In his essay “Of the Independency of Parliament” (first published c. 1741), David Hume defends the Enlightenment idea that constitutions should assume that individuals, including politicians, are self-interested and that rulers will try to abuse their power. A famous passage reads:
In constraining any system of government and fixing the several checks and controuls of the constitution, each man ought to be supposed a knave, and to have no other end, in all of his actions, than private interest.
Consequently, a constitution must be knavish, that is, establish checks and balances in a way that the self-interest of some (Hume mentions the executive) will constrain the self-interest of others (in the legislature). Contemporary public choice theory further emphasizes that political analysis must assume that politicians are as self-interested as ordinary individuals. (The reader interested in a defense of “knavish constitutions” may consult Brian Kogelmann, “In Defense of Knavish Constitutions,” Public Choice, 196 [2023], pp. 141-156.)
Pehaps Hume underestimated the potential threat from the chief executive, especially in today’s context of an inordinately powerful state. The chief executive could be more dangerous than a knave if he happens to have character defects or cognitive deficits. If Hume came back to life, I would respectfully suggest that he might be more explicit about politicians at the helm of the state and add something like:
It is not impossible that a ruler, elected or not, be an ignorant idiot.
Hume must have known the danger. Caligula (emperor from 37 to 41 AD) pretended to be a god. A “mad and unpredictable tyrant,” he was assassinated by a member of his Praetorian Guard. Nero (reigned 54-68 AD) brought to the supreme magistrature by the Praetorian Guard (“the Senate thus had to accept a fait accompli,” writes Britannica), had his own mother and his first wife assassinated. He gave public performances as a poet and lyre player. After a revolt on the frontier, he reportedly said, “I have only to appear and sing to have peace once more in Gaul.”
Hume might reject my proposed amendment as too polemical for his scholarly demeanor. I would point out that “knave” was a very strong and pejorative word at the time he was writing, and that he emphasized it in his essay; and that my proposed addendum simply highlights the danger of personal power.
******************************
Statue of David Hume in Edinburgh
READER COMMENTS
David Seltzer
Mar 18 2025 at 11:07am
Pierre wrote, “if he happens to have character defects or cognitive deficits.” I would also include the intersection of both. To wit. Character defects and cognitive deficits. Just sayin’.
Pierre Lemieux
Mar 18 2025 at 11:19am
Thanks, David. I thought about that when writing, and decided that my “or” was an inclusive “or.” I agree it brought some fuzziness (and inclusivity!) in my statement. I hope that many readers react like you.
Jose Pablo
Mar 18 2025 at 11:29am
each man ought to be supposed a knave, and to have no other end, in all of his actions, than private interest.
It is now clear that understanding Hume’s point requires recognizing that the other branches of power must have “teeth” that is, direct command over armed forces.
If all the other branches possess is the right to “write” (either legislation or judiciary orders), while all armed men remain under the control of the executive, then the executive can disregard any “order” from the other branches with little fear of being “forced” to comply.
“Forced”? … How, exactly?
Btw, my favorite quote from Caligula: “Would that the Roman people had but one neck!”
Or its modern versions: “Would that the illegal emigrants had but one neck!”, “Would that the Gazans had but one neck!”, “Would that the Chinesse had but one neck!” …. one neck only for the Canadians too?
Pierre Lemieux
Mar 18 2025 at 12:04pm
Jose: Your substantive point is interesting. (No standing army would be better, although it’s not easy to imagine hic et nunc.) In another but parallel perspective, Anthony de Jasay. perhaps with a Jouvenelian eye on the Middle Ages, wrote:
On your Caligula story, I suppose he meant that because it would have been easy to cut? Funny because I am putting the last hand to a post on the rule of law, where I refer to the neck of Maximillien Robespierre.
Jose Pablo
Mar 18 2025 at 6:11pm
One thing Trump has reinforced in me is an even deeper skepticism of standing armies. Even the so-called armies of freedom can easily fall under the control of a nationalistic, egotistical tyrant. In fact, the Roman legions did fall under the control of tyrants when the Republic was done.
Also, watching Germany and France, two governments that could just as easily come under the sway of extremist nationalist parties, expand their militaries only strengthens my belief.
As for Caligula’s statement, its meaning is as you suspect. The exact context in which it was made remains unclear, as Suetonius, the primary source, does not specify it. I like to imagine he said it in response to the people of Rome mocking him at the Circus. In fact, Tacitus describes instances where Caligula reacted with hostility to perceived insults or ridicule from the crowd.
I can’t help but enjoy the obvious parallels.
Craig
Mar 18 2025 at 4:03pm
“It is now clear that understanding Hume’s point requires recognizing that the other branches of power must have “teeth” that is, direct command over armed forces.”
The initial scheme places the armed forces mostly under state control with a small standing army that could then be defeated by the several states. Indeed at the time even when called into federal service the state retained the power to make the appointment of officers in their respective militias.* With respect to the other branches you make a decent point, HOWEVER, please consider that in my opinion the greatest flaw in the constitution is that the federal government is the arbiter of the extent of its own powers. Indeed I’d suggest that the other branches of the federal government should be considered complicit in this usurpation of non-delegated authority.
* The James Madison / Caleb Strong War of 1812 conundrum is historically very interesting. A quick perusal might be interesting: https://www.stateoftheunionhistory.com/2016/08/1812-james-madison-mr-madisons-war-and_29.html
Jose Pablo
Mar 18 2025 at 6:40pm
I’m not particularly worried about the U.S. military. I find it hard to imagine its professional ranks getting involved in internal civil affairs.
However, there are 120,000 to 150,000 armed personnel directly under the control of the executive. And this time, with Trump firmly in power and only loyalists, yes-men, allowed in key positions, that makes compliance with the will of the other branches of government effectively optional for the executive.
Consider the impeachment process of South Korea’s president or the ongoing conflicts in Israel between Netanyahu and Ronen Bar (or the attorney general).
Constitutional crises can quickly turn into contests over who controls the most armed forces. The U.S. is dangerously ill-prepared for a conflict of that nature.
Craig
Mar 18 2025 at 7:24pm
“One thing Trump has reinforced in me is an even deeper skepticism of standing armies.” Written to Pierre
“I’m not particularly worried about the U.S. military.” Written to Craig
I find those two responses difficult to reconcile. I woukd add that the police have been effectively militarized.
Jose Pablo
Mar 18 2025 at 7:41pm
I find those two responses difficult to reconcile
As an American, I’m not particularly worried about the U.S. military. However, if I were Canadian or Danish, I might feel differently.
The police are not controlled by the executive.
Pierre Lemieux
Mar 19 2025 at 9:13pm
Jose: On the other hand, as noted by The Economist, local cops (and there are lots of them) are not under the federal executive and 25,000 lawyers (perhaps a bit fewer than this now) work for the federal government. Looking at JD Vance and at the DoJ, the lawyers’ belief in the rule of law is not as sure as it would have seem a few years or a few months ago.
Pierre Lemieux
Mar 19 2025 at 9:17pm
Jose: I had a post on these issues last year: “The Possibility of Despotism in America.”
steve
Mar 18 2025 at 2:44pm
Is the idea of altruism then impossible?
Steve
Craig
Mar 18 2025 at 3:51pm
Never say never of course, but don’t count on it!
Pierre Lemieux
Mar 18 2025 at 11:37pm
Craig: I agree with your answer. But it is a bit tricky. In economics, you can define self-interest as including altruistic sentiments (Mother Teresa said her work for the poor was pure joy, for her!). There is then the question of whether, with such an englobing definition of self-interest and utility, you can build theories that have any empirical content and predictive power. Gary Becker thought the answer is Yes, and his impressive work suggests that there is some truth there. Many economists, including James Buchanan (and most of the public choice school, I would think) and Anthony de Jasay answer No.
Craig
Mar 19 2025 at 12:50am
I think many likely start with good intentions and get sucked into the vortex. Its good work if you can get it/keep it and naturally one’s own sense of self-righteousness instantly leads one to conclude that he or she is naturally the best choice for the job. I mean, I know I am, right? 😉
Jon Murphy
Mar 18 2025 at 6:35pm
I don’t follow
steve
Mar 18 2025 at 9:59pm
“each man ought to be supposed a knave, and to have no other end, in all of his actions, than private interest.”
Steve
Jon Murphy
Mar 18 2025 at 11:19pm
The first clause matters. Hume is discussing politics and constitutions.
nobody.really
Mar 19 2025 at 2:06am
On altruism:
Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (1835)
Reinhold Niebuhr, American theologian and clergyman, Moral Man and Immoral Society (1932)
Lyndon Johnson to his aide Bill Moyers, 1960
Monte
Mar 18 2025 at 8:20pm
A Proposed Amendment to Winston Churchill.
Trump is the worst kind of president, except for all the others.
Monte
Mar 18 2025 at 8:45pm
All the others being Biden and Harris
Pierre Lemieux
Mar 18 2025 at 11:57pm
Monte: I must confess that I don’t understand people who believe that Trump threatens the Constitution and the Republic less than Biden did or Harris would have done, although I do believe that the latter two were dangerous–the usual dangerous–for individual liberty and prosperity. In my view, it was obvious at least since 2016 that Trump was cut off another cloth and that he understood nothing of the Constitution and the need to restrain the state. As a matter of fact, I think it was already obvious that, more generally, he understood nothing about the human condition and truth, and that he had no shame. One of the numerous examples I like is when he said that burning the flag should result in “loss of citizenship or year [sic] jail.” He did not add, “or privation of coke during one day.” But he was certainly (like many of the Latin American populist rulers) a good entertainer. Nero was too.
Mactoul
Mar 19 2025 at 12:19am
If the Republic is hanging by idiosyncrasies of just one man, then the Republic is already far gone. But why not look at silver linings to various clouds? Are the laments of the Left and ex-govt employees unpleasing ? Real estate is falling in the imperial capital. With luck, tariffs would be discredited for another generation or two.
Climate change Green energy scam may be done and over with and this doing alone will put Trump on the side of truth (on the largest canvas possible).
Even, in 2015 Trump voiced the truth about Iraq and Afghanistan wars –no small matter.
Richard W Fulmer
Mar 19 2025 at 10:05am
Trump taints even the good things he does by going too far and ignoring the law on the way.
Monte
Mar 19 2025 at 2:05am
Trump is a reactionary – a political extremist attempting to re-establish what he perceives as a by-gone era of American exceptionalism. He is egotistical, unrefined and can be a complete digestive tract orifice (particularly to his most vocal critics). But comparing him to figures like of Nero and Caligula, whose tyrannical reigns were marked by profound cruelty, murder, and a complete disregard for human rights, sounds non compos mentis.
Jose Pablo
Mar 19 2025 at 2:05pm
sounds non compos mentis.
That’s fair, Monte (though there are certainly similarities too enjoyable to resist the temptation).
In “Roman terms,” Trump would be closer to Caesar. Which is only natural, as he is the one initiating the rebellion against the Republic.
It is fair to summarize Caesar’s intentions in rebelling against Rome as threefold:
a) Self-preservation. He needed to protect himself from prosecution upon his return to Rome. The Senate, led by Pompey and Cato, was determined to end his political career.
b) Ambition for power. Caesar saw himself as the only leader capable of stabilizing Rome’s chaotic political system.
c) Reforming Rome. He believed the Republic was broken and dominated by a corrupt aristocracy. Caesar saw himself primarily as a reformer of the Republic, not as the founder of the Empire.
The parallels are hard to ignore (you can even say that Pence was Trump’s Brutus)
As for a proper comparison to Caligula or Nero, we may have to wait for a Trump Jr. III or IV, whether a direct descendant of “Caesar” or an “adopted” figure within the Republican Party. But witnessing this will, most likely, be just a matter of time and patience.
Monte
Mar 19 2025 at 6:47pm
I don’t think Trump’s “rebellion against the republic” is an attempt to overturn it, so much as it is an attempt to reshape it to align with his political and ideological preferences.
Tyrants are equally as likely to emerge from the ranks of the Democrat Party. Andrew Jackson and FDR were every bit as Caesarian as Trump. Rashida Tlaib and AOC represent different, but potentially similar transformative figures who might win the presidency and seek to reshape the system according to their own values – a couple of prospects no less chilling than the current occupant.
Time and patience indeed.
Mactoul
Mar 19 2025 at 4:04am
This opinion may well be shared by millions. I don’t see why this position should be so utterly beyond the pail. America at present must be exceptional in allowing insult to the national flag.
Jose Pablo
Mar 19 2025 at 12:18pm
Why only a loss of citizenship or a year in jail? Why not 100 lashes in a public square—after all, the main purpose of such a punishment is to be seen—or even the death penalty?
A crime as egregious as this, causing devastating economic losses and clear harm to others (reports abound of people suffering severe depression after witnessing such a horrifying event), should not be taken so lightly.
Craig
Mar 19 2025 at 9:05am
” I must confess that I don’t understand people who believe that Trump threatens the Constitution and the Republic less than Biden did or Harris would have done”
Of note is that you commented on Trump’s rhetoric: “One of the numerous examples I like is when he said that burning the flag should result in “loss of citizenship or year [sic] jail.”
Of course he’d have needed the legislative branch to pass a statute and then the judicial branch to pass on the eventual challenge to its constitutionality. Indeed there is a case on that because there was a state statute in TX which the Supreme Court ruled to be unconstitutional and then somehow the federal government felt a federal prohibition might stand scrutiny somehow? Not sure what that logic was, but they passed the law, indeed that law was entitled:
“Biden-Roth-Cohen Flag Protection Act of 1989″
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/101/s1338
Joey B himself
Trump’s blociation vs Joey B actually taking affirmative actions to criminalize flag burning…..hmmmm
JoeF
Mar 18 2025 at 8:41pm
You mentioned (and almost winked) that a ruler might be an ignorant idiot, thus highlighting the danger of personal power. What if a ruler were (wink) a senile man? The ruler would then have no “personal power.” Yet power would still exist, somewhere in the government. Is this not equally dangerous?
Jose Pablo
Mar 19 2025 at 12:41pm
That depends on how many people were willing to blindly follow the senile man. As it turned out, not too many were.
It seems that, somehow, ignorant fools have a broader appeal.
Roger McKinney
Mar 19 2025 at 9:28am
Though an atheist, Hume assumed the Christian doctrine of original sin. In opposition, atheists and socialists after Hume invented the nonsense that people are born good and turn bad only because of oppression.
Comments are closed.