Submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
In 1780, John Adams succinctly defined the principle of the Rule of Law in the Massachusetts Constitution by seeking to establish “a government of laws and not of men”. This reflects the democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution’s preamble: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The very foundation of our legal system says that the law should work for us all, not just a select few.
This raises the question of what is a good law that serves the majority of society and what is a bad law that doesn’t serve the majority of society?
This idea is further bolstered by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The latter addition of the 14th Amendment as well as the Preamble of the Constitution both reflect the spirit in which this country was founded as set forth in the Declaration of Independence: “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
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. 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. 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.”
Clearly, the pursuit of the Rule of Law under the Constitution as informed by the Declaration is a pursuit of the Utilitarian concept of the right course of action is the one that maximizes the overall good consequences of an action; what is in the best interest of greatest numbers of We the People is in the best interests of the country.
Utilitarianism is a quantitative and reductionist philosophical form. Utilitarianism, however, is not a unified philosophical view. It comes in different flavors with the two primary flavors being Rule Utilitarianism and Act Utilitarianism. Strong Rule Utilitarianism is an absolutist philosophical view and rules may never be broken. Like any absolutist view does not take into account that reality occasionally presents situations where breaking a rule results in the greater good. For example, the strong reductionist rule that murder is bad is countered by the exceptional example of murder is not bad if performed in self-defense or the defense of others. This result of practical application is reflected in what John Stuart Mill called Weak Rule Utilitarianism. It becomes apparent that since not all rules are absolutely enforceable when seeking the common good and exceptional circumstances require flexibility in the law, that the Utilitarian pursuit of the Rule of Law must be in Mill’s Weak Rule formulation of Utilitarianism. But is considering the greater good and circumstantial reasons for breaking or modifying rules the best way to judge whether a law is good or bad?
If one considers Kant’s Categorical Imperative – “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” – then any law not universally applicable should not be a maxim worthy of being recognized as universal. This is contrary to Utilitarianism in general as well as Weak Rule Utilitarianism specifically, but while Kant’s view takes subjectivity into account when dealing with circumstances it does not take into account that there can be objective differences in circumstances as well. It is part of the judiciaries role as a trier of fact to consider not only subjective differences but objective differences in circumstances in formulating the most equitable and just solution to a case at bar. In seeking to be universally applicable in defining maxims, Kant is an absolutist as surely as Strong Rule Utilitarians are absolutists. As a consequence of reality not being neatly binary in nature and thus not often compatible to absolutists approaches to formulating laws for practical application, what can be done to keep Weak Rule Utilitarianism from degenerating into Act Utilitarianism where actors will seek the greatest personal pleasure when presented with a choice rather than the greater good? Utilitarianism conflicting with the Categorical Imperative? Is there a unitary philosophical approach to evaluating whether a law is good or bad?
The answer seems to be no. If there is no single view, absolutist or otherwise, that leads to a practical system for evaluating whether a law is good or bad, then there is only one option for building a framework for evaluation. That option is synthesis.
Consider that absolutist systems as they are not applicable in reality should be confined to being considered theoretical boundaries rather than practical boundaries. This does not negate the value of considering systems like Strong Rule Utilitarianism or Kant’s Categorical Imperative, but rather puts them in the place of aspirational goals rather than practically attainable goals in every circumstance. Given that Mill’s Weak Rule Utilitarianism can degrade into Act Utilitarianism and that degeneration can be compounded by the number of exceptions there are to a rule, are there ways to minimize the defects of using only Weak Rule Utilitarianism to determine the societal value of a law? What supplements can be made to that framework?
I submit that one such supplement is found in the form of Negative Utilitarianism. Negative Utilitarianism is exactly what it sounds like; the inverse function of Utilitarianism. Whereas Utilitarianism is the basic proposition that the right course of action is the one that maximizes the overall good consequences of an action, Negative Utilitarianism is the basic proposition that requires us to promote the least amount of evil or harm, or to prevent the greatest amount of suffering for the greatest number. If one takes both into account in evaluation of the social value of a law (a synthetic approach), the test becomes a balancing act. On one side of the scale is the societal value of overall good consequences, on the other side is the societal value of preventing overall harm. This proposition suggests the following framework for evaluation of whether a law is good or bad.
- How many people benefit from the good consequences of a law?
- How many people benefit from the reduction of harm as consequences of a law?
- Does the benefits from promoting good consequences outweigh the costs of reduction of harm?
- Does the benefits from reducing harm outweigh the costs to the greater good in taking no action?
- Are the net consequences of a law perfectly knowable from either perspective or does the possibility of unforeseeable consequences exist? Can the unforeseeable risks be minimized either by construction of the law(s) to allow for contingencies or by regulating other risks or contributing factors?
- Do solutions from either perspective negatively impact human and/or civil rights? Do those negative impacts outweigh the positive effects to the greater human and/or civil rights of all?
This is but one way to evaluate whether a law is good or bad for society. What are other methods? Are there ways to improve this method? What do you think?
Gene H:
society is individuals. There is no valid societal interest/function but the protection of individual rights.
Yes, words do have meaning. Who decides what the greatest good is?
Does a majority? And the greatest number, how do we determine what the greatest number is? Is it 56%, 78%, 88%? What about the people who are in the minority? Are their rights violated? If they are, how do you square that with the Constitution? How can a majority vote away the rights of the minority?
I do see the larger picture you paint and reject your vision. I want to live as a free individual in a society dedicated to the preservation of individual rights.
@GeneH, You said:
Where did you pull that quote? It was not in my comment.
Roco,
“I have answered your questions as far as I can.”
No, only as far as you are willing.
“You dont give up any freedom when entering into society, you enter society for the protection of your rights, not to give them up to government/society.”
If you think this, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the social contract. Protections have costs. Those costs in organized society is the limitations of rights. In the case of our government, there are certain rights that are specifically protected from encroachment. When you enter the social contract, you agree to abide by common rules (laws) and accept corresponding duties to gain mutual benefits like common defense, protection from self-predation (criminals) and commonly shared and maintained infrastructure.
“Utilitarianism and pragmatism are not good concepts on which to build sound laws.”
As opposed to what? Only doing half the job or basing laws upon wishful thinking? Those are the only two guidelines in the end that can answer this question: Does it work for the betterment and preservation of civil society? You have to realize that the preservation of individual rights is also a valid societal interest – something you discount when you start falling back to your collectivism arguments.
“Utilitarianism’s “the greatest good for the greatest number” means nothing but sounds good.”
Opinion. The words have meaning. Your inability to see the larger picture blinds you to them (or possibly political beliefs blind you to them).
Gene H:
I read your responses to kderosa, very good. But I can never answer your questions, we have a totaly different view of the nature of law, of government and of the individuals relationship to government. We also disagree about pragmatism and utilitarianism.
I have answered your questions as far as I can.
Government is nothing but a tool to protect the individual from harm. Your ideas, while interesting, require a large government to implement them. And they do beg the question kderosa raised, who does the evaluation? Most people would not have the necessary intellectual skills to evaluate the pros and cons of a particular law and so that function would be left to your dreaded plutocracy or oligarchy.
If the individual is taken into account as the basis for evaluating a law’s benefit there should be no conflict with society.
You dont give up any freedom when entering into society, you enter society for the protection of your rights, not to give them up to government/society.
In a state of nature you are at the mercy of those stronger than yourself, you enter into society to protect yourself from those who would take your life or your land. That is why you enter into society and form governments. What would you benefit to enter a society which took your rights, your property and your life?
Utilitarianism and pragmatism are not good concepts on which to build sound laws.
“The two points central to the pragmatist ethics are: a formal rejection of all fixed standards—and an unquestioning absorption of the prevailing standards. The same two points constitute the pragmatist approach to politics, which, developed most influentially by Dewey, became the philosophy of the Progressive movement in this country (and of most of its liberal descendants down to the present day).”
Utilitarianism’s “the greatest good for the greatest number” means nothing but sounds good.
Pete, not surprising that the West Point crowd would not care for TR much. He “smelled of the barracks” to them. Flamboyant, a fighter (literally) and very outspoken. He overwhelmed almost everyone with whom he came into contact. His own troops were not the entirety of the regular army. He was not afraid to lead from the front, unlike many of his fellow officers.
When I think of TR and the enemies he made, I am reminded of Major General Sir Hector Archibald MacDonald who also made a lot enemies in the regular Army. For some interesting reading, Google “Major General Sir Hector MacDonald.”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/21/930794/-Hector-the-Hero:-a-cautionary-tale-about-military-homophobia?detail=hide
kderosa,
“How does a legal system founded on a respect of individual natural rights protect “just a select few” and not “for us all”?”
Government serves all of society and the individual, it just serves them in different ways. Re-read the Preamble. Our laws have always been a balancing act between the rights of the individual and the general welfare of society.
“When you say, “This raises the question of what is a good law that serves the majority of society and what is a bad law that doesn’t serve the majority of society?” You’ve shifted from “all” to just a “majority.” Why? If a law is only good for a majority, wouldn’t this, by definition, not protect “all of us”?”
Because as a matter of pragmatism under a social contract, some actors are going to have to be restrained from action to protect the one from others. The ones restrained from actions deemed bad by society are of course going to complain.
“Why should we even worry about the subjective normative judgment of good or bad? Why not stick with an objective determination of protecting individual natural rights?”
1) Because you don’t retain all of your natural rights under a social contract. The idea that you do is simply wrong. For example, taxes. If you think property rights are absolute under any governmental system that taxes (and they all do), then you are deluding yourself. Your property rights are automatically limited by your contribution to the maintenance of societal structures.
2) It is your opinion that good and bad are subjective normative judgements. Utilitarianism provides a framework for performing a cost/benefit analysis of laws versus outcomes; an objective measurement.
“When you say “Clearly, the pursuit of the Rule of Law under the Constitution as informed by the Declaration is a pursuit of the Utilitarian concept of the right course of action is the one that maximizes the overall good consequences of an action” You again are merely trying to maximize the “overall good” which is not necessarily a “protection of all of us” either. Why the lesser standard?”
It is not a lesser standard. It is a recognition of the reality that government serves both society and the individual which can have competing interests.
“Who determines what is the maximum good?”
Society, the Congress (when not under undue influence), and the Judiciary by the laws they endorse, promulgate and find constitutional (or not).
“Is a maximum good a good that tramples on an individual natural right of some people? A minority of people? Those that can be sacrificed to establish the overall good?”
In some cases yes. That’s why analysis of laws and their utility is important. For example, drug laws. Reducing the number of drug addicts is a valid interest in the general welfare of society. However, in the C/B analysis of the laws surrounding the War on Drugs, the current systems fail a utilitarian test. The government wastes hundreds of millions of dollars a year on the War on Drugs to no discernible net effect on stopping drug addiction. Why is the current methodology failing? It’s based on a law enforcement solution to a public health problem – wrong tool for the job. In addition, the War on Drugs criminalizes a right not specifically addressed by the Constitution, the right to ingest what you please. It’s your body. You should be able to do with it as you please as long as you harm no one else. You also have a set of laws that is at odds with human nature. A certain segment of society has been interested in taking drugs since the first time a shaman found out those mushrooms made you have a very interesting day. Drug use has been around since before civilization. It will be here after society crumbles. If the goal is to minimize the damage to society by addiction (not responsible use mind you, but addiction – a quantifiable medically based condition) while preserving maximum rights, it becomes apparent as a utilitarian C/B analysis that the War on Drugs is an ass backwards failure of an approach that is not only ineffective, but an unnecessary restraint on rights that could be and should be addressed in the objective terms of what the nature of the problems caused by addiction are – a medical issue, not a police issue.
“Isn’t this identical to how the Nazi’s rationalized their laws?”
The Nazis were scapegoating based on race and religion. Their entire ideology as sold to the public was based on distortion designed to one end: allowing them to assume despotic and totalitarian fascist power for the oligarchical hegemony that controlled their political organization. A true utilitarian analysis of the impact of Jews on pre-war German society would not have revealed anything like the rationales they came up with for attempting to implement the Final Solution.
“Only in your delusional attempts to make a correlation that isn’t there.”
The only delusion here is yours.
“Are you comfortable with that? What protections are there in your theory of law to protect your legal system to be abused like the Nazi’s abused theirs?”
Yes I am because I believe in the protections of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That you fail to recognize that our form of government is dually functional – to serve society and protect the individual – is your myopic and self-serving interests made manifest.
“When you claim “If there is no single view, absolutist or otherwise, that leads to a practical system for evaluating whether a law is good or bad, then there is only one option for building a framework for evaluation. That option is synthesis.” Why does protection of individual natural rights not lead to a practical system for evalutaing whether a law is good or bad?:
Because an absolutist view that only considers the protection of individual rights misses half the picture of what the function of government is.
“Why is the only option synthesis; why not just abandon the subjective normative “good or bad” determinant?”
Because it’s only your opinion that utilitarian C/B analysis cannot yield a determination to the question. Synthesis becomes the issue because strict utilitarianism leads to untenable solutions when protecting individual rights. The use of weak rule utilitarianism though provides that you can have additional frameworks for considering utility and as such can be informed by other non-absolutist rational systems in a pragmatic manner with by its very action would be synthetic.
“When you claim “If one takes both into account in evaluation of the social value of a law (a synthetic approach), the test becomes a balancing act. On one side of the scale is the societal value of overall good consequences, on the other side is the societal value of preventing overall harm.” Who gets to so this balancing act?”
We the People by what laws we are willing to tolerate and promulgate as a whole, Congress (when not under undue influence) by the laws they enact on our behalf and the judiciary in their role of determining constitutionality and creating statutory modification through the jurisprudential mechanisms of the English Common Law system.
“This theory explicitly permits some harmful consequences and some bad consequences to occur, how can this possibly be considered “protecting all of us” and not just what is in the best interest of a “select few”?”
No. That’s simply your mischaracterization and opinion. Also a handy bit of projection.
“no doubt the balancers will alsways be part of the select few?”
Not only do you not like your social contract very much, you seem to have an issue with a fundamental cornerstone of it: representational democracy. While I too have issues with Congress, mine are rooted in that under the current system of campaign finance, they are representing the oligarchical business interests over the interests of their constituents. Your objections seem to be that they are getting in the way at all of simply letting you do whatever the Hell you want without fear of repercussion.
“Your theory seems to permit, even endorse, the consequence you look to avoid — favoring the select few over all of us; how can that be the foundation of a proper system of government?”
Again, this is simply your mischaracterization, opinion and projection. The system I advocate for evaluation clearly calls for rationality and concrete analysis of whether laws benefit society at too great a cost to the individual or to society or to tell if the laws fail to benefit society for other reasons as may occur.
Now perhaps you’d like to take a swing at answering the questions I asked Roco.
*************
Roco,
Your additional non-answer was not helpful to answering questions a person with basic logical skills should be able to answer and it was also simply a further promulgation of your opinion. Rules need to be exactly as complex as they need to be to define the system in question. If you don’t think so, compare the rules for Tic-Tac-Toe to the rules of football.
Either you can answer the questions, you can’t or you won’t.
It’s looking increasingly like your answer is that you won’t.
Pete:
You are right I did contradict myself. I should have added that some sort of objective standard would be necessary to give teeth to a civil lawsuit.
Thank you for pointing that out.
OS
my understanding was the regular army didn’t care much for T.R.
Roco
1, July 28, 2011 at 7:49 pm
gENE h:
in my opinion we only need a very small set of laws to protect us.
For example lets take pollution. We all agree that pollution is bad but all we need is the framework of civil law we now have to take a company to task if they pollute our property or harm us. the relief is in the law. It doesnt have to be 10,000 pages of regulations.
If you or a loved one is harmed, grab Mespo and sue the shit out of them.
==========================================================
your words, not mine
i believe in environmental laws.
Gene H:
I honestly dont know how to answer your question. When you play sports you need a rule book that applies to all equally. But those are objective within the limits of the sport and they are not 10,000 pages long.
The laws are so that all players may understand the limits of the game so that the game is fair to both sides.
hope that helps.
@Roco: The problem you encounter is ***INFORMATIONAL***.
There are things we know statistically we cannot trace to an individual. For a real life example, consider the incidence of autism. In the USA, the incidence of autism correlates pretty highly with the average level of heavy metals in the air, as measured year round. There is a lot of variance in that level in the USA, and it is highest in towns whose economies rely on heavy industry and refining, and quite reliably, the higher the level of heavy metals, the higher the incidence of autism, and vice versa.
But if somebody has an autistic child in an industrial city, which of dozens or hundreds of manufacturers shall they sue? They cannot prove that any heavy metal in their son’s brain came from any specific company; it could have come from any or (more probably) all of them. Doctors and researchers won’t even agree this is the cause of autism. In fact that is the nature of cancer, too. You cannot prove the pesticide you ate last year gave you cancer this year, because you are going to have trouble even proving that you ate it last year, or that some apple you didn’t wash before eating it came from a particular grower. So even if we know a pesticide has a tendency to cause cancer, you cannot prove harm, because you do not have the information you need to prove anything.
And certainly, if you believe people should act in their own selfish interest, then wouldn’t you think it would be in a manufacturer’s or farmer’s best interest to make damn sure there is no way for consumers to trace their commodity product back to them, specifically to avoid lawsuits?
The problem with pollution is that the harm is effectively anonymous. What people think they “know” falls far short of proof in a court of law. Cancers can happen spontaneously. There is usually no way to prove HOW a cancer started, or if it was a cosmic ray (act of God) or molecule of poison you inhaled from the exhaust of a passing car. You don’t KNOW who to sue, and in a real sense it is unknowable.
But we DO know, statistically, that the pollution causes cancer, or brain damage, or autism, or emphysema, and is causing real damage to real people. It is the government’s job to protect people from bad actors, and especially bad actors earning a profit from harming others. Regulation is the only way to accomplish that protection: We do not have to have a specific victim we can parade about to say a plant cannot belch mercury vapor into the atmosphere; it harms people, it kills people, and it has to stop. The same goes for other forms of pollution and ingredients, like lead in paint. We regulate it because we know we have real victims but all the information about who is specifically to blame for a particular victim is long gone.
Pete:
there is nothing wrong with having pollution standards, so long as pollution is clearly defined and involves clear, provable physical harm by some individuals to other individuals.
You would need those standards anyway to have Mespo sue the shit out your neighbor.
Roco, my great-grandfather was there. A sergeant. He loved TR and later in life always referred to him as Colonel Roosevelt rather than President. My g-grandfather felt that Colonel was the more important title to him, since he was one of the troops who rode up that hill with TR. His admiration for TR was based on a combination of fearlessness, courage and the way he treated his men. He never asked a private to do anything in combat he was not willing to do himself.
Here is the citation for his Medal of Honor. It was to be almost a hundred years after being nominated before it was awarded, all because of politics. He made an awful lot of powerful people angry.
http://www.cmohs.org/recipient-detail/2178/roosevelt-theodore.php
@pete, explain how permitting direct, foreseeable pollution damage to neighboring properties and permitting the law to pierce the corporate veil to reach individuals for causing said damage is prohibited under a natural rights theory of law? Clearly in such a situation the polluters have violated another citizen’s natural rights.
Roco,
No. I’m asking the right questions. You are refusing to answer them.
“Why do you always wont to control people?” Mischaracterization.
“I am all for the . . . ” Opinion.
“What I dont believe in is . . . : Opinion.
Answer the questions or admit you cannot or will not.
Mike S:
I dont care for TR, I think he was a schmuck [sp?]. I heard from a Cuban lawyer that San Juan Hill didnt happen as TR said it did. Something about a bunch of people running in front of him. Do you know anything about that?
Roco
1, July 29, 2011 at 9:28 am
Pete:
If the people are going to dump toxic waste on their property do you think they are going to do it in broad daylight whether there is a prohibition or not?
========================================================
if i bought the property for the purpose of dumping waste, why not. you own the adjoining property not me. i’m not going to live or raise my family anywhere near this place.
if there are no laws against dumping, and the only thing i have to worry about is a lawsuit from you then i can incorporate an LLC, buy the property i wish to dump on. when you get sick and get mespo to sue me the only thing you can attach to are the assets of the LLC.
how do you like your PCB’s, benzine’s, and/or coal sludge, straight up or on the rocks?
How do you protect individuals from others without rules that are controls on the behavior of others?
How do you protect the rights of one without rules that apply to all?
Gene H:
you arent asking the right questions. Why do you always wont to control people?
I am all for the use of an objective set of laws to guide men in their actions. A set of laws stating explicitly what is allowed and what penalties, if any, for breaking those laws would be incurred.
By your questions you seem to think I do not believe in the rule of law. What I dont believe in is some little clerk in the EPA or the USDA or HUD making arbitrary laws which are not grounded in reality but in their own whim. In other words non-objective law based on belief rather than science or some other objective standard.
@GeneH,
Since we’re in answering questions mode, I have a few:
How does a legal system founded on a respect of individual natural rights protect “just a select few” and not “for us all”?
When you say, “This raises the question of what is a good law that serves the majority of society and what is a bad law that doesn’t serve the majority of society?” You’ve shifted from “all” to just a “majority.” Why? If a law is only good for a majority, wouldn’t this, by definition, not protect “all of us”?
Why should we even worry about the subjective normative judgment of good or bad? Why not stick with an objective determination of protecting individual natural rights?
When you say “Clearly, the pursuit of the Rule of Law under the Constitution as informed by the Declaration is a pursuit of the Utilitarian concept of the right course of action is the one that maximizes the overall good consequences of an action” You again are merely trying to maximize the “overall good” which is not necessarily a “protection of all of us” either. Why the lesser standard? Who determines what is the maximum good? Is a maximum good a good that tramples on an individual natural right of some people? A minority of people? Those that can be sacrificed to establish the overall good? Isn’t this identical to how the Nazi’s rationalized their laws? Are you comfortable with that? What protections are there in your theory of law to protect your legal system to be abused like the Nazi’s abused theirs?
When you claim “If there is no single view, absolutist or otherwise, that leads to a practical system for evaluating whether a law is good or bad, then there is only one option for building a framework for evaluation. That option is synthesis.” Why does protection of individual natural rights not lead to a practical system for evalutaing whether a law is good or bad? Why is the only option synthesis; why not just abandon the subjective normative “good or bad” determinant?
When you claim “If one takes both into account in evaluation of the social value of a law (a synthetic approach), the test becomes a balancing act. On one side of the scale is the societal value of overall good consequences, on the other side is the societal value of preventing overall harm.” Who gets to so this balancing act? This theory explicitly permits some harmful consequences and some bad consequences to occur, how can this possibly be considered “protecting all of us” and not just what is in the best interest of a “select few”? no doubt the balancers will alsways be part of the select few? Your theory seems to permit, even endorse, the consequence you look to avoid — favoring the select few over all of us; how can that be the foundation of a proper system of government?
Roco,
Politicians make speeches, but Roosevelt wrote nine books and his views are clearly what I stated, as he stated in writing. Look, I was shocked too when I discovered this since I always thought TR was a good President. however, he was a racist, who believed in the superiority of his class and openly wrote about it. He was also a massive egotist and saw himself as a great hero of mythic proportions. For one reference see Slotkin “Gunfighter Nation” Chapter Two where TR’s attitudes and words are well documented, not just a matter of opinion.