My Beef with the Founding Fathers
One of the main things I never understood about the US (along with amish people, lacrosse and the drinking age being set at 21) was the idea that the founding fathers provided some sort of guiding light towards economic prosperity, social justice etc.
Ron Paul talks a lot of sense, but he seems to back up a lot of stuff with 'what the founding fathers intended'*. And he's not alone; all of them Tea Party gobshites are at it, too.*
What qualifications or real experience did the founding fathers have? They were just a bunch of guys who came together and wrote an idealised version of what an 18th century country could be..
Its true they had some good ideas which have stood the test of time, but that doesn't make all of their principles perfect. Why are people trying to apply their principles to the 21st fucking century and expecting them to work?!
(*Glenn Beck and Michael Moore do it too, but they're ruh-tards).
Comments
Not sure why you caught MS so
Not sure why you caught MS so quickly, but my take is that there's always a crowd who entertains fundamentalist thinking in its most pure form. In the case of the US, that would likely be what the Founding Fathers suggested. Indeed, their principles and morals may not fit much of the modern political or economic atmosphere, but the ideas they engendered were the basis of this country's success; that's what drives people to ask, "should we revert to these principles in times of hardship?"
It is very difficult to change a country's identity; China has held on to its cultural roots even through the 70's, when the government literally said, "the old culture is blasphemy." It took complete military destruction and economic reconstruction to shift the German national identity post-WWII. It is unlikely that any of what defines America today will change within our lifetime, and the ideas harbored by the Fathers, right or wrong, will likely continue to be accepted as what is "good" for the nation.
Let me preface this comment
Let me preface this comment by stating that I detest the Ron Paul movement, mostly because the movement attempts to rigidly apply ONE 18th century governing domestic and international philosophy to 21st century America without so much as acknowledging that 1) the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were all compromise documents, that 2) the founding fathers were far from ideological agreement with one another and 3) the incredible nuance and complexity of some issues and the fact that the America of today is a far, far cry from the relatively homogeneous, agrarian 18th century America that took 3 months by boat to communicate with Europe.
That said, the founding fathers of the United States were clearly among the wisest--if not THE wisest--founders of a nation in the history of the human race. They bitterly debated issues with one another and resolved their conflicts largely peacefully; the founders were almost all wealthy Englishmen who were literally gambling on snake eyes when they rebelled against the most powerful military force on the planet at the time; and when the opportunity to seize absolute power was presented to them they turned it down, agreeing instead to limit their own power and submit themselves to a national compact--the rule of law. Where the American Revolution resulted in increased liberty and the rule of law, the French Revolution--a contemporary revolution partly inspired by the American Revolution--resulted in mass murder and unmitigated despotism.
To go further, the founding fathers observed history and actually learned from it. They observed the failings of human beings and of past governments and they peacefully but forcefully debated their points, negotiated and hammered out a great compromise based on fundamental principles of human liberty and constitutionally limited government that endure today. These principles have allowed the United States to emerge as the most powerful nation in the history of the world, and while our European contemporaries prosecute people for free speech "violations", for example, our Supreme Court maintains nearly unlimited free speech rights, demonstrating the enduring nature of our culture set forth by our wise founders.
Virginia Tech 4ever: Let me
Let me preface this comment by stating that I detest the Ron Paul movement, mostly because the movement attempts to rigidly apply ONE 18th century governing domestic and international philosophy to 21st century America without so much as acknowledging that 1) the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were all compromise documents, that 2) the founding fathers were far from ideological agreement with one another and 3) the incredible nuance and complexity of some issues and the fact that the America of today is a far, far cry from the relatively homogeneous, agrarian 18th century America that took 3 months by boat to communicate with Europe.
That said, the founding fathers of the United States were clearly among the wisest--if not THE wisest--founders of a nation in the history of the human race. They bitterly debated issues with one another and resolved their conflicts largely peacefully; the founders were almost all wealthy Englishmen who were literally gambling on snake eyes when they rebelled against the most powerful military force on the planet at the time; and when the opportunity to seize absolute power was presented to them they turned it down, agreeing instead to limit their own power and submit themselves to a national compact--the rule of law. Where the American Revolution resulted in increased liberty and the rule of law, the French Revolution--a contemporary revolution partly inspired by the American Revolution--resulted in mass murder and unmitigated despotism.
To go further, the founding fathers observed history and actually learned from it. They observed the failings of human beings and of past governments and they peacefully but forcefully debated their points, negotiated and hammered out a great compromise based on fundamental principles of human liberty and constitutionally limited government that endure today. These principles have allowed the United States to emerge as the most powerful nation in the history of the world, and while our European contemporaries prosecute people for free speech "violations", for example, our Supreme Court maintains nearly unlimited free speech rights, demonstrating the enduring nature of our culture set forth by our wise founders.
Holy shit. +1
^^^ great post
^^^ great post
I hate the idea of a "living
I hate the idea of a "living constitution"...it seems inherently corruptible. But we cannot expect a historical document to conform with the realities of modernity.
We must recognize that the founding father's could not have foreseen the changes of the past 250 years. Rather than live by the letter of the law, we must live by its spirit. As VT4Ever said, our founders clearly intended that we have nearly unlimited free speech. We must respect, and hopefully protect, that tradition.
Nothing is unchangeable. Even the constitution allows for itself to be rewritten via a constitutional convention. But we haven't done so. Brushing aside the practical reasons for not calling a constitutional convention, we like our identity. We choose to live under the constitution, and the freedom it promises. Immigrants have chosen to come to the US for hundreds of years for that very promise.
No matter how close we drift to the nanny state, it is my belief that most Americans value the freedom to fail and to succeed. We would rather try and fail than live in a society of guaranteed mediocrity.
Virginia Tech 4ever: Let me
Let me preface this comment by stating that I detest the Ron Paul movement, mostly because the movement attempts to rigidly apply ONE 18th century governing domestic and international philosophy
You mean the philosophy that allowed the USA to become the wealthiest nation in human history? That philosophy? The one that generated the huge wealth that was squandered during the 20th century via social programs?
You and the people who think like you REALLY deserve what's coming, i.e. economic armageddon.
stopped reading after you
stopped reading after you said you didn't like lacrosse
Virginia Tech 4ever: Let me
Let me preface this comment by stating that I detest the Ron Paul movement, mostly because the movement attempts to rigidly apply ONE 18th century governing domestic and international philosophy to 21st century America without so much as acknowledging that 1) the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were all compromise documents, that 2) the founding fathers were far from ideological agreement with one another and 3) the incredible nuance and complexity of some issues and the fact that the America of today is a far, far cry from the relatively homogeneous, agrarian 18th century America that took 3 months by boat to communicate with Europe.
That said, the founding fathers of the United States were clearly among the wisest--if not THE wisest--founders of a nation in the history of the human race. They bitterly debated issues with one another and resolved their conflicts largely peacefully; the founders were almost all wealthy Englishmen who were literally gambling on snake eyes when they rebelled against the most powerful military force on the planet at the time; and when the opportunity to seize absolute power was presented to them they turned it down, agreeing instead to limit their own power and submit themselves to a national compact--the rule of law. Where the American Revolution resulted in increased liberty and the rule of law, the French Revolution--a contemporary revolution partly inspired by the American Revolution--resulted in mass murder and unmitigated despotism.
To go further, the founding fathers observed history and actually learned from it. They observed the failings of human beings and of past governments and they peacefully but forcefully debated their points, negotiated and hammered out a great compromise based on fundamental principles of human liberty and constitutionally limited government that endure today. These principles have allowed the United States to emerge as the most powerful nation in the history of the world, and while our European contemporaries prosecute people for free speech "violations", for example, our Supreme Court maintains nearly unlimited free speech rights, demonstrating the enduring nature of our culture set forth by our wise founders.
Great Post. I would again emphasize how important the rule of law is. I believe our founding fathers understood the need to limit the power of governmental authority through the rule of law. Whether it is the 18th century or the 21st century, the rule of law is one of the most important factors of economic growth in any nation in its ability to reward/punish profit motive and risk. The vagueness of some of the laws passed by the federal government over the last two administrations make me cringe. Firms will rise and fall with passage of new laws and regulations, but vague laws that are passed without any forethought on implementation(which eventually turn the judiciary into legislators) make it difficult for any firm to succeed and predict the business environment.
Here in the UK we have no
Here in the UK we have no written codified constitution and the laws of Parliament are not bound on future Parliaments. Today's Parliament can simply change the constitution by passing new Acts of Parliament. As a result of this, in my opinion, you end up with rule by the uneducated masses and laws are passed to pander to ideas/special interests that may sound good in theory but have many unintended consequences. Since moving here I can see the effects of this; a society that has gradually become a police state with CCTV camera's watching your every move, phone conversations tapped, successive governments proposing to introduce national ID card schemes, an errosion of civil liberties and a clamp down on free speech......but oh well, I can still get a cheap pint and watch the footy on TV!
Virginia Tech 4ever: Where
Where the American Revolution resulted in increased liberty and the rule of law, the French Revolution--a contemporary revolution partly inspired by the American Revolution--resulted in mass murder and unmitigated despotism.
This paragraph, In my opinion, is almost entirely false. Unmitigated despotism? Mass Murder?? There was just the one "despot" - Napoleon, and he came into power as a result of a military coup. Mass Murder - I'm not sure there was more bloodshed in France than there was in the US during the war for independence.
You spin a good and patriotic tale here V-tech, but the reality is much less glamorous - there's a huge element of luck in the success of the USA, a fortunate toss of the die.
I'll leave the discussion about free speech for someone else to handle - does the US really have freer speech than the western European nations?
Question - Are you sure they were all Englishmen? I was of the opinion that you had a mixed bag of Europeans, and though they were probably dominated by the English in numbers, I believe there was French and Dutch representation as well.
But Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, Rhaegar fought bravely.
And Rhaegar died.
low_key: ^^^ great post Who
^^^ great post
Who is in your picture and why is she there?
Teenage love interest?
The answer to your question is 1) network 2) get involved 3) beef up your resume 4) repeat -happypantsmcgee
WSO is not your personal search function.
I think that such an emphasis
I think that such an emphasis on the founding fathers and their feats is foolish. The constitution should be a "living document", because times change and society changes.
While the founding fathers were very wise and brace men, relying on them is an extreme form of banality. Jesus was a great guy, but you don't seriously go around saying to yourself "what would jesus do?"
miermier: I think that such
I think that such an emphasis on the founding fathers and their feats is foolish. The constitution should be a "living document", because times change and society changes.
While the founding fathers were very wise and brace men, relying on them is an extreme form of banality. Jesus was a great guy, but you don't seriously go around saying to yourself "what would jesus do?"
Actually, "what would Jesus do?" may be adequate. "What did Jesus do?", on the other hand, would very likely fall flat on it's face.
But Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, Rhaegar fought bravely.
And Rhaegar died.
Anomanderis: This paragraph,
This paragraph, In my opinion, is almost entirely false. Unmitigated despotism? Mass Murder?? There was just the one "despot" - Napoleon, and he came into power as a result of a military coup. Mass Murder - I'm not sure there was more bloodshed in France than there was in the US during the war for independence.
Robespierre dude. Between 16 and 40k people were killed during it.
“...all truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
- Schopenhauer
miermier: I think that such
I think that such an emphasis on the founding fathers and their feats is foolish. The constitution should be a "living document", because times change and society changes.
While the founding fathers were very wise and brace men, relying on them is an extreme form of banality. Jesus was a great guy, but you don't seriously go around saying to yourself "what would jesus do?"
Are you aware of the argument of the "living constitution?" See here for an argument not in favor of a laws that must be changed only by legislatures as opposed to courts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imYlSD-2mrk
“...all truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
- Schopenhauer
Virginia Tech 4ever: Let me
“...all truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
- Schopenhauer
Anomanderis: miermier: I
seabird: Virginia Tech
double post
Anomanderis: Virginia Tech
Virginia Tech
“...all truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
- Schopenhauer
Virginia Tech
But Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, Rhaegar fought bravely.
And Rhaegar died.
I completely agree with this.
Although I will add that the
Pardon me if this is naïve,
(No subject)
This thread is one of the
Ace Rothstein: Pardon me if
oh you have a problem with
I eat success for breakfast...with skim milk
miermier: Ace
Virginia Tech
miermier: Virginia Tech
Virginia Tech
*sigh* no credits... nvm