James Madison Fanboy

What follows are some vapid, economically ignorant statements from a friend of mine on another site. The problem is that while I know he's off the mark, I'm having a hell of a time trying to argue against him because I lack coherence in thought right now. I need some help. The below are his words: It should be noted that my friend is debating a conservative. Again, I need some help fighting off this ignorance of my misguided leftist companion.

2046, your post was very helpful as opposed to Grames.His post was of limited help in so far as he made a distinction between economics and philosophy, but your post that down these complex elements into a coherent group of sentences. I realize questions I ask from time to time are obscure questions, much like my somewhat inane "when did Capitalism begin," yet there you replied to me as well, and I thank you. I ask the questions I ask, not to waste anyone's time, but because I'm interested in the discussion for the discussions' sake. of course, talking about the dangers of collectivism and how we might beat back are more practically constructive. But I have a knack for seeking out the somewhat obscure things. I've always been fascinated by slight economic differences between, say, Austrian and Chicago economics, and numerous others, and how these differ a little, yet have in common an acknowledgement of the importance of fighting collectivism.

There is no Objectivist economics? Very well, I don't have enough knowledge to dispute that. It makes sense. Then, given that, what were criticisms of Objectivists regarding the epistemological and ethical premises of the Austrian School? Also, given that concerns were raised about Austrians, which school of free market capitalism aligns most with Objectivism?

Many schools attempt, through various rationales, to defend the free market principles. As someone who is not an Objectivist (instead a classical liberal/libertarian), but someone who gains his understanding of Rand's philosophy from reading Atlas Shrugged, it is manifestly obvious that Rand opposed collectivism. What's more, were I to read Rand or her followers' books, I'm sure I would find spot-on criticisms of collectivism, something that free market advocates all despise. Putting aside Rand's dislike of religion and belief that many of the defenders of Capitalism are irrational, I'm interested in understanding the economic differences--if any exist--between the Austrian School and the Objectivist School. As a note, I know next to nothing about Objectivist philosophy but a decent amount of Austrian economics. Now, Ludwig von Mises demolished Marx's labor theory of value. Both he and criticized FA Hayek criticized the German Historical School (the primary rival of the Austrian School in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.) They also went the Insitutionalism School, the Keynsean School, and to a lesser extent, the Chicago School and monetarism and supply-siders such as Milton Friedman. But never have i discovered any criticisms of Rand's works. Nor have I found any articles in which Rand slammed Austrian economics. Is this because Austrian economics and Objectivist economics are the same? Thanks.

Than you for the clarification. I'm glad to hear this.

I've essentially beleived, for some time now, that police and the courts are few things that ought to be managed by the state--so long as the citizens are able to secure the restraint of the police and courts in certain areas from violating liberty. There must be a way to protect, in my opinion, the interests of the society without breaching the rights of individuals. The US Constitution seems to have been the best guide to determine what the police and courts can and cannot do, even if it has been ignored by Leftists. This is actually where my conservativism becomes a little libertarian, but I don't think it ever comes close to Objectivist. Nor do I think I would favor market competition in the area of law (unless someone could make a very good argument that this does not lead toward anarachism, and would still maintain the rule of law stability.) However, I would definitey favor market competition in health care, education, and all other areas beyond the legal. Again, this my conservativism at work. I believe that the one area which must have stability rather than competition is law/law enforcement.

It has become all too common for the Left to criticize capitalism for every reason under the sun, albeit their reasoning has often lacked reason and has been aimed at an illigimate Appeal to Emotion. While there are many ways they may do this, my chief concern for this post revolves around a particular question. This question rises from one of the many criticisms of the Left regading capitalism is that it is an "oppressive status quo." Now, let no one think he must convince me personally that this is claim that capitalism is oppressive is fallacious. But all of this talk by them seems to lead to throwing around the word 'progress' and 'change' at random without much critical analysis. They assume that because a thing is called 'progressive' that it is truly progress. They assume that because because a policy is 'changed' such changes are actually desireable without considering the concerns of claims to the contrary. Well, all this got me thinking about a question I had never really considered: when did capitalism begin? I find myself defending a system with whose recent history I am familiar, but whose evolutionary and original historical origins escape me. While I understand and don't mind if posters wish to throw Rand quotes at me and refer to her books, I am, admittedly, hoping that there will not be overwhealming consensus on this topic. I am curious as to the different theories held about the origins of capitalism, and why these respective theories are held. Going back to the Leftists' claim that capitalism is a 'status quo' system: I've been reading, for the third time, Nobel Prize winning economist FA Hayek's Road to Serfdom. Although he argues that the 'status quo' attack is fallacious, he does it in a particulalry interesting manner. He essentially and briefly claims that capitalism is a recent system as compared to socialism. Because he does not clarfiy whether or not he is speaking of industrial capitalism as what occured in the 1800s or general capitalism as a system, it is hard to determine his exact meaning. Nor do I fault him for this. Those who have read the book will remember that Hayek's critqiue of socialism is an examination of socialism's negative effects on England, France, and Germany beginning in the early 1900s specifically. He starts there and works his way up to WWII and addresses the simarility between fascism and communism. And thus, it is not a broad treatise on capitalism. So while he does talk a little bit about the history of capitalism for comparison and contrast purposes, he does not detail the history of the system. He does, however, make vague hints. One of my favorite quotes by him is that the Free Market "is a system, which, rather than being designed, was stumbled upon man as the best system for the allocation of resources." This would amost seem to imply that Hayek believes capitalism to be a system independent of man, like gravity. A thing to be discovered and harnessed by man rahther than discovered. Yet, almost paradoxically, the thesis for his book is that man has always, throughout most of history, lived in sefrdom, and that only has he experienced liberty, which Hayek attributes to capitalism and private property and innovation that both bring. His whole point is that under the market system we were moving toward liberty but that we are reversing course and via socialism, are returning to serfdom. I heartily believe his thesis, and the proof of his words can be everywhere seen in the Western countries, where our liberty is and has been stripped from us by the collectivist forces in our governments. But even so, Hayek himself seems to be (and I don't fault him for this either) confused or conflicted about the beginnings of capitalism. This particular has no bearing on his overall thesis, and is only a minor point, so it often overlooked by both leftwing and rightwing economists. But I'm crazy with curiuosity about the origins of this beautiful system which I'll defend to the day I die. What's more frustrating, there do not seem to be very many discussions on the birth of capitalism, though every other aspect seems to be discussed at length. But I'm curious what the rest of you think about capitalism. When did this system called capitalism begin? I understand that there are different ways to approach it, so in your answers, I don't mind if you try to tackle it in general, or address it from a specifc evolutionary, philosphical, or political perspective when tracking its history.

This strikes me as a cheap reply, mmmcannibalism. You certainly live up to your username, what with your attacking outsiders for posing questions. What's more, your snide remark does nothing to address the questions being presented, but only shows your arrogance. As an outsider and fiscally Conservative/Libertarian newcomer to this site (that is, someone who is your outside ally though not direct team member in the fight against Collectivism and the involuntarily redistribution of wealth,) I'm a little disappointed and not impressed in the least. As a point of interest, your crass remark amounts, in my opinion, to a deliberate or inadvertent attempt to discourage inquiry. It may be deliberate in that you may not have the slightest interest in discussing these subjects with those who do not hold your views, and thus wish to stamp out external inquiry. Or it may perhaps be accidental, and a mere consequence of your momentary inability to articulate your opinion, but simultaneous need to say something witty. Whatever the reason, perhaps a few proponents of Capitalism ought to work on their marketing technique, by which I mean you personally would do well not to sound so dismissive of questions. In any case, do you suppose that everyone on this site is an Objectivist or is someone who is familiar enough with Objectivist thought to be able to carry on an informed discussion on such a specific philosophy? I certainly hope not. It may very well be--I do not know--that the majority of people here are Objectivists. But it will manifestly obvious that not all are, if only by my presence and that of Syncro's. And I should think that you would view any questions as a great opportunity to explain your philosophical differences and reason accordingly. I would hope that members of such a forum would be able to defend their principles in a level-headed manner, like that of 2046. Asking Syncro or me or anyone else to gain "an understanding of Objectivism before posting" is cheap. That does not mean we should avoid gaining an understanding over time, of course. But how much must we know to ask questions and share opinions about economics and philosophy? What is the criterion for posting here? I could understand your annoyance if this is what you had read: "hey u guyz all really need 2 chill, ok?. ignerant ppl r against the govrnment, but government helps ppl who dont have jobs so thy can help there famles. i think that th world would b a scary plce if their was no govrnment. u got to look @ this like if u were w/ ur famlie and didnt have no cash. what would u do, u know? this world is a good world cuz we have pple in powr who care 4 us. the korporations would just make stuff worse cuz they polute the earth an people dont live long and stuff. prophet jus letz ppl b greedy and we nd 2 share cuz were not the only ones here." Now, sadly such great 7th grade treatises as the above are scattered throughout the internet, due in part to our August Leftwing American Public 'Education' System, which deams indocrination against Capitalism as more important than teaching the basics of English grammar these days. And had you run across such an egregious post here I can readily understand why you would have responded as you did. Furthermore, I could understand why you would be agitated by someone posting something like the above as the first post. Yet I have an additional complaint about your suggestion to "gain an understanding of Objectivism." You see, in a world where time constraints were not a factor and we had ample time to study everything under the sun, such a comment as you made might actually be a just admonishment. However, people do not have such luxuries, what with work, friends, family and other things. I'm a Tea Party/fiscal rightwing political activist. I go to work, college, practice shooting, go hiking, hang out with my friends and girlfriend, read, etc. We outsiders come to forums such as this precisely to discuss these things with a degree of interest, but most are probably not bent on developing such a specific knowledge of Objectivism as you pressumably have gained, due to other specialized interests in economics or politics. Unless you are deliberately attempting to isolate yourself from external feedback, it is preposterous for you to propose we gain an understanding of Objectivism before posting. After all, how do you define when a person has the appropriate level of knowledge on the subject to post? We're on you guy's site, and you have the nuggets knowledge we're interested in for purposes of efficiency and a cross-ideological discussion. The burden of proof is on you to explain your opinions and why you hold them, since I do not necessarily hold them. If you do not want to explain, at least have the decency not to shut down questions. Instead, adjust yourself to outsiders like 2046 does. Just a suggestion. Now then, please notice how the bulk of Synchro's post seeks answers to inquiries rather consisting of insults or otherwise accusatory content at Objectivists. Note how his post is coherent and asks pertinent questions you ought to jump at the chance to answer. Snycro starts with a premise which I would argue is not correct. He says that governments have to respond in times of financial crisis. Really? So governments have, then, an obligation to respond in times of financial crisis? Well, this would appear to not have taken into account the possibility that the root of the financial crisis is found in government rather than the private sector. And that maybe excessive government regulations and restrictions, as well as high taxes may have been the cause of the financial crisis in the first place, in addition to the artificial bubbles via price controls. In this case we should not desire government to respond, since the only thing government can come up with to solve problems is yet higher taxes, Marxist pitting group-against-group for the redistribution of resources, and the discouraging of individual initiative and efficiency on the grounds of a 'moral' call to action. New bureaucracies, rather than improving people, make the people beholden to gov bureaucrats. 2046 has stated the thing far more briefly and coherently than I can at present, but needless to say I'm inclined to agree with his analysis. Now, the views we hold on that subject are constantly being debated, and even now economists question whether the recession was caused by too much government intervention or not enough. Based on my understanding of economics from a novice student of the Supply-Side perspective, I'm convinced that the problem was too much government, or, if you will, Big Government intruding into the market process. All that not withstanding, note how many questions Synchro asks. It should be obvious that his intent is to start a discussion as opposed to merely railing against the opposition. Whether I stick around this site or not is probably going to depend on whether there are more people like you or more people like 2046 around here. Right now, just reading 46's posts has had the effect of me deciding to stay for the time being. But if your intent is to discourage external inquiry on this site, Cannibalism, know that you're well on your way to accomplishing this. 　 　 　

Unfortunately, this is, in my Conservative opinion, a very accurate depiction of what Republicans will do if we re-take Congress. But that said, please know that there are candidates across this country in the GOP who have been gradually pulling at the moderate Republican establishment. There are many candidates at my state level who want to destroy Social Security, repeal the Healthcare law, get us out of Afghanistan and Iraq, and lower and cuts taxes without making new ones to replace them. But since they're at the state level they're not in a position to effect much naitonal chnage. But you'll pardon me if I seem a little aggitated that you don't seem to realize the importance of Repuublicans being able to take back Congress. No, the Republicans aren't our saviors *disappointed Republican*, but you'll sure be able to pressure the political machine Right easier if they're in control than if the Democrats prevail IN THE LONG RUN. On the national level, it's hard to get a lot of ground in convincing people to go further Right. Most people in the United States are moderates. They want a little bit of government intervention, but not an outright Socialist society. They want Big Business with booms yet no busts. They foolishly think they can have it both ways. They cling to the middle and almost invetivably, get pulled further and further Left incrementally without realizing it. But in any case, as a result of this whole "I want to be in the Center" approach, the moderate Republicans have pretty much ruled the party for 50 years at the national level. We made a lot of progress and got our (meaning the fiscal con. agenda pretty far.) 1964 was going to be our year. God only knows Goldwater and his regime would have repealed New Deal legislation, destroyed Social Security, and cut taxes like no one's business. Heck, we got all the way to the general election. That could NEVER happen today. It was a miracle when Goldwater won the primary. But as much as I hate to admit it, it wasn't the Leftests who always supported LBJ that sunk Goldwater. It was the moderate Republicans at the GOP convention that got scared and changed to Democrats. And it was all of those people in the US who were "benefiting" from government programs who viewed Goldwater as a threat to their free lunch. Not to mention the blacks who voted LBJ because Goldwater opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Damn, that alone made him look incredibly bad. Have any of you seen the popular and electoral counts of the 1964 general election? It's not pretty. One of the worst defeats in any election in US history. He won a few southern states for the electoral college, and he won Arizona. THAT WAS IT. What is particularly sad is that Goldwater was not a racist, even though he was painted that way. Interestingly, his opposition to the bill had nothing to do any opposition to blacks. He did not support the Civil Rights Act because he feared the growth of the power the Federal Gov't and the authority of it to supplant State laws. He was severely defeated, which proved that in 1964 most Americans were moderates. Not much have changed--accept that what was once identified as liberal is now considered moderate. But anyway, I just want to impress upon you, lest you think we're just sitting on our hands, that there are Republicans trying to force the party in our direction and yours. But it's an uphill battle, not only within the party, but with the many moderates in America who want to flirt with conservatism from time to time but never want to risk committing to a truly Free Market. So it would be nice to have your help by at least showing up in November. As I stressed last time, sorry the GOP has acted so Democratic lately under Bush and others, but nothing will ever change in your favor if you don't at least vote for Republicans. I'll also add that I would find it almost hypocrtical for one of you to be complaining about the situation and yet not show up at the polls. For that matter, keep in mind that the primary is the place to really voice your concerns and change the direction of the party from within. So how many of showed up at the primaries to vote for Right candidates? Just curious.

Interesting. The chief problem with Republicans is that they have lost the Calvin Coolidge spirit long ago. So many Republicans claim to want smaller government, but in reality they desire an unecessary amount of the national budget to be dedicated to the military, or to maintaining various welfare programs. Now, as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing wrong with having a good military which is well armed and ready to defend the country. However, at this time in our history, the possibility of a military invasion is very unlikely. Certain times call for different approaches based on differing circumstances, but there is no reason at present to keep our military as it stands today, though there are those on the Right and Left who both argue for the disbanding of the military, which I'm against, as well. Finding a way to minimize our military while still ensuring it is sufficient for defense purposes would be ideal, for me. Terrorism is still a threat to this country and will always be. But we need not send our military in to deal with our enemies, and thus unduly put lives at risk and spend taxpayer money which should not be spent. Sending spies into their countries, practicing subversion, and dividing our enemies against each other--as have been our previous foreign policies--seems more to me than engaging in one war after another every time we're attacked. Intelligence wars, when absolutely, are prefferable to, on the one hand, isolationism, and on the other, wars and occupation. Reducing the military budget seems like violating some sacred principle to many a Republican, but a true Conservative Republican, things like this ought to be judged on a case-by-case basis, with time provided to make the most prudent decision on the specific cases. There is no reason to supporse, for instance, that China will attack us, that would be irrational at present. Most of the Communists in North Korea and Cuba, while they might pose a military, will, in all likelihood, not seek a fight. The majority of our threats are those ideological Leftwing plots which invade us through university indocrination and political "social justice rhetoric," not terrorists. Sadly, the war in Iraq distracted the nation from Bush's runaway spending, neoconservative spending, which is also a problem. But I digress, my Objectist allies, pardon. Is it best if the Democrats continue to run the country. It's difficult for me to say. You should able to conclude from that statement that I'm not exactly thrilled about being a Republican right now. It's all we Conservatives can try to do to take back our party from neoconservatives and liberals and begin to head back to a government more ressembling the Coolidge Administration. We've got a lot of work to do. But anway, well, on the one hand, as long as Obama and his fascist thugs (his policies strike me as more facist than anything else) maintain control of the country, we will become more and more Collectivistic at a more rapid pace than we would under a Republican regime of fiscal irresponsibility. So that could be a good thing is this sense: what has happened ocassionally in our hsitory is that the more Left we move, the greater the backlash when the Right wrests control. So, for instance, FDR continually defeated conservative and libertarian Republicans over and over again, frustrating the Right's efforts. However, while little was done from the 1930s to the 1980s to regain control at the national levels, numerous states became increasingly more moderate, then conservative. Obviously, not every state adopted Right perspectives on all issues. But much progress has been made at the state and local level nonethless. As an example, while the country is nationally heading to the Left, my state, Arizona, is heading to the Right, interestingly enough. As of July 29, 2010, AZ is now an unrestricted carry state in regards to persons over 21 carrying concealed handguns. Prior to this bill in April, a person was compelled to obtain a costly state permit. Now, while the state will still issue permits, they will not be compulsory. What's more, the country wide state trends of the dreaded "gun control" laws are heading out the door gradually, being replaced with more gun owner friendly laws. The movement really took a leap in the early 1980s following high crime rates from the 60s and 70s. Since the 80s, "gun control" laws country wide have been incredibly relaxed (albiet cities like New York Ciity and Chicago have been hard eggs to crack. But essentially, there has been much success here, and it should be noted and that 9/10 times, these deregulation efforts were led by Republicans, not Democrats. There does appear to be a state level backlash at federal attempts at hegomony. We can see this with certain states refusing "stimulus mone." Also, in 2008, Nebraska voters voted an Affirmative Action ban, which has also been done in two or three other states. Many more states have become closer and closer to ending Affirmative Action on the ballets in the past five years, as well. Pardon, I'm sorry for not getting to the point. What I'm saying is in one sense, a Democratic regime has forced those on the Right who are prone to complacency under a Republican regime to really wake up to the dangers that Collectivism poses. Because the national of politics is so entrenched, people have been venting their just anger on their Left leaning states. None of this proves that a Democratic regime is better for the country in the long run, however. I hate the Republican Party, and hate the Democratic Party even more, so while I can understand that many of you feel justly betrayed by past Republican assualts on the Free Market, you are still more likely more likely to vote retain freedom if you vote Republican as opposed to not voting and 'letting the chips fall where they may.' Like you, I hope that there will be a backlash under the radical Collectivism that will wake people up. But you can't refuse to back the Republicans this year for resentment then become irate as the country heads further and further Left when Republicans lose. No offense to third party advocates, but this is a waste of energy. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. The Republicans might swinging be swinging Left themselves, but it's a choice between two currupt systems, one of which we have a fighting chance of regaining control over, and other, which will keep rolling and rolling till we arrive at Euroepan-style-Socialism. There are a few Republicans willing to stand up for the Free Market, as compared to fewer Democrats. And third parties will not be able to get enough traction to make a difference. Actually--correction, they can make a difference. They can idiotically split the Republican vote, ensuring a victory to the unified Democrats. We've seen it over and over again. You Independents out there, need I bring up Ross Perot? Anway, this is basically my two cents in a nutshell. Yes, in the short term, peple will be angered by Obama's policies--more so than they would have been under a Let's Go Ever So Slowly Left John McCain. But in the long run? Simply stated, if we don't at least get the Republicans back in office for now, we're in big trouble. All of the progress we've made at the state and local levels could easily be undermined by an increasingly dangerous Obama Administration which is creeping closer and closer toward federal hegemomy. As much as the Republicans have always let us down, we'll be more likely to help the Free Market with them in office than their Democratic counterparts.

I'm inclined to agree with about the income tax--if the income if either progressive or regressive. Lately I've been doing some research on the flat tax. Interesting idea, but with the liberals running Congress in both the Republican and Democratic parties, I'm not sure it will ever come to fruition. Time will tell. I'm reading the Taxing Ourselves, which takes up many sides of the issue of the progressive income and regressive income systems, then places the flat tax as a third alternative, with a myraid of other lesser known alternative ideas from across the political spectrum.

Thanks for the reply! I'm pretty new to this site, but I like it so far. I'd love nothing more than to continue this conversation, but alas, I have to go to class. I'll be happy to pick it up later, though. You and I would appear to differ in what we view as rights versus privileges. The aformentioned things, life, liberty, and property are rights of men, and they cannot be taken away--for such action is a violation of the contract by government. But as I said, and still hold, one does not have the right to be in a country which is not his own. He may have the privilege, if allowed, but not the right. This is not a contradiction and cannot see why you see it as so. Nonetheless, I recongize your command of the written word and look forward to more discussions.

Never have I encountered such a precise, brief response to the issue of borders. Your view strikes as different only by degrees from conservations I've had with my Right LIbertarian allies. I see that you and I disagree in many areas. But I'll tell you what I tell my Right Libertarian friends. If I had to choose an immigration policy other than my own, if I had a choice between attempting to implent your personal policy and that of an American Progressivist and Collectivist models, I would choose yours. Realizing the differences between us, I still see more in common between us than with the socialist forces at work here and abroad. We are all of us champions of the Individual, yet our methods and beliefs about the proper roles of the Individual and the State are somewhat different. Yet if I did not have the opportunity to try and forge my own vision of a Conservative society, I would like to aid you in creating an Objectivist one--for fear of the other alternatives. Just reading many of these posts gives a much needed breath of fresh air and fresh thinking compared that of the Left rhetoric of amnesty and "internationalism for internationalism's sake." I see that you preach a particularly coherent idea--and in theory, a very sensible idea. But I must politely disagree with it nonetheless. A person not born in a foreign country in which he wishes to live, while he is welcome to trade there, is not necessarily welcome to live there. He may or may not be. The mere fact that a person labors cannot be the deciding factor in determining whether or not he can remain within a country. He must show his intention, not only to labor, but to be a citizen, and what's more, to be a good citizen who respects the laws, general customs, and general traditions of the country in which he wishes to dwell (so long as the laws are just and the traditions and customs, while different than his own, are not unreasonable. In such cases as laws are unjust, such as in totalitarian countries, the thing becomes much more complicated.) This person, regardless of which country he is from, is course entitled to his rights, that is, his life, liberty, and the retainment of his personal property, for they are his unalienable rights. But he does not have the right to dwell in a country not his own and share in the fruits of the labors of a people not his own. That is not a right, but a privilege, which is given to him by that country via the decisions of a representative government whom individuals elect to carry out their general wishes in matters of immigration.

*** Mod's note: Merged with an existing topic on Arizona's immigration law. - sN *** In a broad sense, this is a question pertaining to very nature of laws enforcing immigration law under National Sovereignty. This because SB1070 was created, I contest, in response to what is thought to be the failure of the US Government to secure the borders of this country. Or, more accurately, what is thought to be the Reagan and Bush Administration's incremental steps toward amnesty. Yet, in a narrower sense, the qustion also applies to the abilties of states to invoke the Tenth Amendment to secure their own borders against foreign countries. Do Objectivists believe in the notion of a world with borders and clear lines of distinction between countries-- not based on racism or xenophobia--but on the belief that a prudent country should seek to restrict and control the flow of illegal and legal immigration in order to allow to promote assimilation? Or do you believe that so long as an illegal alien wants to work he ought to be able to live in the country? Secondly, if Objectvists do believe that a country ought to have borders and ought to be able to control those borders, to whom does the responsibilty of border enforcement fall? That is, does the responsibility include only the federal government, or the state government, or local government, or some mix of the three?

As a Conservative (capital letter used to to attempt to denote difference between false association of fiscal conservative from traitorous neoconservatives,) I have a belief which you may or may not agree with. I'll get into it if anyone responds. As Alexander Hamilton once "If men were angels, they would need no government." Here, Hamilton was expressing the need for a central, strong government with powers to curtail the passions of the People. He was one of the most ardent advocates of amending the Articles of Confederation and transforming the states from a loose confederation into a federal body checked by a Constitution. As one of the most radical proponents of federalism, Hamilton's message was opposed by those like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry (Republicans), who favored the confederational approach, and who, with the memory of English rule still in their minds, were wary of any tendencies centralizing authority. Ultimately, my historical hero, James Madison, and of course, George Washington, were able to gather enough delagates to discuss these things at the Constitutional Convention. And, ultimately, what came of their deliberations became the foundation for our country's Constitution in 1787. All of this history is given, not to bore the reader, but to prepare him for a discussion as to the nature of man. Jefferson and Hamiltonm, while both patriots, differed greatly in how the states should be governed. And how a people should be governed is question cannot innitiated without some prior thoughts as to the very nature of man. Therefore, it is not at all a surprise that Jefferson and Hamilton also differed in their understanding of man. Hamilton was so distrustful of 'the unbridled passions of mob rule' that he first proposed the creation of an American monarchy. Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, Henry wanted to restrict the powers of the US Government to the controversial Articles of Confederation. As I said, the patriotism of these men cannot be questioned. Hamilton served bravely under Washington in the War for Independence and Henry gave a fiery speech which the moved the hearts of the American colonial to fight independence. Both had a role to play in our fight for independence and each passionately loved the colonies. Yet, at the same time, each man took a radically different position on government. Hamilton, that the People were fickle and could be a danger to their own ordered liberty. While Henry warned that governments were fickle and a possible threat to ordered liberty. The question, therefore, which I present to you Objectivists, is this: Specifically, would you prefer to live now under the Articles of Confederation as they existed, or do you favor the currently existing the US Constitution? Secondly, what does this say about the Objectivist belief of man and his relationship with government? Keep in mind that one of the major criticisms of the Articles during the 1780s were 1) inability of federal government to tax, 2), no federal authority to formally make treaties, 3) no authority government of coin money--among a host of others. Now, keep in mind that I'm asking you this, not because I'm a Collectivist or liberal, but because I'm curious how you're philosophy relates to the Federalist and Anti-Federalist (Republican) debate which we Conservatives engage in. Right now, both Conservatives and Right Libertarians are leaning toward a less centralized national government such as that in the Articles, and I suspect you will do the same (even though, admittedly, I know little about your ideology beyond what I've read in Atlas Shrugged. From what I know afer reading that book, you take a very anti-Collectivist approach to government, and are therefore temporary allies in the Conservative cause against Big Government. I'm fascinated to know more about the differences and similarities between my principles and yours. It was very obvious from Atlas Shrugged that Rand was pro-Free Market (possibly even a student of Austrian economist FA Hayek??) But outside that, the clarity of her belief in the proper role of government and the relationship of man to government left much to be desired. Nor do I fault her for this. So far as I can tell, her aim in Atlas Shrugged was crticize the folly of interventionist government policies, and thus her focus on how governments should govern is likely to be found elsewhere. But where to find it? I have no idea. I've head that We The Living is a criticism of Communism (something the Conservative hates with a passion.) But this still doesn't seem to address the proper role of government and practical application. Perhaps non ficiton works might make the concepts less abstract and more black and white?