United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: No, The American Founders Were Not Libertarians
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/02 ... can-founders-not-libertarians/
Published: May 2, 2017
Author: Jonathan Ashbach
Post Date: 2018-01-25 08:43:41 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 3272
Comments: 148
Libertarians are still trying to claim the American Founding as theirs. One occasionally hears the argument that the principles of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are libertarian. One of the most recent instances of this claim resides in Nikolai Wenzel’s first-rate defense of libertarianism in “Selfish Libertarians and Socialist Conservatives?” (Stanford: 2017). Yet a closer look at the Founders’ thought about government makes clear that it was anything but libertarian. Wenzel notes there are different types of libertarianism. He clarifies that “unless I specify otherwise, I will use the term libertarian to mean minarchy.” Minarchist libertarianism holds that government exists only to protect individuals’ rights. “A libertarian government is forbidden from doing almost everything,” Wenzel states. “In fact, a libertarian government is empowered to do only one thing: defend individual rights.” Wenzel’s argument for a libertarian Founding rests largely on the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Indeed, his claims do seem superficially persuasive. The Constitution limits the federal government to the exercise of a few specific powers. Surely, this is a classic instance of libertarian philosophy limiting the sphere of government, is it not? As Wenzel argues, “By and large, the enumerated powers granted to the federal government under Article I, section 8, are in line with libertarian philosophy.” He recognizes that elements of the Constitution violate libertarian principles, but his overall evaluation is that “The U.S. Constitution was largely a libertarian document.” The Declaration, argues Wenzel, is more explicitly libertarian. It declares that all possess natural rights and that governments are created to protect those rights. “There, then,” says Wenzel, “is the political philosophy of the Declaration: The purpose of government is to protect rights. Period.” He calls this “a minimalist philosophy with which any libertarian would agree.” The Fatal Flaw: A Different Understanding of Rights So far, all of this sounds quite convincing, but there is a fatal flaw in Wenzel’s argument. Both libertarians and the American Founders describe the purpose of government as the protection of rights. But by “rights” they mean two very different things. For Wenzel, respecting others’ rights simply means refraining from coercion. The state exists only to protect rights, and therefore, “the state itself may not engage in any coercion, except to prevent coercion.” He argues that participants in immoral trades, such as “The drug pusher, the prostitute, and the pornographer,” do not violate others’ rights “as long as they do not coercively impose their wares on others.” Nor does the polygamist. Wenzel’s coauthor Nathan Schlueter points out the problem with this position: “Libertarianism essentially denies that…moral harms exist and maintains that the only real injustice is coercion. Accordingly, it promotes a legal regime in which some individuals are legally entitled to harm others in noncoercive ways.” Wenzel assumes that only coercion violates rights. The Founders profoundly disagreed. A Second Look at the Founding Creed Think again about the alleged libertarianism of the Founding documents. Wenzel makes a common mistake in assuming that the limitation of the national government to a few specific enumerated powers reflects libertarian belief. But this limitation has nothing to do with libertarianism. It has everything to do with federalism. The federal government was only created to fulfill certain limited, particular purposes. It was not created to do everything the Founders believed government should do. Most of those functions—and, on the whole, those less compatible with libertarianism—were entrusted to the states. The fact that the enumerated powers of the federal government are largely consistent with libertarianism does not mean the Founders were libertarians. It means nothing at all, in fact. It is a conclusion based on only half the data. Actually, the enumeration of federal powers is more an accident of history than anything else. James Madison’s original proposal was that the national government simply possess blanket authority “to legislate in all cases to which the separate States are incompetent.” The Constitutional Convention ultimately chose to list its powers, believing this was less liable to abuse, but this decision was by no means dictated by the Founders’ beliefs about government. As for the Declaration, it does not say that government exists only to protect individuals’ life, liberty, and property. A libertarian right to be free of coercion is not intended here. Instead, the Declaration states that life and liberty are included “among” the natural rights of mankind, as is something else referred to as “the pursuit of happiness.” The right to happiness was not simply sweet-sounding rhetoric. It was the centerpiece of the Founders’ political theory. Government for the Common Good The Founders’ political theory was not libertarian, because they believed that the preeminent human right was happiness. The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, for example, states: “All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness” (emphases added). As the language makes clear, the rights of man could be expressed as a list of rights that includes life, liberty, and property. But the great right that encompassed all others was the right to pursue (or even obtain!) happiness. Assertions of this right to happiness appear in many Founding-Era writings, including other state constitutions. The purpose of government, in turn, was to help people achieve happiness by promoting their good. Delegate to the Constitutional Convention James Wilson wrote one of the most thorough expositions of the Founding philosophy—his famous “Lectures on Law.” In them, he explains that the purpose of government is to promote the well-being of those subject to it: “Whatever promotes the greatest happiness of the whole,” that is what government should do. Once again, this sort of talk is commonplace. Twelve of the 13 original states adopted a constitution in the Founding Era. Every one of these states described the purpose of government as promoting the well-being of citizens. The New Hampshire constitution of 1784 is typical, holding that “all government…is…instituted for the general good.” What Conservative Governance Means Because the general good includes the moral good, this meant discouraging immoral behavior. Wenzel speaks of voluntary drug and sexual matters as beyond the purview of a libertarian government. But such laws were universal in early America. Thus Mark Kann writes in “Taming Passion for the Public Good” that “the state’s right to regulate sexual practices…was undisputed” in early America, and Wilson notes bigamy, prostitution, and indecency as offenses subject to punishment on Founding political theory. Similarly, in “Federalist” 12, Alexander Hamilton cites the beneficial impact on morals as a justification for federal taxation of alcoholic imports. The Founders used government to discourage other noncoercive activities, as well. In 1778, Congress recommended to the states “suppressing theatrical entertainments, horse-racing, gambling, and such other diversions as are productive of idleness, dissipation, and a general depravity of principles and manners.” In his book, “The People’s Welfare,” William Novak details the extensive regulation of everything from lotteries and usury to Sunday travel, coarse language, and poor relief that was the norm during the Founding Era. The American Founders believed that government exists to protect rights, just as libertarians do. But their understanding of rights was radically different from the libertarian understanding. Libertarians like Wenzel believe that protecting rights means prohibiting coercion. The Founders believed that protecting rights meant seeking the moral and material well- being of society. The American Founding was conservative, not libertarian. Libertarians will have to look elsewhere to support their beliefs. Jonathan Ashbach is a PhD student in politics at Hillsdale College. Jonathan has worked in the hospitality industry and as assistant editor for the Humboldt Economic Index. His work has also been published on Patheos and Christianity Today.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-26) not displayed.
.
.
.
#27. To: Tooconservative (#19)
Yet you felt comfortable characterizing the Founders as Libertarians.
True. He, and they - all of them - would have known that their state had its laws and enforced them, so there was no need for the federal government to be involved in criminal law matters. None of them would have imagined that sodomy would be IMPOSED on the states by the Federal judiciary. Had they foreseen THAT, we would have a different judicial system.
Oh no, the longer cartoon with the 24 types was really very funny and right on target. You should post the whole thing.
I would say it matters how you define a Libertarian. If it it means you are free to live your moral life without a lot of government influence, then they were Libertarians.
I don't need to meet people to comment on the principles of Libertarianism. And those principles advocate minimal government intervention. A Libertarian, for example, doesn't need to favor abortion or oppose abortion. A Libertarian simply believes the government should not be involved in the decision. That is an amoral (or non-moral, if you prefer) position.
Hah! Like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall. "If it means you are free to live your moral life without a lot of government influence, then they were Libertarians." Libertarianism is not about morality. Libertarianism is about keeping the government away from the individual. If the individual leads a moral life or an immoral life, Libertarians don't care. That makes them amoral. Which was the point.
Some people want the freedom to use drugs, but I want the freedom to raise my young and impressionable children in a drug-free environment. Now what?
Granted, --- "An immoral person commits acts that violate society's moral norms." But an amoral person, while understanding these norms, rejects the concept that a 'moral majority' can dictate what is right and wrong for everyone. Many rules that are made by a majority restrict the non violent activities,-- the basic human rights of everyone else. Legislating morality is unconstitutional.. --- Reasonably regulating public activities is a power given by the people to State/local governments..
Prison. Build a wall with razor wire around your place so the kids don't escape. It's for the children! Some people want the freedom to use drugs, but I want the freedom to raise my young and impressionable children in a drug-free environment. Now what? --- misterwhite Why does misterwhite imagine that others using drugs (in private, because of reasonable regulations against public use) will affect his impressionable kids? Why can't be raise his kids to be aware of the dangers of drug usage? -- What, he needs laws to protect his kids from his bad parenting?
Liberty is a gift from God? I'm sticking with the "Hostilitarian" perspective on that: I HAVE SWORN UPON THE ALTAR OF GOD ETERNAL HOSTILITY TO EVERY FORM OF TYRANNY OVER THE MIND OF MAN -- Thomas Jefferson
You seem to object more to what you consider a lack of morality by libertarians. Surely you are not complaining foremost that libertarians completely lack any sense or consciousness of morality.
Yet you felt comfortable characterizing the Founders as Libertarians. What do you think your point is? The Founders themselves were far from being a monolithic group. Look how quickly the Federalist and Antifederalist factions squared up to fight it out politically. Many of the Founders were quite concerned to prevent other Founders from taking the country in a particular direction.
Great points. You could elaborate at book length on these topics, the big Philosophy Of Government issues.
Philosophically, yes. Absolutely. Otherwise, it is a mere privilege to be granted by a government arbitrarily and revoked at any time. The Declaration took the same position, that King George III was taxing us without representation and was running roughshod on the colonies, making him a tyrant. The Declaration radically argued (for the era) that a lawful monarch could become a tyrant and therefore abdicate the fealty of his subjects (the colonial rebels, i.e. the Founders). Even if you're an atheist, you should insist that God is the Author of our natural rights, as enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Otherwise, you don't have any rights, just privileges granted, the same way a drivers license is a privilege granted by the state. A right is far more valuable than a privilege.
Hey dumbass yes I'm talking to you dumbass murder and Steeling are immoral and they are illegal I guess they should be legal huh dumbass?
One man's stupid idea is always someone else's great point. Meh.
Many rules that are made by a majority restrict the non violent activities,-- the basic human rights of everyone else. Legislating morality is unconstitutional.. --- Reasonably regulating public activities is a power given by the people to State/local governments.. A K A ---- Hey -------- ------ ----- murder and Steeling are immoral and they are illegal I guess they should be legal --- ------? Murder and 'Steeling' are violent criminal acts that every government has made illegal. The people of the USA gave them that power. Our various levels of government have never been given the power to legislate morality.. Only a dumbass would think that govts could even define what is 'moral'. much less make constitutional laws that criminalize 'sinful' acts..
What an admission you made. Every country legislated morality.
You speak out of both sides of ylur ass. Stealing is immoral and it is illegal everywhere. You lose. Checkmate.
Yo boss, --- I loose. Maybe I'll celebrate your triumph by joining you in a cocktail, seeing it's almost 5pm here.. When did you get started, at lunch?
Now what? Now what? Well, as always, there being no solution to an either/or problem, the disagreement is resolved by power.
And that would be the power of the majority of people acting through their elected representatives.
Yes. And today we might label some as liberals and some as conservatives, yet you you you chose to label all of them "Libertarians With Exceptions". Why not "Conservatives With Exceptions"?
Maybe I'll celebrate your triumph by joining you in a cocktail, seeing it's almost 5pm here.. When did you get started, at lunch? Of course you lose. You made a stupid statement that was easily demonstrated as false. If getting some cocktails makes you feel better then go ahead get drunk if that is your thing.
The conservatives of the era were all royalist Tories. And back then, some of them actually would pack up and move out of the country. Many moved to Toronto. Which we then burned (retaliation for burning D.C.). The Founders were the biggest radicals of their era. Only the later French Revolution (Reign of Terror) was more radical until you get to the many revolutions around 1850 when the power of Europe's monarchs were finally broken, in large part because of America's ongoing "bad example". The Founders were not conservatives. They were fairly radical Englishmen living in English colonies.
Got it. The conservatives were a monolithic group. Probably the liberals, too. Only Libertarians can claim not to be monolithic.
None of them are actually monolithic but some come closer. Republicans in Blue states are nowhere close to conservatives from the Bible Belt. Similarly, the liberal-Left Xlinton faction of the Dems (probably still a voting majority) is much more numerous than the noisier Bernie Bros Bolsheviki. And libertarians are a mixed bag too. So were the Founders. That was kinda the point I was making. I'll repeat my point: the Founders were far and away the most radical political thinkers of the entire Enlightenment era. And their republic endures today, well over two centuries later, something you can't say for other democratic countries (excepting Britain). The others all fell into dictatorship or conquest at one point or another or they are far younger governments than ours is. Our relative isolation helped but our political system, despite its many flaws, is more resilient than the parliamentary democracies.
Rarely. Generally it's settled by money power, except in revolutionary circumstances.
Being conquered by an aggressive and stronger foe doesn't count as a failure of democracy. Denmark and Holland were conquered by Nazi Germany in 1940. Truth is, they were going to be conquered by Nazi Germany regardless of the structure of their governments, and regardless of the structure of the German government. When it's elephant versus peanut, peanut always looses, and that loss isn't attributable to some fault in the government model, but to a fault in the aggressive minds of the invader that caused them to invade. After all, the American federal constitutional model failed and was conquered, in 1865, but the other half of the country wielding the same federal constitutional model. The difference between the twin brothers was a matter of muscle strength, not of system.
I don't agree though I grasp your argument. You overstate it to support your premise.
I'll post the statement again. Feel free to easily demonstrate that it is false, -- seeing that you haven't done so yet; -- your opinion on what is,-- or is not 'immoral' is not proof.. Our various levels of government have never been given the power to legislate morality.. Only a dumbass would think that govts could even define what is 'moral'. much less make constitutional laws that criminalize 'sinful' acts..
Let's parse: "the Founders were far and away the most radical political thinkers of the entire Enlightenment era." I can't agree with that. The Jacobins were far more radical - in a bad way. I would agree with you that the Founders were on the cutting edge of practical, realistic, workable political thinking. The Jacobins were bat-shit crazy - we have to renumber the years and rename the months? Really? And bloodthirsty. The result was that they provoked a reaction that consumed them and their movement, and most people were very grateful for more executive Consulate to bring stability, and ultimately for an Emperor. The Founders were revolutionary, but practical. The Jacobins were more radical. "And their republic endures today, well over two centuries later," And that is where the practicality of the founders kicks in. The Jacobins were a lot more radical, but their Red Terror provoked a reaction and their own demise in the reaction that came a year and a half later (the White Terror, which was a whole lot less terrifying...unless you were a Jacobin). So yes, in a reasonably bounded sense I agree with you: the Founders were as radical as anybody could be in that era and produce a survivable government. There were greater radicals, who followed the logic of their movement down the road to proto-communism, mass-execution of the nobility, erasure of religion, and even renaming the months; but that was too extreme to survive. And now I'll say something uncomfortable to me: among the Founders, were those clear visionaries like John Adams who understood that American slavery was an evil that was incompatible with the ideals of the Revolution. He was right. But the practical reality was that the abolition of slavery - with all of the immediate evaporation of wealth that would come with that - was simply too radical for the Enlightenment generation. Adams was morally right, but it could not really be done in 1776. Had Adams prevailed on the moral point, the country would have been stillborn. The South would have remained British, and the North would have been conquered. Slavery was an evil that had to be addressed in another day. There are similar issues today that are simply a bridge too far for the people of our times, though eventually mankind will get there (example: the treatment of animals). " something you can't say for other democratic countries (excepting Britain)." Well, it depends on what you mean by "democratic countries". If you mean countries that have an elected legislature and some sort of franchise for some people, the oldest would be Iceland, whose Altding dates to the 9th century, a whole lot older than British "democracy". The Dutch Republic also predates this era. Britain wasn't really a democracy until the Reform Act of 1832, which is when the British people, properly speaking, got representation in Parliament. Before that, the franchise for Parliament was about 10% of the British population, and that was essentially the same level of voting as were represented in the French and British Parliaments and peerages of the middle ages. Britain was not a democracy in 1776. It was a country in which the merchant class, in the 1600s, overthrew the absolute monarchy and placed a check over it through a Parliament of what amounted to the new nobility. In truth, democracy proper, as we would call it, precedes the Enlightenment. The original American colonies - Virginia with its house of Burgesses, Massachusetts with its General Orders, Connecticut with its written constitution (first in the world) were more democratic than anything that existed anywhere else in the world at the time. Without royal governance, and with all of the demands of immediate action imposed by the frontier, the practical realities of colonial life created local democracies up and down the American seaboard, with the election of all officials. And though the landholding requirement for voting was a bit of a barrier, unlike in England and the rest of Europe, the ready availability of cheap land in America made the franchise quasi universal for white men anyway, in the 70-80% range. Nothing like that existed in England until after the Reforms that started in 1832. So, in truth, the democratic structure of American government is not a product of the Enlightenment at all, but of frontier conditions in the century preceding it. The American democratic government form already existed, the Founders did not create it. What they did was to replace the monarchy with our tripartite government at a national level, bringing into reality the vision of Montesquieu, and that really was Enlightenment thinking. But the state government that was the base model and center of American power, was completely sui generis to British America, and grew up from local conditions that had no precedent in modern Europe.
Your point is more valid that you even know. The oldest continuous democratic government in the world is the government of the State of Massachusetts. The second oldest is the government of the State of Connecticut. Virginia would be the oldest, dating back to 1619, but it's continuity was interrupted by the military occupation in 1865.
Our system is, because at root it is a kritarchy: the really permanent branch of government is the judiciary.
A new form of tyranny, just without the usual abusive monarch. Fundamentally reactionary. And it didn't last because it wasn't just radical, it was rabid. You can't compare the madness of the Reign of Terror with America's Founding. Anyway, that's my story, I'm sticking to it while wrapping myself in the flag. It is a workable argument. I'd mostly go along. And the late medieval state called the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. A few other examples exist. But none were truly durable or remotely comparable to the founding of the American republic. Face it, we're very special. I think you overlook the influence of Calvin's Geneva and the rising availability of quality Greek manuscripts in Europe. Even in England, the wags would say of our rebellion, "Cousin America has eloped with a Presbyterian parson". Not inaccurate though. The Presbyterians were a hotbed of rebels and all of the colonels (except one) in Washington's army were Presbyterian. The primary rebel families all used those Geneva bibles with the seditious footnotes that good King James I hated so much that he commissioned his Authorized Version to displace it. And it did eventually but not in time to help prevent the American Revolution. However, this does point back to your point about the Revolution having many foundations in the issues of the day back in England. We find it easy to think of the Founders as Americans. They weren't. They were rebels against the crown but they were Englishmen through and through and very much men of their era, just as we all are. We're kind of talking around the same points really.
I did know about Massachusetts (darn them). Didn't know that CT was #2 though.
And CT has the distinction of having the oldest WRITTEN constitution (hence the "Constitution State" on the quarter). Massachusetts Bay Colony (and the Massachusetts diaspora (specifically, CT, which was settled by Puritans who left Boston in 1637 because they found it too LIBERAL. LOL!)) also had the first universal public school system in the world. All the way back in the 1620s they were teaching every boy and girl to read, because everybody had to be able to read the Bible. Those "embattled farmers" who stood at Lexington Bridge and "fired the shot heard round the world" were actually, as a group, probably the best-educated people in the world. The men in fancy red uniforms facing them were mostly illiterate. That "rabble" had as much formal education as the English Parliamentarians. The whole population did. This is something that ought to be noted, and that definitely contributed to American victory, though it is rarely commented upon. The British Army marching through the American colonies, and their Prussian allies, were the functional equivalent of a bunch of Kongo illiterates marching around in modern America, trying to control the population. The same was true when British warships were engaging the American ships. The British soldier and seaman was an illiterate ignoramus. Every farm that he marched past in New England had a family in it as well-educated as the nobility of England or France. There was no comparison. The highest concentration of human brainpower on the planet in 1776 was the "rustic" population of New England. When in 1777 the English marched their army under "Gentleman Johnny" Burgoyne, and they were surrounded at Saratoga by New England and New York Minuteman farmers, it was an army of well-armed illiterates who NEEDED officers to guide them, versus a "rustic" army of fully literate men who were able to communicate with each other and back home, etc., in writing. The Redcoats were actually the Rubes. New England was, in fact, a FAR more educated people than London or Paris. It wasn't even close. One of the reasons that the American Revolution was able to stay on the rails of reason, while the French - and later the Russian - revolutions went berserk and animal - is because the Americans were an advanced, literate population, at least North of the Mason-Dixon line. The French peasants and Russian proles were neither, and were carried along much more easily by mob passions. The point: the English were more poorly educated and intellectually inferior to their American adversaries. They were incapable of independent action, and limited by the abilities of their officers. And it showed both in the development of American government FROM THE BEGINNING (in the 1620s) all the way forward. America, at least New England, was the far more educated place in 1776 than England. The English in England were very much like the South: they had an educated and elite gentry, but the average Englishman was as dumb as dirt.
Writing, piffle. It seems obvious you're cleverly trying to sidestep the (initially) unwritten Iroquois constitution which predated our own by a few centuries. I thought it odd you omitted it. NYSlimes: IROQUOIS CONSTITUTION: A FORERUNNER TO COLONISTS' DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES, 6/28/87 That same impluse operated as America spread west and the American Sunday School Union similarly promoted universal literacy across the plains and mountains. Unsung heroes, really. But they had the example of Massachusetts to consider. There was a time when MA really was the universally recognized as a thought leader to the entire country, the indispensable state. Now I suppose people would argue that it is NYC or LA. But no one would mention Boston unless they're one of those asshole Patriots fans (which I am). While their literacy was remarkable for a colony, there were areas of high literacy in Europe and in Britain. I don't think your argument holds up. It didn't take that much education to know that it was easier and safer to hide behind trees and play sniper to terrorize the Redcoats and reduce their numbers. The Brit officers complained bitterly about those dishonorable rebels. Those darned colonists refused to follow the European code of honor for soldiers where the two armies were expected to dutifully line up in the open wearing colorful livery and allow the enemy to take clean shots at them with flintlocks and cannon shot. Anything else was cowardice. That little tradition cost the Brits very dearly. I don't think they ever recovered their morale. You'll recall how much our own military complains about some wily natives resisting our "visits" to their countries and using guerilla tactics against us, resulting in our rather dismal counter-insurgency campaigns. During the Revolution, we were the wily natives with no regard for the honorable traditions of European war. Of course, we would have lost immediately if we had made war according to the customs of the Old World. You are definitely hitting the nail on the head. Hence the remarks of our Founders that our nation can only exist for long with an informed and educated electorate.
The Americans were not the first ones to come up with the idea of a voting council of leaders. Scandinavia mostly had that. So did the Indians. In fact, pretty much everywhere that there are primitive people it starts that way. But once populations get big, through land ownership and greater and lesser wealth, those systems become traditional, while real power reposes with rich houses - who become the nobility. OR the tribe is in an "exciting" location and faces violence from other tribes. Then, the trauma of war creates a warrior caste, and if they are victorious, THEY become the nobility. Sparta had its council, of course, but in the end it was dominated by military captains. Rome marched to war under the banner of SPQR - Senatus Populusque Romani - The Senate and People of Rome - who, by the end, where the two least significant parts of the whole imperial system.
Comments (68 - 148) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"The libertarians are by no means a monolithic group."
#28. To: Tooconservative (#20)
Certainly not Thomas Jefferson who authored the very strict laws against sodomy in his home state of Virginia. Yet he would not have imagined trying to codify this as federal law. Neither would any of the other Founders.
#29. To: hondo68 (#23)
#30. To: misterwhite (#27)
characterizing the Founders as Libertarians.
#31. To: Hank Rearden (#24)
You say that as if you've ever met any of us. Which, obviously, you have not.
#32. To: no gnu taxes (#30)
I would say it matters how you define a Libertarian.
#33. To: hondo68 (#23)
and that government is only authorized to restrict freedom when the freedom of two people are in conflict with each other."
#34. To: Tooconservative (#16)
USAGE Immoral means ‘failing to adhere to moral standards.’ Amoral is a more neutral, impartial word meaning ‘without, or not concerned with, moral standards.’ An immoral person commits acts that violate society's moral norms. An amoral person has no understanding of these norms, or no sense of right and wrong.
#35. To: misterwhite (#33)
Now what?
DACA Shithole Dreamers - Make America Great Again?
#36. To: hondo68, y'all (#23)
hondo68 (#23) ---- government is only authorized to restrict freedom when the freedom of two people are in conflict with each other."
#37. To: A K A Stone (#0)
(Edited)
#38. To: A K A Stone (#25)
No I certainly mean amoral.
#39. To: misterwhite (#27)
"The libertarians are by no means a monolithic group."
#40. To: tpaine (#34)
Legislating morality is unconstitutional.. --- Reasonably regulating public activities is a power given by the people to State/local governments..
#41. To: VxH (#37)
Liberty is a gift from God?
#42. To: tpaine (#34)
Legislating morality is unconstitutional.
#43. To: Tooconservative (#40)
No it is a stupid idea and not a point at all.
#44. To: A K A Stone (#43)
#45. To: A K A Stone (#42)
-- An amoral person, while understanding these norms, rejects the concept that a 'moral majority' can dictate what is right and wrong for everyone.
#46. To: tpaine (#45)
#47. To: tpaine (#45)
Our various levels of government have never been given the power to legislate morality.. Only a dumbass would think that govts could even define what is 'moral'. much less make constitutional laws that criminalize 'sinful' acts..
#48. To: A K A Stone (#47)
Stealing is immoral and it is illegal everywhere. You lose. Checkmate.
#49. To: misterwhite (#33)
Some people want the freedom to use drugs, but I want the freedom to raise my young and impressionable children in a drug-free environment.
#50. To: Vicomte13 (#49)
Well, as always, there being no solution to an either/or problem, the disagreement is resolved by power.
#51. To: Tooconservative (#39)
The Founders themselves were far from being a monolithic group.
#52. To: tpaine (#48)
Yo boss, --- I loose.
#53. To: misterwhite (#51)
Why not "Conservatives With Exceptions"?
#54. To: Tooconservative (#53)
The conservatives of the era were all royalist Tories.
#55. To: misterwhite (#54)
(Edited)
Got it. The conservatives were a monolithic group. Probably the liberals, too.
#56. To: misterwhite (#50)
And that would be the power of the majority of people acting through their elected representatives.
#57. To: Tooconservative (#55)
The others all fell into dictatorship or conquest
#58. To: Vicomte13 (#57)
After all, the American federal constitutional model failed and was conquered, in 1865, but the other half of the country wielding the same federal constitutional model. The difference between the twin brothers was a matter of muscle strength, not of system.
#59. To: A K A Stone (#52)
You made a stupid statement that was easily demonstrated as false.
#60. To: Tooconservative (#55)
I'll repeat my point: the Founders were far and away the most radical political thinkers of the entire Enlightenment era. And their republic endures today, well over two centuries later, something you can't say for other democratic countries (excepting Britain). The others all fell into dictatorship or conquest at one point or another or they are far younger governments than ours is. Our relative isolation helped but our political system, despite its many flaws, is more resilient than the parliamentary democracies.
#61. To: Tooconservative (#55)
The others all fell into dictatorship or conquest at one point or another or they are far younger governments than ours is.
#62. To: All (#60)
Our relative isolation helped but our political system, despite its many flaws, is more resilient than the parliamentary democracies.
#63. To: Vicomte13 (#60)
I can't agree with that. The Jacobins were far more radical - in a bad way. I would agree with you that the Founders were on the cutting edge of practical, realistic, workable political thinking.
And now I'll say something uncomfortable to me: among the Founders, were those clear visionaries like John Adams who understood that American slavery was an evil that was incompatible with the ideals of the Revolution. He was right. But the practical reality was that the abolition of slavery - with all of the immediate evaporation of wealth that would come with that - was simply too radical for the Enlightenment generation. Adams was morally right, but it could not really be done in 1776. Had Adams prevailed on the moral point, the country would have been stillborn. The South would have remained British, and the North would have been conquered. Slavery was an evil that had to be addressed in another day. There are similar issues today that are simply a bridge too far for the people of our times, though eventually mankind will get there (example: the treatment of animals).
If you mean countries that have an elected legislature and some sort of franchise for some people, the oldest would be Iceland, whose Altding dates to the 9th century, a whole lot older than British "democracy". The Dutch Republic also predates this era.
The American democratic government form already existed, the Founders did not create it. What they did was to replace the monarchy with our tripartite government at a national level, bringing into reality the vision of Montesquieu, and that really was Enlightenment thinking. But the state government that was the base model and center of American power, was completely sui generis to British America, and grew up from local conditions that had no precedent in modern Europe.
#64. To: Vicomte13 (#61)
The oldest continuous democratic government in the world is the government of the State of Massachusetts. The second oldest is the government of the State of Connecticut.
#65. To: Tooconservative (#64)
I did know about Massachusetts (darn them). Didn't know that CT was #2 though.
#66. To: Vicomte13, tpaine (#65)
And CT has the distinction of having the oldest WRITTEN constitution (hence the "Constitution State" on the quarter).
Massachusetts Bay Colony (and the Massachusetts diaspora (specifically, CT, which was settled by Puritans who left Boston in 1637 because they found it too LIBERAL. LOL!)) also had the first universal public school system in the world. All the way back in the 1620s they were teaching every boy and girl to read, because everybody had to be able to read the Bible.
Those "embattled farmers" who stood at Lexington Bridge and "fired the shot heard round the world" were actually, as a group, probably the best-educated people in the world. The men in fancy red uniforms facing them were mostly illiterate. That "rabble" had as much formal education as the English Parliamentarians. The whole population did.
When in 1777 the English marched their army under "Gentleman Johnny" Burgoyne, and they were surrounded at Saratoga by New England and New York Minuteman farmers, it was an army of well-armed illiterates who NEEDED officers to guide them, versus a "rustic" army of fully literate men who were able to communicate with each other and back home, etc., in writing. The Redcoats were actually the Rubes. New England was, in fact, a FAR more educated people than London or Paris. It wasn't even close.
One of the reasons that the American Revolution was able to stay on the rails of reason, while the French - and later the Russian - revolutions went berserk and animal - is because the Americans were an advanced, literate population, at least North of the Mason-Dixon line. The French peasants and Russian proles were neither, and were carried along much more easily by mob passions.
#67. To: Tooconservative (#66)
It seems obvious you're cleverly trying to sidestep the (initially) unwritten Iroquois constitution which predated our own by a few centuries. I thought it odd you omitted it.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]