Founding Fathers

[Stethoscope]

By taking a look at the constitution, is it safe to say that the Founding Fathers had a clear philosophy that was Objectivism? And if so when did this country stray from that path?

Edited May 21, 2008 by Stethoscope

[themadkat]

By taking a look at the constitution, is it safe to say that the Founding Fathers had a clear philosophy that was Objectivism? And if so when did this country stray from that path?

The philosophy followed by the founding fathers was not Objectivism. Objectivism had not been formulated yet. The philosophy followed by the founding fathers was the principles of the Enlightenment and classical liberalism.

[DragonMaci]

There were similarities between their philosophy and Objectivism, but it was no Objectivism. Objectivists would of written up a better Constitution, one without so many holes that lead to the crap modern USA politicians pass. Also, as themadkat said Objectivism had not been formed at the times.

[Stethoscope]

There were similarities between their philosophy and Objectivism, but it was no Objectivism. Objectivists would of written up a better Constitution, one without so many holes that lead to the crap modern USA politicians pass. Also, as themadkat said Objectivism had not been formed at the times.

Yeah I do realize that, if the Founding Fathers knew of Objectivism this country would be awesome.

[DragonMaci]

Yeah I do realize that, if the Founding Fathers knew of Objectivism this country would be awesome.

Indeed. And a lot of people would see how the people of America benefit from such awesomeness and so many would move the the USA that the rest of the world would have few people left.

Okay, there wouldn't really be so many people moving to the USA, but it would be a hell of a lot. Many people would want to be so well off.

[shakthig]

Indeed. And a lot of people would see how the people of America benefit from such awesomeness and so many would move the the USA that the rest of the world would have few people left.

Okay, there wouldn't really be so many people moving to the USA, but it would be a hell of a lot. Many people would want to be so well off.

Even as things are, there is no shortage of people wanting to move to the USA. What limits immigration are the laws that restrict it, not a lack of recognition about how good the USA is.

[DragonMaci]

Even as things are, there is no shortage of people wanting to move to the USA. What limits immigration are the laws that restrict it, not a lack of recognition about how good the USA is.

I know many want to move to the USA. In fact I am one of the people considering moving to the USA.

[Greebo]

I know many want to move to the USA. In fact I am one of the people considering moving to the USA.

While I'm looking around the globe wondering if there's some third world country we could just *buy* somewhere, and move there...

I wonder how much Africa costs...

[Drew1776]

Objectivists would of written up a better Constitution, one without so many holes that lead to the crap modern USA politicians pass.

I really don't think this statement is fair at all. Hind-sight is 20/20 and most of the issues we deal with are because people have taken relatively clear language and twisted it. The problem is not with the authors it's with the people who warp the words and the intent. You (or any Objectivist) could write a new constitution to close percieved holes but I'd bet in 200 years or less there would be someone like you saying, "Why didn't DragonMaci write a better constitution." Also remember that some of the issues we deal with stem from the enforcement or contortion of ammendments which were passed after the founding fathers.

[DavidOdden]

While I'm looking around the globe wondering if there's some third world country we could just *buy* somewhere, and move there...

I wonder how much Africa costs...

Zimbabwe could cost 2 million Zimbabwean dollars. About $2 at the current exchange rate.

[adrock3215]

Zimbabwe could cost 2 million Zimbabwean dollars. About $2 at the current exchange rate.

Since the time you posted a half hour ago the exchange rate has changed. 2 million Zimbabwean dollars will now cost $1.50.

[Greebo]

Zimbabwe could cost 2 million Zimbabwean dollars. About $2 at the current exchange rate.

Since the time you posted a half hour ago the exchange rate has changed. 2 million Zimbabwean dollars will now cost $1.50.

Right - what kind of natural resources does Zimbabwe have? How many people can we get on board to move there right away to start building a self-sustaining economy? I'm a computer geek and I can also do basic handyman work and light construction. Lets start drafting a constitution and someone go buy it and start selling off chunks!

[DavidOdden]

Right - what kind of natural resources does Zimbabwe have?

Mugabe, for one. Huge reserves of dust.

[Greebo]

Mugabe, for one. Huge reserves of dust.

But lots of mineral resources. Copper's getting downright expensive - and Zimbabwe has lots of it. We can sell copper for good farm dirt.

[D'kian]

I really don't think this statement is fair at all. Hind-sight is 20/20 and most of the issues we deal with are because people have taken relatively clear language and twisted it. The problem is not with the authors it's with the people who warp the words and the intent.

That's partly true. Much of what the government does today is highky unconstitutional.

However, the Founders did err in several spots. For example they gave Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. That alone is bad enough, and it has been twisted to a much greater extent than the Founders ever imagined.

Another is the inclusion of the phrase "to provide for the general welfare" in the preamble. Even though Jefferson did explicitly state the government could use only the ennumerated powers in the Constitution for such a purpose, the assumption that government has the obligation to provide fro the general welfare is very bad one. Was this phrase twisted and abused, or was it fulfilled by the ever-expanding welfare state?

Then there's the Bill Of Rights (the first ten Ammendments). There's nothing wrong with much of it, but it leads people to believe they only posses such rights as are specifically ennumerated therein. That's a myopic and, frankly, idiotic belief, especially given the Ninth Ammendment, which states the ennumeration of certain rights does not limit or disparage other rights retained by the people. But the dammage has been done.

You (or any Objectivist) could write a new constitution to close percieved holes but I'd bet in 200 years or less there would be someone like you saying, "Why didn't DragonMaci write a better constitution." Also remember that some of the issues we deal with stem from the enforcement or contortion of ammendments which were passed after the founding fathers.

On the first part, quite possibly. On the second, absolutely.

This reflects the fact that a Constitution, no matter how well crafted, is not enough. It needs to be backed by explicit ideas and ideals held by a majority of the population.

[DragonMaci]

I really don't think this statement is fair at all. Hind-sight is 20/20 and most of the issues we deal with are because people have taken relatively clear language and twisted it. The problem is not with the authors it's with the people who warp the words and the intent. You (or any Objectivist) could write a new constitution to close percieved holes but I'd bet in 200 years or less there would be someone like you saying, "Why didn't DragonMaci write a better constitution." Also remember that some of the issues we deal with stem from the enforcement or contortion of ammendments which were passed after the founding fathers.

No, it is fair because I am referring things that required hindsight, but rather things that required the right sort of philosophy. I am talking about holes that exist because of words they didn't define properly or didn't define at all. I am also talking about things that an Objectivist would not include at all because they are either not relevant or a bad thing to be included.

EDIT: D'Kians examples of interstate commerce and welfare are good examples of what I mean and are things that didn't require hindsight not to include, but rather require the right philosophy not to include them. Permitting congress to legislate for and collect taxes is another example.

Edited May 21, 2008 by DragonMaci

[sanjavalen]

Before you think you could buy a third world tin pot dictatorship, you ought to consider the fact that the people in charge of it are not after so innocent a motive as money.

They wouldn't sell.

[aequalsa]

Another is the inclusion of the phrase "to provide for the general welfare" in the preamble. Even though Jefferson did explicitly state the government could use only the ennumerated powers in the Constitution for such a purpose, the assumption that government has the obligation to provide fro the general welfare is very bad one. Was this phrase twisted and abused, or was it fulfilled by the ever-expanding welfare state?

As I understand, most of these perceived "holes" are mainly a result of redefining their meaning intentionally or otherwise. This phrase in particular,for example, was meant to mean that the federal government's purpose is to promote the things which affect all citizens generally. So military, police, and judicial protection. In federalist paper 41, Madison argues(as I understand) that it is simply a statement of purpose and grants no additional powers to the government. That the extremely limited nature of the enumerated powers of the federal government are made clear throughout the document and the preamble should not be construed to supersede or alter that.

"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."-preamble

So Establish justice(courts), insure domestic tranquility(police), provide for the common defense(military), promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty are what the constitution claims to intend in this one sentence. Liberty along with property were well understood at the time to be corollaries to the right to life. It is only in the last 100 years we have mostly forgotten this fact.

Not likely at all, that given their post-Lockean zeitgeist they could have meant that the purpose of our government is to "promote the general welfare" by eliminating the liberty of it's people. Promoting welfare is not even a separate sentence, so I find it extremely unlikely they intended it to be self-contradictory or that anyone without evil intent or less then even moderate intelligence could misunderstand it's meaning.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."-9th

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."-10th

Just in case, these later statements are kinda clear, I think, regarding the power intended to the federal government.

[DragonMaci]

As I understand, most of these perceived "holes" are mainly a result of redefining their meaning intentionally or otherwise. This phrase in particular,for example, was meant to mean that the federal government's purpose is to promote the things which affect all citizens generally. So military, police, and judicial protection.

If, so then using the word "welfare" was extremely poor wording. Instead it should of blatantly said such.

So Establish justice(courts), insure domestic tranquility(police), provide for the common defense(military), promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty are what the constitution claims to intend in this one sentence. Liberty along with property were well understood at the time to be corollaries to the right to life. It is only in the last 100 years we have mostly forgotten this fact.

But it isn't government's job to promote general welfare; its job is simply to protect us from the initiation of force and fraud, and to punish those that initiate force or fraud.

Not likely at all, that given their post-Lockean zeitgeist they could have meant that the purpose of our government is to "promote the general welfare" by eliminating the liberty of it's people. Promoting welfare is not even a separate sentence, so I find it extremely unlikely they intended it to be self-contradictory or that anyone without evil intent or less then even moderate intelligence could misunderstand it's meaning.

No one in this thread has suggested they intended it. Quite the reverse; me and D'Kian were saying that the welfare system of today went against their intent. However, we are saying that their wording of their intent was flawed in such a way that a lie about it being constitutional was possible. With proper wording such a lie couldn't happen. Of course they could of made an amendment could of been made to make it constitutional even if such wording didn't exist.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."-9th

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."-10th

Just in case, these later statements are kinda clear, I think, regarding the power intended to the federal government.

They do, but were unnecessary since you didn't need to prove the point to us.

[D'kian]

So Establish justice(courts), insure domestic tranquility(police), provide for the common defense(military), promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty are what the constitution claims to intend in this one sentence. Liberty along with property were well understood at the time to be corollaries to the right to life. It is only in the last 100 years we have mostly forgotten this fact.

I don't think the Founders understood thigns that way. Regardless, they left an altruistic principle in the preamble, stating this is one purpose the Constitution is established for. I ask again, was this statement fo intent corrupted or was it fulfilled the only way it can be fulfilled, regardless fo what the Founders thought or itnended?

Not likely at all, that given their post-Lockean zeitgeist they could have meant that the purpose of our government is to "promote the general welfare" by eliminating the liberty of it's people.

Perhaps not by eliminating it, but certainly by abridging it. The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, to levy taxes, etc.

[aequalsa]

If, so then using the word "welfare" was extremely poor wording. Instead it should of blatantly said such.

Perhaps I did not explain my point well. The word 'welfare' did not have the attachment it does today to free money given to some at the expense of others. In current usage I might rephrase it to say, "promote the general well being of it's citizens."

It was not an altruistic principle. The government was supposed to promote the general welfare by ensuring the liberty of it's citizens. These guys understood the concept of rights. It was so obvious to them, that it didn't even occur to them that people would not know what they meant. It took two hundred years of statist supreme court justices and politicians to obfuscate the meaning of the document.

Read the federalist papers or other writings by these men. They understood these concepts then at least as well as I do now. I don't believe any way of writing a constitution would make it a full proof block against the elimination of rights. Language changes too much over time. All that stops encroaching slavery and statism is a populace educated enough in the processes of critical thinking and knowledgeable enough about the concept of individual liberty to not fall for the ploys con men will always try to create.

So to answer your question explicitly, D'Kian, the language was "twisted and abused."

[4reason]

There were similarities between their philosophy and Objectivism, but it was no Objectivism. Objectivists would of written up a better Constitution, one without so many holes that lead to the crap modern USA politicians pass. Also, as themadkat said Objectivism had not been formed at the times.

There were definitely similarities; a lot of the Founders' principles are key ingredients in what Rand later put together -- in a much more coherent manner-- in Objectivism. But I think it is unfair to say that Objectivists could have written a better Constitution per se; the fact that a Constitution, accomplishing what it did, even resulted from all their efforts is amazing. Read Madison's thorough documentation of the Constitutional debates if you have any doubt regarding this. From those documents, you will quickly discover that the greatest obstacle the Constitution had to overcome was finding enough common ground among a very diverse group of men and the constituencies they represented. There was so much disagreement... and yet the areas where there was relatively little disagreement can give us a glimmer of their wisdom. One such example: religious freedom. There was little debate about this -- a few crazy men aside -- and even though their reasons were more toward acting in favor of individual freedom from state-mandated religion and fees, rather than trying to promote secularism, I think, given the time they were living in, this represents a monumental achievement. Madison pushed heavily for religious freedom, urged on by Jefferson from Paris; Jefferson had authored the Virginia statutes which established the precedent for this freedom as we know it. And that's only one example.

So could Objectivist have written a better COnstitution? Yes, but what is the likelihood of getting that many like minded individuals together in a room (esp. given the estimated rarity of objectivists discussed in other topics ) I think it is important to view historical figures in the context of their time. It can be fun and informative to compare them to standards they would have been held to in current times, but it is useless if you are really trying to gain historical understanding. The truth is their achievement was huge... and they knew that. No one walked out of that convention completely satisfied; not even Hamilton, who was the one who really pushed for the abolishment of the Articles of Confederation. If we want to have some fun, and take the FOunders out of the context of their time, I like to imagine what it would be like if we could bring them back today, and let them see what has become of their efforts. I think they would clammer to see the Constitution, and eagerly read through it's amendments, but I think they would be astounded to see how few there have been. They thought there were more flaws and vague references needing clarification than that! When the Constitution was ratified, all of the members of the Convention knew there were flaws, but they treated it more as a foundational document rather than a perfect outline. It was something to build upon; something, in all honesty, they hoped posterity could work out the fine details on, and many FOunders specifically say that in their private letters. It's interesting to note the difference in tone and opinion of the Founders in their public and their private papers. Look at Madison and Hamilton, in particular: two of the three authors of the Federalist Papers that were publshed publically to gain support for the COnvention and the document itself. Read their private letters among their closest friend (esp. Madison & Jefferson and Hamilton and any of his political allies) and compare those to what they expressed in public. In public, they were confidant and optimistic, but in private (to their most trusted confidants) they were rationally insightful and doubtful. Kudos to John Adams for really being the only founder who presented his views in public the same way he expressed them in private. But there weren't many men like Adams then, just as there aren't many like him now.

[Qwertz]

Remember: the Founding Fathers (the writers and signatories of the Declaration of Independence) are a different set of people from the Framers of the Constitution (the convention delegates). The Declaration is a resounding philosophical statement, but the Constitution is a compromise. It doesn't have a coherent philosophy, but parts of it are motivated by the competing philosophies present at the convention. It is not, nor has it ever been (despite over 200 years of judicial struggling to pretend it is) a consistent instrument.

~Q

[DragonMaci]

Perhaps I did not explain my point well. The word 'welfare' did not have the attachment it does today to free money given to some at the expense of others. In current usage I might rephrase it to say, "promote the general well being of it's citizens."

Maybe, but that doesn't really matter. As I said, it isn't the government's job to provide welfare in any sense.

It was not an altruistic principle.

You should try sticking to what I actually said, because that argument fails to do so. I never said it was altruistic.

These guys understood the concept of rights.

Not fully they didn't. If they had of fully understood the concept of rights they would never of granted congress the power to collect taxes and regulate interstate commerce.

It was so obvious to them, that it didn't even occur to them that people would not know what they meant.

That was a big mistake. They should of defined what they meant so as to avoid having people not misinterpret them.

It took two hundred years of statist supreme court justices and politicians to obfuscate the meaning of the document.

It doesn't matter if it took 1 year or 1,000, what matters is that it happened and that it happened because they didn't explain what they meant so that it could not be misinterpreted. It also matters that by putting in the crap allowing congress to collect taxes and regulate interstate commerce. That crap allowed for a lot of the crap that exists today.

Read the federalist papers or other writings by these men. They understood these concepts then at least as well as I do now.

No, they didn't or they would never of allowed congress the power to collect taxes and regulate interstate commerce.

I don't believe any way of writing a constitution would make it a full proof block against the elimination of rights.

Of course. No one is saying otherwise.

Language changes too much over time.

Yes, sadly that is true as a result of the way people mistreat language.

So to answer your question explicitly, D'Kian, the language was "twisted and abused."

Some of it, yes. Some of it, no. The parts allowing congress to collect taxes and regulate interstate commerce were not.

[DragonMaci]

But I think it is unfair to say that Objectivists could have written a better Constitution per se

I disagree. At the least an Objectivist would be able to improve upon what the forefathers did by not including the crap about regulating interstate commerce and collecting taxes.

the fact that a Constitution, accomplishing what it did, even resulted from all their efforts is amazing.

No disagreement there.

Read Madison's thorough documentation of the Constitutional debates if you have any doubt regarding this.

I am not sure if I have the inclination or - more importantly - time to do so, but where can I get that? I might decide to try make time to read it.

From those documents, you will quickly discover that the greatest obstacle the Constitution had to overcome was finding enough common ground among a very diverse group of men and the constituencies they represented. There was so much disagreement... and yet the areas where there was relatively little disagreement can give us a glimmer of their wisdom. One such example: religious freedom. There was little debate about this -- a few crazy men aside -- and even though their reasons were more toward acting in favor of individual freedom from state-mandated religion and fees, rather than trying to promote secularism, I think, given the time they were living in, this represents a monumental achievement. Madison pushed heavily for religious freedom, urged on by Jefferson from Paris; Jefferson had authored the Virginia statutes which established the precedent for this freedom as we know it. And that's only one example.

Yes, that is impressive, but that doesn't wipe out the fact that crap like the interstate regulation and taxation stuff were included and that an Objectivist would not include such.

So could Objectivist have written a better COnstitution? Yes, but what is the likelihood of getting that many like minded individuals together in a room (esp. given the estimated rarity of objectivists discussed in other topics )

I don't think that matters. It matters not how many people write the constitution. If one or 1,000 write it it doesn't matter' what matters is its contents.

I think it is important to view historical figures in the context of their time.

I am more interested in what their constitution did and didn't allow. That is all that matters to me. It doesn't even matter to me whether or not an Objectivist could of done better. All that matters to me is what a constitution does and does not allow.

It can be fun and informative to compare them to standards they would have been held to in current times, but it is useless if you are really trying to gain historical understanding.

True, but I am not trying to do either of those.

The truth is their achievement was huge...

Yes, though it still leaves much to be desired (eg no interstate commerce regulation and no taxation).

If we want to have some fun, and take the FOunders out of the context of their time, I like to imagine what it would be like if we could bring them back today, and let them see what has become of their efforts.

I think they would be very angry, especially if they heard comment's like Bush's statement, "The Constitution is just a God damn peice of paper."

I think they would clammer to see the Constitution, and eagerly read through it's amendments, but I think they would be astounded to see how few there have been. They thought there were more flaws and vague references needing clarification than that!

If so I think they'd be right. Sadly following government's didn't agree with them on that issue. But anyway, I am more concerned with what was allowed than what needed clarifying. I think allowing congress the power to tax and regulate interstate commerce caused more harm than the vague parts.

When the Constitution was ratified, all of the members of the Convention knew there were flaws, but they treated it more as a foundational document rather than a perfect outline. It was something to build upon; something, in all honesty, they hoped posterity could work out the fine details on, and many FOunders specifically say that in their private letters.

That was a mistake. They should of worked on it until they were satisfied.

It's interesting to note the difference in tone and opinion of the Founders in their public and their private papers. Look at Madison and Hamilton, in particular: two of the three authors of the Federalist Papers that were publshed publically to gain support for the COnvention and the document itself. Read their private letters among their closest friend (esp. Madison & Jefferson and Hamilton and any of his political allies) and compare those to what they expressed in public.

Again, I am not sure if I have the inclination or - more importantly - time to do so, but where can I get them? I might decide to try make time to read them.

In public, they were confidant and optimistic, but in private (to their most trusted confidants) they were rationally insightful and doubtful.

Stopping when one still has doubt is a big mistake.

Remember: the Founding Fathers (the writers and signatories of the Declaration of Independence) are a different set of people from the Framers of the Constitution (the convention delegates). The Declaration is a resounding philosophical statement, but the Constitution is a compromise. It doesn't have a coherent philosophy, but parts of it are motivated by the competing philosophies present at the convention. It is not, nor has it ever been (despite over 200 years of judicial struggling to pretend it is) a consistent instrument.

That is a pretty big flaw.

Edited May 22, 2008 by DragonMaci