Last week we discussed political systems, including democracy. This week we are discussing different legal systems, including the common law. I think that it is important to recognize that democracy, free markets and the common law share a common focus. That focus is the importance of the individual.

The common law grew up in the small villages of England after William the Conqueror invaded the country in 1066. The early development of the common law was pretty crude, and did not much resemble the common law of today. But, common law courts did administer justice in small towns with independence from the king. The development of juries began. At first juries were towns people selected because they knew something about the case. Today, juries are selected because they do not have any predetermined opinion about the guilt of the defendant, and they are only to look at the evidence presented in court to make their decision.

Between the early development of the common law and the Enlightenment of the 18th Century, there were several historical developments limiting the arbitrary power of the King, and granting individuals rights as Englishmen. By second half of the eighteenth century, philosophers and intellectuals were busy debating ways in which the freedom of the individual could be protected against tyranny.

Property rights were often discussed. Property was thought to be the embodiment of the individual's labor. If he cleared land and built a home, he should have control over what he had created. If he crafted wood into a table, he should be able to control what becomes of the table, including selling or trading the table to another. This control over the product of one's labor countered the authority of the crown to arbitrarily take it from a person. Property rights developed as a protection of the individual from tyranny.

In April of 1776, Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations. This was the start of modern economics. However, many today still mistake Adam Smith's main point. He was not arguing that there was simply a better way to create more stuff. More stuff was not the main goal. For millennia rulers had justified their positions arguing that the alternative was chaos. Someone had to impose order. Someone had to make the big decisions. Otherwise civilization could not exist. Smith called his free market system a "system of liberty." His argument was that you could have a system in which the individual was free to makes his own decision, and that through self-organizing markets individuals could enjoy both freedom and economic wellbeing.

Three months later, Thomas Jefferson attacked another justification for rule by a King. The King claimed authority from God to rule over his empire. Jefferson responded:

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.--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.

Jefferson said that the King had it exactly wrong. God did not give authority to the King, but rather to each individual. Thus, governments could only justly govern when they have the consent of the individuals in a society to do so.

In 1787, the founders of the United States met in Philadelphia to develop a new form of government. For many of the delegates at the convention, there was fear that the new government would fail to protect the rights of the individual. During the process of ratification agreement was reached, that the new Constitution would be ratified if it would be quickly amended to include a "Bill of Rights" guaranteeing protection from individual rights against the power of the new government.

Thus, in 1791 the first ten amendments were added to the Constitution. The First Amendment includes the right to free speech, the right to worship as you choose, the right of a free press. The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from arbitrary acts of power. The federal government cannot deny a person "life, liberty or property without due process of law." If the government does take property for a public use, the government must pay fair value for the property. After the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment was added to the constitution requiring that the state government protect these rights, as well. In addition, the Fourteenth Amendment requires that all people receive the "equal protection of the law."

Thus, democracy, free markets and the common law share a common intellectual heritage. Each of these systems developed from a common question. "How can the rights of the individual be protected from tyranny?"