A Criticism Of David Hume's Declaration Of Independence

Hume on Independence “Absolute monarchy is inconsistent with civil society, and so can be no form of civil government at all; and that the supreme power in a state cannot take from any man, his taxes and impositions, any part of his property, without his own consent or that of his representatives.” (Hume 487). Britain at the time of the American revolution was a parliamentary monarchy, a system utilizing both “traces” (Hume 466) of government. With the monarchical side tracing its power towards a deity, while the parliamentary side based on the consent of the people. Hume argues both these routes have their reasoning, however it is clear he favors tracing power from the people, because it opens the door to the idea of original contract where citizens reserve the power to resist when aggrieved by their government. It is this resistance when aggrieved that the second continental congress apply in their work The Declaration of Independance. However Hume discusses at length the flaws and implausibility of the idea of the original contract. Despite Hume’s criticisms of the original contract, he still believes that consent of the governed is the ideal foundation of government, regardless that government typically doesn't occur
Even accepting deities as real, he claims that, a man cannot be the voice of god on earth in “any other sense than every power or force, being derived from him,” (Hume 467). This trace to power also creates a indisputable right, that if taken as truth delegitimize all forms of rebellion. Dealing with power in the people, hume argues that the first government was one of consent, where a group of people on there own volition, yielded some of their liberty for laws and justice. Before the days of armies, no man possessed enough force to subject the multitudes, so there power must have been given