[PUG] America's Political Philosophy

[ZenCat]

"When our Founding Fathers birthed this nation, they did so upon the proposition that "governments are instituted among men" for the purpose of preserving their freedoms."

That proposition is an entire political philosophy within itself, one that has been violated and ignored. You see we talk about regulating the economy a lot, and regulating this and that, and a lot of people throw out accusations of socialism, and fascism and all this, but even if we don't want to go that far, we've fundamentally violated our own ideals in the most critical way once we allow government to regulate our rights. That, however we've already done.

I think this current institution of government has violated explicitly and implicitly, not only the philosophy upon which it was made, but its very own constitution, and laws.

Our founders were very clear what their philosophy of government was. I think it would be beneficial to return to that particular attitude of government rather than to side on a big, blustery, corrupt government with either right or left leaning social issues.

Ready Set Go!

Okay, my take on the original topic: The jarring part of this topic lies in this statement: "I think this current institution of government has violated explicitly and implicitly, not only the philosophy upon which it was made, but its very own constitution, and laws."

Could you clarify what you mean by "this current institution of government". Do you mean the modern American Institution of Government over say, the past decade or generation? Or two? Or three generations? Or do you mean the current Administration? If the latter, I think the scope of the question is too narrow to arrive at a reasonable conclusion.

The Twisting of America has not occurred over the past 2 years. It has been an ongoing effort of both long and short-sighted agendas of all the Administrations and Congresses over many decades. I think the political, economic landscape we find ourselves in now owes most of it's entanglement and polarization to the Administrations who served this country in the decade of the 1980s. This is the rotten fruit of that particular tree of government. To suggest that the institutions of American government throughout our history have not been consistently violating (explicitly and implicitly) not only the philosophy upon which it was made, but its very own constitution, and laws... well, it doesn't make sense to me because history shows otherwise.

I should inject at this point that I am wary (and weary) of the nostalgic philosophy - so popular these days - that The Founding Fathers are watching... and they disapprove. I don't think history supports this suggestion. The Founding Fathers were not united with a single purpose. It was not a romantic Birth of a Nation. It was a heroic but chaotic emergency effort by a group of exhausted, philosophically and politically diverse men to unite against a common threat.

Additionally, it makes me uncomfortable and wary when - also popular these days - people refer to The Constitution as though it were holy scripture of some kind. Eternal. A divine blueprint, as it were. Again, it was a contractual document comprised of basic themes forming a structure, the wording of which was arrived at through compromise. I firmly believe it was always meant to be a living document, evolving over time, as our country was meant to evolve - not devolve. I also can not imagine holding the belief that those men - visionaries though some of them were - could possibly, under any circumstances, imagine what the world was to become when they hashed out the system of government (which I believe has been addressed already in this thread).

Finally, I'll say that I believe our system of government is broken, unsustainable, and has grown into a massive cryptic labyrinth we will probably never know the extent of. It has deviated from being a government Of the People - oh wait... corporations are people now so I guess it's become a government for Some of the People, Funded by the People, For the People Who Deserve It, According to Some of the People. Basically, it's shot.

But it didn't happen in the past two years. And the prospect of being ruled By The People Who Wish To Overthrow the Bad Unholy Founding Father Betraying Government, I can't think of any quicker route to anarchy and self-destruction. There is not a single political or ideological Civilian group out there who's armed rage and social agenda does not fill me with dread for my children's future.

So in answer to your question... no. We can't go back to a system of government appropriate to the America of 1776 (with a population of approximately 2.4 mil and virtually no technology) from a government capable of bringing some semblance of order to the chaos of America in 2011 (with a population of approximately 308,745,538 and a dependence upon technology so complex and potentially dangerous). We haven't got a rational enough population to pull it off, or a political party with enough integrity and autonomy.

 

[Jack]

Firstly, that was a nice big post, thanks for taking the time to write all of that out.

Secondly, I really don't know where you came up with this idea that I thought this all happened in 2 years. I said earlier in this thread I didn't really give a rip about the president in this discussion, so if that's what that is about, then no. Not what I was talking about.

Thirdly, I have no wish to "overthrow the government". Where the hell are you coming up with this?

At any rate, please stop that. It's not nice.


I have no particular magical awe or wonder at the founders either other than respecting them as reasonably intelligent people. There is a kind of romanticism that comes with history of the American revolution, but that still has nothing to do with what we're discussing. That's an attempt to discredit the argument without addressing it.

Historically, it is not controversial at all that our founders were philosophically in step with each other. They all ascribed to Lockean philosophy, and that is the philosophy behind the government and nation of the united states.

I firmly believe it was always meant to be a living document, evolving over time, as our country was meant to evolve - not devolve.

Principles are living things, If you're willing to be "radical" or "naive" enough to agree that we should adhere to our own constitution, then perhaps some of the principles contained in that document have value to you, and we have something to discuss. Most people's minds however seem to be polluted to the point where discussion is impossible. Who was it that said (disagreeing with Orwell) that tyrranical governments would never have to hide information but that there would be so much confusion out there among people that they wouldn't need to?

We haven't got a rational enough population to pull it off, or a political party with enough integrity and autonomy.

You see my point is that all we really need is a different attitude toward government. Their attitude. Outlined in the DofI.

 

[ZenCat]

Jack, most importantly, I regret that you feel I was being "not nice" to you. It's never my intention to be un-nice in any of my dealings, even on contentious subjects. Presenting a divergent point of view need not be considered a personal attack. Especially when my view was not directed toward you personally, but the scenario you proposed discussion on... the political philosophy of America. Now on to the rest...

You said "I really don't know where you came up with this idea that I thought this all happened in 2 years."
Actually, I asked if you would clarify, so I could better understand the point of perspective you were casting your line of questioning from. I said "Could you clarify what you mean by "this current institution of government". Do you mean the modern American Institution of Government over say, the past decade or generation? Or two? Or three generations? Or do you mean the current Administration?"

You said "I have no wish to "overthrow the government". Where the hell are you coming up with this?"
I never suggested you did. I was referring to the significant number of groups in this country who are calling for that very thing. Where the hell I came up with it is the online, on-air and print media of the world, and my own eyes. These groups exist; however I did not align you with any of them. I don't know you. How could I presume such a thing?

You said "There is a kind of romanticism that comes with history of the American revolution, but that still has nothing to do with what we're discussing. That's an attempt to discredit the argument without addressing it."

I am confused by your assertion that my response has nothing to do with what we're discussing, based on your statement "I think it would be beneficial to return to that particular attitude of government rather than to side on a big, blustery, corrupt government with either right or left leaning social issues." I asserted that we could not realistically return to a particular attitude of government, given the dramatically different size of and structure of the world. Our philosophies change based on the conditions of the world we live in. That attitude of government was responding to the conditions of fighting for independence from a distant, neglectful and oppressive sovereign. It does not - from my perspective - apply to the conditions we live in now.

At any rate, I'm not inclined to argue for argument's sake. If you invite people to debate a philosophy, but choose to accuse those who participate of being "not nice", or telling them to stop, or interpreting their views as an "attempt to discredit the argument without addressing it" then I can't really foresee any newly gained insight, knowledge or mutual understanding. Which is the only thing that keeps me interested in a debate: A civil exchange of views and ideas which could bring those involved in the debate to a new level of understanding and respect for the others' views. Without that goal, it's basically just a slap fight

 

[Jack]

I asserted that we could not realistically return to a particular attitude of government, given the dramatically different size of and structure of the world.

Ok so then will you clearly admit that you are rejecting the founders ideas, in order to argue against their merit for now?

That attitude of government was responding to the conditions of fighting for independence from a distant, neglectful and oppressive sovereign. It does not - from my perspective - apply to the conditions we live in now.

Why not?

Jack, most importantly, I regret that you feel I was being "not nice" to you. It's never my intention to be un-nice in any of my dealings, even on contentious subjects.

That's good.

 

[ZenCat]

Ok so then will you clearly admit that you are rejecting the founders ideas, in order to argue against their merit for now?
Why not?
That's good. And I'll keep pointing out logical fallacies if/when I find them.

1. No, I will not. The Founders ideas were appropriate to their time. I have no reason nor inclination to reject them.
2. The conditions we live in now do not include fighting for independence from a distant, neglectful and oppressive sovereign, in a time when travel was long and perilous with an ocean between us and that sovereign; and we were one of many colonial outposts that sovereign was neglecting and underestimating around the globe; and weapons were not as easy to purchase as a pack of cigarettes; and the neglect and oppression was more evenly distributed amongst the colonial populace rather than to certain demographics of it. Though I certainly see how we could superimpose those particular adjectives on our current government, the need to acknowledge context remains.
3. Ooo snarkyboi is snarky. How cute.

Instead of us batting my opinion back and forth and pulling on little strings of it in an attempt to unravel it, and continue to ignore context... how about we try this: How do you envision your proposal - that our political system be adjusted from it's current state, back to the particular attitude of government you believe was espoused by The Founding Fathers - can be achieved?

Specific steps, stages, timelines, enforcement, anticipated national global impacts and reactions, etc. much appreciated.

 

[ZenCat]

I think it might be useful, at this point, to step back from our individual opinions and interpretations and toward that document that embodied the Philosophy of Government - as outlined in the US Constitution by the Founders (or was it the Framers?) - and what they believed and promised as the Federal Government's responsibilities to the American People of that time and their Posterity (which is us). The "Domestic Tranquility" part is one of my personal favorites, and overlooked by a great many anti-government groups in our country today. "Promote the General Welfare" is pretty hawt, too

We the People of the United States
The Framers were an elite group

 

[Satya]

You do agree that the Declaration of Independence was the reasoning document behind our nations founding correct?

You seem to misunderstand my point there. It is not that government uses coercive power, but that the attitude wherein the coercive power of government is used to restrict liberties as opposed to preserve them. So lets be clear about what we're arguing before we go further.

You understand that many of our rights are outlined in the constitution, and many explicitly, so then you would agree presumably that explicit violations of our constitution by the government would qualify as not only government failing in its duty, but becoming anathema to its own purpose according to the philosophy (Locke's) upon which our nation was founded correct?

The idea of a social contract is that a government agrees to protect certain rights of the individual in exchange for the individual recognizing the legitimacy of the government. Once again, until you start bringing up specific examples, we aren't really going to be able to have much of an intelligent discussion on the matter.

 

[Jack]

1. No, I will not. The Founders ideas were appropriate to their time. I have no reason nor inclination to reject them.

So you won't agree or disagree with them? How do you plan to have a coherent discussion?

2. The conditions we live in now do not include fighting for independence from a distant, neglectful and oppressive sovereign, in a time when travel was long and perilous with an ocean between us and that sovereign; and we were one of many colonial outposts that sovereign was neglecting and underestimating around the globe; and weapons were not as easy to purchase as a pack of cigarettes; and the neglect and oppression was more evenly distributed amongst the colonial populace rather than to certain demographics of it. Though I certainly see how we could superimpose those particular adjectives on our current government, the need to acknowledge context remains.

I think our founders were well aware that our nation wouldn't need to be fighting for independence throughout its entire existence. (unless of course they flat out lost the war) Understanding context is important, but not for the sake of trying to dispense with the very political philosophy behind both the founding of this nation, and the creation of the Constitution. As a matter of fact, in this case, I think the context strongly supports the value of their philosophy for our current time period. Our founding fathers understood that governments had the tendency to "evolve" into oppressive institutions, our founders political philosophy addressed that. As that hasn't changed, I think their philosophy is still relevant.

Instead of us batting my opinion back and forth and pulling on little strings of it in an attempt to unravel it, and continue to ignore context... how about we try this: How do you envision your proposal - that our political system be adjusted from it's current state, back to the particular attitude of government you believe was espoused by The Founding Fathers - can be achieved?

It is not what I beleive was espoused by the founders (and this is a key point) in terms of what they thought, and their vision for america, and the philosophy behind the founding of the nation, History is a court from which there is no appeal.

The "Domestic Tranquility" part is one of my personal favorites, and overlooked by a great many anti-government groups in our country today. "Promote the General Welfare" is pretty hawt, too

Yes, either of those are important, but clearly not at the expense of each other, or in this case at the expense of "securing the blessings of Liberty". You may try to spin them to justify a "security over liberty" twist, but unlike their use in modern politics, these were not intended to be trite cliches. A progressive loss of liberties is very very very antithetical to the general welfare, and domestic tranquility (hell look at Egypt).

All that said, how about this, lets focus on constitutional violations, strict wording, and general principles. You would at least agree would you not that if the government violates the constitution, regardless of your particular philosophy, it has in fact broken the law?