@xris,
Quote: You [xris here refers to me—JM] restrict government by restricting its ability to create laws that allow freedom.
This is the opposite of what the FF believed which was to slow down the legislative process. This is apparent in their reasons cited in the Federalist writings and in deed. In the very first paragraph of Federalist No.1 Publius (Hamilton) strives for self government by "reflection and choice" rather then past government models from "accident and force". The Constitution they wrought is intentionally chock full of impediments to legislation: The process of legislation through a bicameral congress, the Presidential veto, the staggering of elections and different terms for congressional members and later Parliamentary procedures such as filibusters and the increased power of judicial review and nullification--all designed to slow the flow of legislation. The perception of restriction is felt by all those impatient for favored legislation but its purpose [of restriction] is to preserve liberty for all Americans and protect the liberties of the minority. A wise man once observed that "Americans are never safer then when Congress is in recess"
But let’s take these four sentences together:
Quote: You restrict government by restricting its ability to create laws that allow freedom. Freedom is not something tangible, bestowed like a gift from heaven. It has to be legalised , restricted. One mans freedom is another's chains.
I have a deep suspicion that all the laws we really need for a just free market society have been codified long ago. I really don’t think man’s passions and interest’s have changed since ancient times, at all. The appearance of more and more laws is now a function of politicians feeling the need to do ‘something’ and the fact that these (certainly at some point) superfluous laws are passed, without due consideration (or Hamilton’s "reflection", if you will) towards said consequences that then present themselves which then leads to even more nuanced legislation that must now correct the aforementioned. These corrections then introduce more unintended consequences-- and so it goes. As far as your classification of freedom as “intangible”, I would counter that its absence, as felt by (as you mentioned) slaves, is, really, quite palpable.
As to your thoughts that Freedom “has to be legalised , restricted.” And that Freedom is “not… bestowed like a gift from heaven “, I have already addressed that argument here at
http://able2know.org/topic/113196-943 . Simply put, freedom is man’s right via his worldly circumstance and the fact that he is a rational being. You may have an argument that individual man’s freedoms must be restricted in certain areas but that must be qualified (by the law), but saying that his freedom, in general, must be restricted will simply not do. (see Ayn Rand’s thoughts on the fact that only force can overcome man’s individual rights (
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_ayn_rand_the_nature_of_government 14th paragraph down )
Quote: Why should your founding fathers feel the need of any government, if it is as you say a tool for restricting freedom?
I, of course, never said any such thing. Government, as constituted by the FF, was intended to increase freedom. Anarchy (no controlling authority) allows for theft, murder, rape, and any number of nasty stuff. This ‘Law of the Jungle’ scenario forces an individual to concentrate almost all his efforts on survival and trying to keep what little he has while disallowing him to honestly and nobly pursue more wealth thru his own means. It encourages ignoble zero sum behavior. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson dated October 17, 1788, Madison
remarked:
Quote:“Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the
danger of oppression. In our Governments the real power lies in the
majority of the community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly
to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the
sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the
mere instrument of the major number of the Constituents. This is a
truth of great importance, but not yet sufficiently attended to.”
So a government used as your “tool” or Madison’s “mere instrument” in the hands of a majority threatens the liberty of, at least, the minority, if not all concerned. A smaller more circumscribed government automatically presents a smaller threat towards its citizens. Said prescribed government is defined in the U.S. constitution. Where I and other true conservatives differ with many Republicans (Democrats are not really concerned with this, after all they are Progressives) is how strictly the Constitution, a legal document, should be interpreted.
Quote: I dont admire them as you do , I see them as just opportunists with self interest at heart. When slavery was acceptable, the exploitation of Indian lands a requirement, I cant see any reason to worship them, only accept they were men of historic importance. Communists , colonialists is there some kind of acceptability with one kind of history as opposed to the other?
Who do you admire? Why?
When considering what these men did and their economic, familial, and existential sacrifices (see Ican’s above list of the Declaration’s signatories and their fates as just a small start) and the time duration of same, the charge of opportunism rings hollow.
The Indian thing is indeed troublesome. But, we must caution against chronological snobbery and armchair quarterbacking here. Indeed, this aspect might warrant its own thread.
As to slavery, this is a sore subject to this day. But at the time the FFs dealt with it in the context of having a nation or not. The result was a nation with a new Constitution that was the basis for Lincoln’s actions and The Civil Rights Act that necessarily followed and required the initial compromise. Also, it is well known that the southern planters Jefferson and Washington recognized its evil and at least one, Washington, eventually had his slaves set free. Heck, those who are so fond of using the analogy of sausage making as justification for Obamacare and Frank-Dodd financial reform etc, should have little problem with such an initial compromise that allows for correct action, even delayed.
There is another area that begs for discussion like the constitutionality of legislatively created Agencies such as (but not limited to) the EPA. Is congress constitutionally correct in creating such an entity that ignores congressional wishes and is capable of insisting on passing regulations, with the force of law, against which the citizenry have no redress but the courts?
JM
