What is the difference between a free government and an arbitrary one?

1. WHAT HE SAID (the record)

Record ledger

• BELIEF (undated): Thomas Gordon believed that a free government is one where true liberty and religion coexist, and that arbitrary governments, whether Protestant or Popish, are tyrannical and harmful to the liberty and property of the subject. He argued that military governments are all alike in their oppressive nature. "Military Governments are all alike; nor does the Liberty and Property of the Subject fare a bit the better or the worse, for the Faith and Opinion of the Soldiery." [1]
• BELIEF (1733): Thomas Gordon believed that a free government respects laws and the rights of its citizens, while an arbitrary government acts without legal authority and imposes oppressive measures. He criticized a king for dissolving Parliament, waging unjust wars, imposing taxes without consent, imprisoning subjects, and establishing arbitrary courts, all of which he viewed as hallmarks of tyranny. "This King's whole Reign was one continued Act against the Laws: He dissolved his first Parliament for presuming to enquire into his Father's Death, though he lost a great Sum of Money by it, which they had voted him: He entered at the same time into a War with France and Spain, upon the private Piques of Buckingham, who managed them to the eternal Dishonour and Reproach of the English Nation;" [2]
• BELIEF (1733): Thomas Gordon argues that between Law and Violence, between Right and Tyranny, there is no Medium. He believes that if a ruler acts without right, it is tyranny, and that laws and oaths lose force under such rule. He contrasts a free government, which upholds liberty and law, with an arbitrary one, which enforces oppression and enslavement. "Between Law and Violence, between Right and Tyranny, there is no Medium, no more than between Justice and Oppression." [3]
• BELIEF (1733): Thomas Gordon believed that a free government is one under the free course of laws, where the Crown does not abandon its duty or violate the Coronation Oath, and where people are not oppressed or robbed. He contrasted this with an arbitrary government, which becomes lawless, treads upon law and justice, and promotes principles of slavery. [4]
• BELIEF (undated): Thomas Gordon believed that a free government is one where the ruler listens to the remonstrances of subjects and parliaments, is willing to change opinions, respects privileges, and seeks counsel rather than asserting prerogative. He contrasted this with an arbitrary government, where the ruler claims state affairs are beyond the subjects' reach and resists advice. (key quote above) [5]
• BELIEF (undated): Thomas Gordon believed that free governments are more changeable in their structure compared to single and arbitrary governments. He argued that this mutability is a distinguishing characteristic between the two types of governments. "Why Free Governments are more changeable in their Frame, than such as are Single and Arbitrary." [6]
• BELIEF (undated): Thomas Gordon believed that free governments are preferable to arbitrary ones because they are based on laws and limitations, ensuring the security and glory of both the prince and the people, whereas arbitrary governments lead to misery, insecurity, and mutual distrust between rulers and subjects. "The Condition of free States, how preferable to that of such as are not free." [7]
• BELIEF (undated): Thomas Gordon discusses free and arbitrary governments in Discourse V, arguing that free governments are characterized by liberty and the rule of law, while arbitrary governments are marked by the concentration of power and the absence of legal constraints on rulers. "Of Governments Free and Arbitrary, More Especially That of the Cæsars." [8]
• BELIEF (undated): Thomas Gordon believes that in a free government, people accept burdens imposed by law because they assume laws are based on reason and necessity, while in an arbitrary government, people see impositions as tyrannical because they come from the will of one person. He argues that free governments promote industry and wealth, which lead to peace, while arbitrary governments cause unrest and a desire for change, even at great risk. (key quote above) [9]
• BELIEF (undated): Thomas Gordon believed that in a free government, attempts to reform it are generally popular and judged to be safe, but can lead to its destruction if misguided, while in an arbitrary government, such attempts are considered high treason and are met with severe punishment. This distinction is based on his observations about the nature of both types of governments and their responses to reform. "In an arbitrary State, every Attempt to mend it is high Treason; and it is secured by continual Jealousy, and sudden Executions; as I have already observed." [10]

What cuts against it

• BELIEF (undated): Thomas Gordon believed that free governments are more changeable in their structure compared to single and arbitrary governments. This suggests that while he saw stability in arbitrary governments, he still preferred the mutability of free ones. "Why Free Governments are more changeable in their Frame, than such as are Single and Arbitrary." [6]

• ACTION (undated): Gordon's belief in the necessity of standing armies for defense could be seen as a potential contradiction to his advocacy for free government, as standing armies are often associated with arbitrary power. However, he argued that the problem was not the army itself but the nature of the government that controlled it. "That we must either receive the Pretender, or keep up great Armies to keep him out, is frightful and unnatural Language to English Ears." [1]

• BELIEF (undated): Gordon acknowledged that free governments can be undone by misguided reform attempts, which might suggest a vulnerability in free systems. "Free States particularly are liable to be undone, and have been undone, by Attempts to reform them, at least covered and carried on under that Pretence." [10]

• BELIEF (undated): Gordon noted that free governments can be more susceptible to internal strife and corruption, which might imply a risk of instability. "The Advantages which a free State furnisheth against itself." [10]

2. HOW IT APPLIES (reasoning; inference is marked)

1. Thomas Gordon believed that a free government is characterized by the rule of law, where laws are based on reason and necessity, and where the people accept burdens imposed by law. "People will be quiet and patient under burdens, however heavy, which Law lays on; for they suppose that laws are founded upon reason and necessity." [9]

2. In contrast, an arbitrary government is marked by the concentration of power in a single ruler, where impositions are seen as tyrannical because they come from the will of one person. "Where the Government is arbitrary and severe, the oppressed people will be apt to think that no change can make their condition worse." [9]

3. Gordon argued that free governments promote industry and wealth, leading to peace, while arbitrary governments cause unrest and a desire for change, even at great risk. "Hence too the industry and wealth, and consequently the peaceableness of the country." [9]

4. He also believed that in a free government, the people retain their supremacy and the right to resist tyranny, whereas in an arbitrary government, power is acquired through usurpation or tyranny. "It is indeed declaring one self an Advocate for Tyranny, to instance the State of the Roman Commonwealth, even under Augustus, as a Precedent for absolute Monarchies." [11]

5. Gordon emphasized that in a free government, the ruler listens to the remonstrances of subjects and parliaments, is willing to change opinions, and respects privileges, while in an arbitrary government, the ruler claims state affairs are beyond the subjects' reach and resists advice. "He always heard with great patience the remonstrances of his Subjects and Parliaments, nor was ashamed to change his opinion, or to depart from points of prerogative." [5]

3. HIS TAKE

Record coverage: DIRECT

Extrapolation: Thomas Gordon directly addressed the difference between a free government and an arbitrary one in his writings. He argued that a free government is characterized by the rule of law, where laws are based on reason and necessity, and where the people accept burdens imposed by law. In contrast, an arbitrary government is marked by the concentration of power in a single ruler, where impositions are seen as tyrannical because they come from the will of one person. Gordon believed that free governments promote industry and wealth, leading to peace, while arbitrary governments cause unrest and a desire for change, even at great risk. He also emphasized that in a free government, the people retain their supremacy and the right to resist tyranny, whereas in an arbitrary government, power is acquired through usurpation or tyranny.

Competing readings:

• One reading is that Gordon's belief in the mutability of free governments suggests a potential vulnerability in free systems, which might imply a risk of instability. [6]

• Another reading is that Gordon's acknowledgment of the potential for free governments to be undone by misguided reform attempts might suggest a risk of internal strife and corruption. [10]

Confidence: High

The record directly supports Gordon's position on the difference between a free government and an arbitrary one, with multiple passages providing clear and consistent arguments. The competing readings are based on inferences from the record, but the direct evidence is strong and unambiguous.