recall election for County Executive Frank White Jr. heads to the courts, the Jackson County Legislature may be changing its tune to support pushing the vote to a later date. Legislators had initially set the election date for Aug. 26. But in the face of multiple legal challenges and concerns from local election boards, they introduced an ordinance Monday supporting a Nov. 4 election to recall White, a Democrat and former Royals Hall of Famer who has served as county executive since 2016. The ordinance suggests that Nov. 4 — when a county election is already scheduled — would be the next most appropriate date if a 'lawful election date' could not be found within 60 days of when voters submitted the petition prompting a recall vote, which is the timeline outlined in the county's charter. Supporters of the recall effort submitted signatures to the Kansas City and Jackson County election boards, which certified 43,011 valid signatures on June 30, breaking the required signature threshold by 109 names. Along with vocal organizers in Eastern Jackson County, many of the signatures were collected over the course of two years by a dark money political action group. White's opponents have cited disagreement with his handling of Jackson County's property tax assessments in recent years, as well as the 2024 tax question that would have funded a new Royals stadium in the Crossroads. White's chief of staff Caleb Clifford said that he and White are concerned that the legislature introduced an ordinance around a Nov. 4 election while the older ordinance supporting an earlier date still stands. 'Moving forward with setting an election date without first rescinding the prior ordinance and ensuring full legal compliance could result in two unlawful, unbudgeted elections, costing taxpayers millions and requiring the County to once again draw from out dwindling emergency reserves,' Clifford said. The scheduled Nov. 4 election is already set to include a ballot measure about amending the Jackson County Charter to make the role of county assessor an elected position starting in November 2028. Currently, Jackson County is the only county in Missouri where the county assessor is appointed rather than elected. Third District At-Large Legislator Megan Smith (formerly Marshall) sponsored the ordinance supporting a Nov. 4 recall, which was assigned Monday to the legislature's Intergovernmental Affairs Committee. Smith was the only legislator to abstain from a July 18 vote overriding White's veto of an earlier ordinance recommending an August 26 special election. The Jackson County and Kansas City election boards have been advocating for a Nov. 4 date for multiple weeks, arguing that state and federal law afforded them a longer timeline to administer an election. During the July 18 vote, Smith echoed their concerns, noting that an August election date may disenfranchise voters overseas who will not receive ballots in time or voters who need to vote early or by absentee ballot. Forcing an election in violation of state law could open the door for other lawsuits or election results to be invalidated in the future, Smith said. 'I don't know if [the legislature] will get something done before the courts do,' said Tammy Brown, Republican Director of the Jackson County Election Board. 'We'll be happy either way whenever they get settled.' The legislature and election boards have been involved in conflicting lawsuits, both of which ask the Jackson County court system to issue guidance on when a recall election should take place. A lawsuit filed July 9 by four Jackson County residents, including former chairs of both the Democratic and Republican parties of Jackson County – Phil LeVota and Mark Anthony Jones, respectively – asked the court to mandate an Aug. 26 election regardless of any action from either White or the legislature. The next day, the Jackson County and Kansas City election boards filed their own lawsuit, arguing that the proposed Aug. 26 date could not be legally enforced. 'We have certain federal and state laws we have to follow,' Brown said. 'We understand that they wanted a very speedy, quick election, but all of our elections start 10 weeks out, so we had to follow the law and that's what we've done. That's why we had to file the lawsuit.' As of Tuesday, both lawsuits have been consolidated into one case. Jackson County judge Mary Wayne Seaton will hear the combined lawsuit on Aug. 1. Meanwhile, some Jackson County residents and organizations are calling for White to resign before a special election proceeds. The Urban Council, a coalition of civil rights organizations in the Kansas City area affiliated with the Urban Summit, joined LeVota and Sixth District Legislator Sean Smith last week in demanding that White step down. White has said that he would support a Nov. 4 election, while LeVota has called for a special election in September or October if the courts ruled against an Aug. 26 date. Both White and LeVota have said that running the recall question during a special election outside of Nov. 4 would cost taxpayers about $2 million. If Smith's ordinance supporting a Nov. 4 election passes, White would have 10 days to veto it, at which point the legislature could overturn a veto with a supermajority of six votes — as occurred with the previous ordinance supporting an August 26 recall election. However, the final decision on the timing of a recall election for now rests on a judge's decision. 'It's up to the courts at this point,' Brown said. 'We'll have to see what happens.' Solve the daily Crossword