"This I hope will be the age of experiments in government, and that their basis will be founded in principles of honesty, not of mere force." - Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1796.
Jul 21
“Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle”
~Thomas Jefferson
RSS feed
Fri, 08/29/2008 - 9:24pm
Apparently torture.
Obama '08
Tue, 08/26/2008 - 6:43pm
Well todays government has changed it different from the past I like the past better than the present
Tue, 08/12/2008 - 7:06pm
I have to whole heartedly agree with A Pennsylvanian, and disagree with the notion that phrases contained in the Constitution such as "common defense" implicitly endorse socialism as either a political OR an economic operational mode.
NO economic nor political "ism" can or should be endorsed which would be anathema to the individual liberties contained throughout the body of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Socialism by it's very nature and definition IS anathema to those principles.
One does NOT have to find the word capitalism within the text of those documents to maintain that socialism was the intent of the founders, or to argue that socialism was NOT the intent. IF ANY economic or political system promoted violates the intent of the documents to protect individual liberties, property, the peaceful enterprise of advancement of self, family, and heirs, or the rights to free thought and expression, or the rights to worship or not as one wishes within the common law, then it is NOT a valid suggestion and should be rebuffed most strongly.
It is in the INDIVIDUAL interest to bind together for the common defense when threatened by a foreign army or power. There seems to be entirely too much of the notion of parsing the founder's text in these documents to support infringements on the individual liberties they intended to protect. The second ammendment is a perfect example. Parsing that text and focusing on the word "militia" to espouse that the founders ONLY intended the State to bear arms is ludicrous, disingenious, and downright anti-American, anti-Constitutional, and dangerous ultimately to freedoms at large. Same with focusing on phrases such as "for the common defense" or "in the interests of the common good" as license to install oppressive socialism as an economic or political intension of the founders. And smacks of the same adjectives as describing the similar view concerning the 2nd Ammendment.
We have lost the founder's dream. We can get it back, and become the vibrant, unique, and rich nation we had become once again. But NOT by stooping to credit such disingenious arguments with validity, or worse yet, enacting legislation which drags us further away from that which made this country great and successful.
Another Pennsylvanian
Sat, 08/02/2008 - 7:25pm
Well done, Pensylvanian. You have clearly, succinctly stated what I have tried, with my philosophical/theological approach, to get across. My approach, I hope, caught the basic value system at least of our Founding Fathers, especially Mr. Jefferson. Thank you most especially for your last paragraph. So again I ask our contributors, where is our liberty and freedom when our Republic is corrupted into a socialistic state. An American in Florida
Sat, 08/02/2008 - 9:27am
A Brit: A nationalized health care system would kill untold numbers of people in its lifetime. We also can't afford it. We have a $99 trillion unfunded obligation to Social Security and Medicare. For a sense of perspective, the annual gross domestic product of the U.S. economy is $13.6 trillion. To pay off this debt in one lump sum would cost each American, young, old, baby and grandmother $330,000. That's $1.3 million per family of four. An alternative would be to increase federal income tax revenue by 68%. If you think you pay too much to the IRS now, just wait.
A Virginian: While the Constitution does not specifically lay out an economic structure in the way it does legislative, executive, and judicial, it does include a number of clauses and amendments that clearly prefer a market system. For those who don't know, a market system includes the following attributes: Private property, Freedom of enterprise and choice, Motive of self-interest, Competition, Markets and prices, and Limited role of government.
The Constitution may not say "You are a market economy", but it certainly put in place a system of government whose purpose was to generate prosperity by avoiding the zero-sum policy of transfer of wealth. What you give to someone else through transfer, someone else loses. Nothing is created. The 4th amendment prevents the seizing of property without due process, making wealth transfer much harder, and securing the value of an individuals efforts in his own productivity.
The "contract clause" prevents the states from imposing any law impairing the obligation of contracts, the purpose of which was to prevent government interference in mutually beneficial exchanges between citizens. This lowers the "cost" of making transactions, therefore promoting those types of transactions. The Founders were quite wary of government's ability to promote social well being. They knew that individual motivations would always trump collective needs and rather than try to set up a system of government to prevent the former, they chose to let loose that innate human nature through limited government. They were proven very wise, as we have had two centuries of incredible economic well-being.
I am less confident about the future, as the American entitlement mentality and government enablement of that mentality are leading us right back to what the Founders wanted to prevent: wealth transfer and zero or negative growth.
A Pennsylvanian
Wed, 07/30/2008 - 8:02pm
Hey there Virginian, Pensylvanian, Floridian and Ms. Nogood,
Is this a private debate or can anyone join?
I personally can't agree with either the Pennsylvanian or the Floridian. Do you two mean to tell me that you disaprove of the way the buddhist monks live, all working together to help the whole, or the Native American tribes (who lived likewise), or even the monks and nuns of the Christian tradition (anyone sensing a pattern here?)
You may well say that it's okay for some to live that way but it won't work for a whole country and cite Soviet Union etc. to prove it. Well that's fine, and I'm not saying it would work, what I am saying is that it's constitutional and sound in principal if not in the way it's carried out.
As Ms. Nogood pointed out,it does seem as though the founding fathers wanted to ensure that we work for the good of the whole. I am not saying that socialism is the only way to do that. But nor do I think that a nationalized health care system would kill us.
What it all boils down to is that I think you should know a thing before you judge it and look at all sides of it so I ask the Pennsylvanian and the Floridian to take another look at this side of the argument.
A Brit
PS I bow to you're superior knowledge (on most things), it amazes me the way you can cite various quotes seemingly off the top of your head.
So estimed fellows rip my comments to shreds for being completely unfounded if you want to, I won't take it personally :)
Wed, 07/30/2008 - 7:56pm
Let's hear it for spellcheck.
Wed, 07/30/2008 - 7:25pm
Let's hear it for seperation of church and state!
A Brit
(Yes I know that's kind of hypocritical, why do you think I'm in America?)
Mon, 07/28/2008 - 10:25am
Let's hear it for "divine design."
— A Virginian
Sat, 07/26/2008 - 6:57pm
Ms. NoGood’s contribution is so very thought provoking. (Sent me to the books, just as Ms. Marion did.) ”The Constitution is neither Capitalist nor Socialist“ is for me the operative sentence. Not being familiar with the writings of Adam Smith, I spent the afternoon researching them. I understand Mr. Jefferson even better now. I offer for contemplation these excerpts:
"In Smith’s presentation, there are at least four factors responsible for growth: the division of labor, capital accumulation, order and good government, and discretion for capital owners to invest wherever they choose.”
And, another excerpt:
“ Order and good government serve as immediate prerequisites for “the liberty and security of individuals” and ultimately as prerequisites for capital accumulation.”
And another:
“Why is the most beneficial result achieved without human manipulation? Divine design is the answer.”
Interesting, eh what? An American in Florida
Sat, 07/26/2008 - 8:29am
Nowhere in the Constitution does it cite socialism or capitalism. Many of the arguments on this board have fallen into the mistake of "presentism" by imposing later standards on the founders.
Adam Smith was published in 1776; our founders would most likely have read him by the writing of the Constitution, however, the term "capitalism" would not have been a term they would have used.
In addition, socialism is a later concept, whether you look at the "utopian socialism" of Robert Owen and Charles Fourier, or Marx & Engels's ideas about socialism.
I can see the Virginian's argument. When the founders wrote that they wanted to "provide for the common defense" and "promote the general welfare", do not these terms sound as if they were promoting the greater good of a united citizenry?
--"Silence Nogood"
Fri, 07/25/2008 - 2:48pm
Dear Virginian - since this is your position, defend it by citing Constitution section that upholds it. Very interested. An American in Florida
Fri, 07/25/2008 - 10:33am
With only the internet at hand to research the tenor of the times (1796 through 1800 presidential campaign) it seems to me I see the prototype for the campaign of 2008.
For example: The one candidate doesn't insult his opponent, leaving that to his faithful. His opposing candidate uses ridicule, distortion, and accusations made by his followers to demean his opponent. These very strategies were employed by Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Adams. Of interest is the following excerpt:
"...early American newspapers were unabashedly partisan, favoring either the conservative Federalists or the Republican opposition that Jefferson had launched in the seventeen-nineties. Take a look at the Philadelphia Aurora, an organ of Jefferson’s party, edited by William Duane (a printer whom Federalists had pursued, unsuccessfully, for sedition in 1799). The edition of October 14, 1800, tells you that your choice lies between “Things As They Have Been” (under Adams):
The principles and patriots of the Revolution condemned. . . .
The Nation in arms without a foe, and divided without a cause. . . .
The reign of terror created by false alarms, to promote domestic feud and foreign war.
A Sedition Law. . . .
An established church, a religious test, and an order of Priesthood.
And “Things As They Will Be” (if Jefferson is elected):
The Principles of the Revolution restored. . . .
The Nation at peace with the world and united in itself.
Republicanism allaying the fever of domestic feuds, and subduing the opposition by the force of reason and rectitude. . . .
The Liberty of the Press. . . .
Religious liberty, the rights of conscience, no priesthood, truth and Jefferson."
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/09/17/070917crbo_books_...
However, with all the reading I have done in pursuit of the question posed, "What are today's experiments..." I don't hook in (even with suggested Iraq).
To Pennsylvanian: thank you for your response to Virginian -- I totally agree with you! Also, Virginian's reference to Secretary Gates is inaccurate which is why I suggested a website to hear the talk specified.
An American in Florida
Fri, 07/25/2008 - 5:10am
About these foreign countries, I think they brought on the wrath of the U.S. through not only their atrocious actions but also through their arrogance and I think the United Nothings should have done what they were supposed to years ago through a concerted effort(I know, not possible with this joke of a group LOL).
Unfortunately,with every dollar we spend to rebuild and provide these foreign countries with national health care while our people suffer, we enslave not only current but future generations for hundreds of years.
As far as the socialism and transfer of some wealth, how many of those totally against socialism sent back there stimulus checks? I don't see any hands raised. How many have rejected social security to pay for a loved one's longterm care?
PS: We could solve many of our Nation's problems through more honest politicians and a National Fair Tax. Anyone against it has never looked deeply at it.
Robert
Thu, 07/24/2008 - 8:39pm
Perhaps "A Pennsylvanian" can cite for us the section of the article of the Constitution of the United States that specifies which economic system the nation shall have. Or find in the document the word "capitalism."
—A Virginian
Thu, 07/24/2008 - 5:05pm
I could not disagree more with A Virginian's comment that socialism is as Constitutional as capitalism. I am outright enraged to see it referred to as "rational". Socialism by its very nature violates the natural and rational rights of man: to own property, to pursue his own happiness, to speak freely and openly, and to govern himself.
For example: It considers that capitalism elevates the rights of ownership over the rights of man and completely ignores that the right of ownership IS a right of man! It therefore chooses to transfer the right of ownership to the state or the mob in an attempt to even the odds. The result time and again is that the distribution of wealth by the community results in the general depression of the wealth of the people overall, concentrating prosperity in the ruling class and utterly negating the supposed superiority over capitalism.
One may argue there has never been a true, pure socialist system in existence. To that I reply that there has never been a truly capitalist system either.
A Pennsylvanian.
Tue, 07/22/2008 - 11:06pm
I find it interesting that Mr. Jefferson would say "that their basis will be founded in principles of honesty", when his own honesty during the election of 1800 was extremely lacking! His and his party's propaganda against John Adams during this election would be considered brutal and libel using today's standards. It even almost cost him his friendship with Adams. Adams eventually forgave him years later in 1812 at the behest of their mutual friend Benjamin Rush, and began correspondence with Jefferson again.
On the topic of Iraq and Afghanistan I would question the validity in this quote! Today democracy is being attempted in these two countries. What you may fail to remember is that our republic form of democracy in the infancy of our nation was new and experimental. Many times we could have been at a crossroads that could have stopped our nation from becoming what it has. What if France would have gone to war with us instead of Pres. Adams' envoys being able to broker peace? Just think of any major squabble over these many years and how different things may have ended during any one of them!
Today we may seem like hard times are coming our way, but remember that the depression didn't last forever and neither will all that is going on today. Look at all the great leaders of our past (political, business, or otherwise), and our countries resolve to bounce back and grow stronger. It will happen again!
Tue, 07/22/2008 - 5:55pm
Yes, but how democratic is experimenting with implanting democracy (or just a new democracy that the government likes) in foreign countries?
And was Hitler using this idea, was he experimenting with invading another nation, when the Nazis attacked Poland? Perhaps we should limit experiments to those that will not place us in the position that the British held in the colonies over 200 years ago, (that of unwanted military force which denies the rights and endangers the lives of civilians).
Jefferson is right though, in specifying that experiments in honesty and not mere force would be the kind to pursue.
I remain convinced that the "experiments" which are currently the object of our government's attention are not the sort Jefferson meant when he spoke of an age of experimentation.
Brit on Foreign Land
Tue, 07/22/2008 - 5:51pm
To Marion, Librarian: Thank you so much for the help.
Mr. Jefferson's statement, "Never was a finer canvas presented to work on than our countrymen." is, I believe, the astounding experiment: to be a Republic -- the people as sovereign.
It falls to us now in our time, to recall the purpose and fervor -- an anamnesis if you will -- by study and by vote, to prove the experiment.
May I add here, for the benefit of our bloggers, where I found Secretary Gates' speech at William and Mary to the World Conference on the Future of Democracy, 2007:
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/robertgatesworlddemocracyforum....
There is so much to learn from this knowledgeable citizen.
Thank you once again for the guidance in this exciting study. An American in Florida
Tue, 07/22/2008 - 9:51am
Hi American in Florida,
Here is the text of the complete letter from Jefferson to Adams. Is this what you were looking for? It was written in 1796. Washington had announced he would not be seeking a third term, and Jefferson and Adams would become the top contenders for the country's leader.
--Marian Librarian
Mon, 07/21/2008 - 7:56pm
When Secretary of Defense Gates addressed the luncheon of the World Forum on the Future of Democracy in Williamsburg last year, he said he doubted the American version of republican government could or should be imposed on nations of inapposite cultures, traditions, and histories. The examples he clearly had in mind were Iraq and Afghanistan. Before and after, events proved him right. Our bent for imperialism is, as Twain said, the measure not of our altruism, but of our arrogance.
Closer to home: in a country with such vast, useless and ugly gaps between classes, a form of socialism must be our goal, not our bugbear, so long as one child goes to bed hungry. The Constitution says nothing about what form our economic system must take. Socialism is as Constitutional, and more rational, as capitalism—a system that has concentrated 90 percent of the wealth in 5 percent of the population.
Finally, Jefferson was a deist (small "d," deism not being a religion), not a Christian. Though he thought there was a chance that there is some "ultimate cause," he was not sure, and his use of the word God should in that context be taken. And, yes, he was a member of the vestry in Charlottesville, and attended and donated to churches, and extracted Jesus's "quotes" from the New Testament. He was not only a seeker for an ultimate cause, but an empiricist, and a politician. Nevertheless, he was no more a subscriber to Christian superstition, and no less a dissembler, than were Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Paine, or Ethan Allen.
—A Virginian
Mon, 07/21/2008 - 5:10pm
As I observe our present day Congress, the nation's Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of Florida and the news media, my fear is the "experiment" is no longer grounded in the Constitution, but rather in testing how far can we tip the scale toward socialism.
The Founding Fathers expressed concerns the day could come when apathy and lack of vigilance would set in, which would bring about the dissolution of our Republic.
In searching for the context of the question (which I haven't yet found) I found this quote of Mr. Jefferson to David Harley, 1787: "I have no fear, but that the result of our experiment will be, that men may be trusted to govern themselves without a master. Could the contrary of this be proved, I should conclude either that there is no God, or that He is a malevolent being."
Well, Mr. Jefferson, I am fearful, though I do believe in the Almighty and I do believe the people will be duped only so far. You also said something about "truth will defend itself" and emerge without the use of force. I have always thought of you as a builder -- the builder of the Declaration of Independence, your mansion house, the University, and so far what you have built is strong -- I pray the Almighty, may it endure. An American in Florida
Mon, 07/21/2008 - 4:30pm
What aspects of Iraq and Afghanistan strike you as experimental?
E.K.
Mon, 07/21/2008 - 3:27pm
Iraq and Afghanistan come to mind.
Post new comment