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?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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… :pimp:
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.
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… :pimp:
Zimbabwe could cost 2 million Zimbabwean dollars. About $2 at the current exchange rate.
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. :pimp:
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! :pimp:
Right - what kind of natural resources does Zimbabwe have?
Mugabe, for one. Huge reserves of dust.
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. :pimp:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.