Founding Fathers

[GutZ]

There is something I don't understand about you Americas and your love for referencing the "founding fathers" all the time. No doubt I probably would agree with A LOT of what these fine people had to say. The founding fathers were people...they weren't perfect...not only that I think it defeats what they represent. Freedom, truth and justice.

 

I can't really explain it but I just get very uncomfortable when mutliple sources use the term to strengthen their ideology. It's becoming to the point it's almost used to get people to listen to there side, it's like an automatic attention grabbing device, because everyone holds the "founding fathers" in such high regards. It's getting to a point to me atleast that it's almost a pointless phrase to me.

 

It's almost, especially the media has taken the idea behind it and destroyed it. We constantly grow further away from the very concepts of the founding fathers. Yet we quote them more in different context...

 

It's like Giuliani and his 9/11 crap

 

DO you think the average citizen understand the bases behind the founding fathers anymore?

 

What do you guys think?

[Mr Skeptic]

It is a necessity of literary interpretation of our laws. The question "what did the author mean" can be more important than "what did the author say". Back then, they didn't write stuff in legaleese, as they assumed common sense would be enough.

[Sisyphus]

I think the apparent pseudo-worship and the accompanying endless arguing over what the "founding fathers" would have agreed with is in great part a remnant of deliberate efforts to form the national identity and mythology of a young nation with an inferiority complex. We didn't have a long history, we didn't have a monarch, we didn't have a universal religion, we didn't even have any solid reason to believe the whole thing was even possible. So those particular men, the key figures in the founding, were the the best we could do, and so we deified them in the national consciousness.

 

Part of it, though, is that the founding of our country was a radical experiment, and the whole thing is based around the ideas that these guys based off of Enlightenment philosophy, refined and debated amongst themselves, and audaciously put into actual practice. So we're actually living out their ideas, which makes them of great interest. The foundation of the country is our Constitution, a document detailing their intentions. So it's not so strange to debate what their intentions actually were, even if technically it doesn't really matter.

[iNow]

I've used the founding fathers in my arguments to provide context and historical perspective.

Some people use them as appeals to authority instead of presenting a meritorious argument, and that's problematic.

 

And, no. IMO, most average citizens do not understand the basis of our laws, civics, and governing mechanisms birthed by those bright renaissance fellows in the early Americas. It's a shame, really.

[ParanoiA]

Great posts above. I would only add that it's not impossible to balance their good with their bad. I think too many folks line up against the founding fathers over slavery and other shameful practices while too many line up in blind support over the wonderful experiment we're living out. In reality, I wish we could see that they were men. Flawed and gifted men.

 

I would like to see us revere their message, in spite of their actions or inability to live up to it.

 

That may mean that we have to admit that we can't and aren't living up to it either.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

It's like Giuliani and his 9/11 crap

 

Makes me sick too. I'm still pissed at him for his grandstanding and exploitation of 9/11 during his exchange with Dr Paul in the primary debates.

 

DO you think the average citizen understand the bases behind the founding fathers anymore?

 

I don't think the average citizen knows anything meaningful about our government. They don't understand the structure, the philosophical foundation of democracy checked by a constitution, the difference between "the founders" and "the framers" - none of it.

 

Try this. Ask people what the constitution is. Just ask them (well not your science buddies, they actually have a clue). Most don't even know there are 'Articles' in it that establish the government. Most of them think it's a preamble with a list of amendments.

 

And almost nobody understands the meaning of rights limited only where other's rights begin. Most believe our government is all about getting together and dreaming up laws to make life better. As if football is played by the referees, and not by players on the field. Good things don't happen from rule books, they happen on the field of play. And since it's always easier to change the rules than to improve personal performance, our rulebook - our government - has become the field of play.

Edited May 7, 2009 by ParanoiA
Consecutive posts merged.

[GutZ]

Yeah I don't mind people using it when it's the correct form...It just seems like politicians and average people don't quite get the point.

 

Too me it more of an evolving idea, a way of life. hmmmm it's so hard to get my idea accross here...The founding fathers were people, but they had an idea. The idea doesn't change, but people seem to think that the people were more important. It also seems like they are put words on the mouth of the founding fathers, because they have no chance to speak for themselves. They lived in a different time. A lot of things were different.

 

things like this:

http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

 

It's not really fair you know.

 

I don't know, there is something cylic about it, that somehow overrides the very message.

 

You and I know the purpose behind the message, the reason for the consituition, the need for rights and freedom. Do people really understand even why the constitution is important...do they think about it? How do they know the contiution is good?

 

I think for me the problem is not so much the usage of the phrase, but that when some people use it they haven't even thought about why its important. What is it that it actually represents?

 

Maybe my problem is that a lot of people jsut don't think about things anymore....we all know the constuition is a good thing...but could the average person know why?

 

To me it scary because you can abuse ideas. The idea's of the founding fathers shouldn't be...in essense it should be untouchable, because it evolves meaning as we evolve as a society. The idea of freedom may change but freedom will always be held as an important idea, why? because we know what it's like to not have freedom...

 

Like hell, I don't know...

 

I dont want those ideas to die by stupidity...

[bascule]

When I reference the Founding Fathers it's generally because I agree with them, things like:

 

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

-- Benjamin Franklin

[Mr Skeptic]

When I reference the Founding Fathers it's generally because I agree with them,

 

You mean, because the one you quoted agrees with you (and is held in high esteem)?

[ParanoiA]

When I reference the Founding Fathers it's generally because I agree with them' date=' things like:

 

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

-- Benjamin Franklin[/quote']

 

This is a perfect example of what GutZ was saying:

 

I think for me the problem is not so much the usage of the phrase, but that when some people use it they haven't even thought about why its important. What is it that it actually represents[/i']?

 

Exactly. Some will use a fancy phrase about security and liberty when they think it represents war and fear, but not economy and fear. As if Franklin could only be talking about terrorism or foreign threats provoking concession of liberty for protection, and nothing about ANY threat provoking concession of liberty for protection.

[iNow]

Having read his thousands of posts here, I'm pretty confident that Bascule understands and appreciates the importance of the quote he used. Are you guys here suggesting otherwise?

[ParanoiA]

I am. For the reason I offered.

[iNow]

Well, thanks for the response. I personally disagree, but hey... opinions are like bung holes, right?

 

Personally, I see a pretty critical difference between simply "understanding the importance" of a quote as discussed by Gutz and "not having directly used it to describe specific circumstances" ... like the economy... as discussed by you.

 

You seem to be implying that... just because you personally have not witnessed bascule using that quote in that one subject area... that he "doesn't understand its importance."

 

It's like saying I don't understand what sexiness is because I've never posted at SFN about how sexy Morena Baccarin is. It's non-sequitur, and rather unrelated AFAIC...

 

All off-topic, though. I found fault with your attack, and wanted to point that out.

[ParanoiA]

Nope. I've pointed it out in the numerous economy threads on the bailouts, the federal reserve, central planning..etc. Part of the reason I used it in those threads was precisely for this reason - to get him to think dynamically about Franklin's warning, instead of relegating it to GWB civil liberties arguments.

[bascule]

Exactly. Some will use a fancy phrase about security and liberty when they think it represents war and fear, but not economy and fear. As if Franklin could only be talking about terrorism or foreign threats provoking concession of liberty for protection, and nothing about ANY threat provoking concession of liberty for protection.

 

I use the quote in the context of personal liberties. Things like: being able to talk on the phone to someone in another country without the fear of the government illegally spying on you without a warrant. Being able to use the Internet without my traffic getting routed into the NSA. Being able to take hair gel on an airplane without having to pay $15 to check a bag or ensuring that my hair gel is in a one quart plastic bag. Being able to keep my shoes on as I walk through the metal detector.

 

I'm not sure what "liberties" you think we as a nation have given up in the wake of the financial crisis. I've seen you talk about them but only in vague terms. As far as I can tell these are not individual liberties, but "freedoms" implicitly given to corporations.

 

Unlike capital-L Libertarians, I do not collude personal liberties with the liberties of corporations. I also value personal liberties much more highly than corporate liberties. As an individual I want the government to stay out of my business unless a judge says otherwise. I think corporations require much higher levels of transparency and regulation than individuals.

 

At the time of Franklin's quote corporations as we know them today did not exist. I think it's safe to say he was talking exclusively about personal liberties. As to what he would've thought about his quote as applied to corporations we can only speculate, and speculating about what the founding fathers would've liked or disliked is pretty silly if you ask me.

[ParanoiA]

Corporations did not, but businesses did and I do not believe Franklin was excepting the individuals in a business. Corporations are made up of individuals and when you cap an 'individual's' salary, for instance, you have infringed on an individual's liberties.

 

When the state encroaches on the market and buys up business they threaten the liberties of individuals in that market. That's just more upper level opportunity taken away from the pool of free citizens that could have and should have been occupying that space. Not to mention it puts too much power in the hands of pandering politicians.

 

These liberties may seem vague to you, they don't to me. Business is just declaring an individual's motives. Me, ParanoiA, acting in the capacity of successfully acquiring capital. It's not a non-human entity, it's quite the opposite.

 

And unlike liberaltarians, I follow through without judgement. I don't pick and choose who gets to be free - everyone does. Their rights end where other's begin. To me, laws are not for engineering paradise, they are an answer to a liberty being restricted by another. Paradise is to be engineered by society, cooperatively, without the tool of coersion if it is to last and be a genuine reflection of the will of the people.

 

I believe Franklin's point was about putting freedom over security, in any form that represents. He was warning us about using fears to justify trumping freedoms - everyone's freedoms, not just laborers.

[bascule]

Corporations did not, but businesses did and I do not believe Franklin was excepting the individuals in a business.

 

That's a bit of a strawman. How did the reaction to the financial crisis affect the freedoms of small businesses?

 

Corporations are made up of individuals and when you cap an 'individual's' salary, for instance, you have infringed on an individual's liberties.

 

Another strawman. The Atlas Shrugged-esque scenario portrayed on the "salary cap" thread was a gross distortion of the reality. There was no plan for salary caps, ever.

 

And unlike liberaltarians, I follow through without judgement. I don't pick and choose who gets to be free - everyone does. Their rights end where other's begin.

 

That's exactly how I feel, however you're trying to apply those same rights to non-human entities like businesses and corporations. I draw the line at humans, sorry. I like the idea of unencumbered small business but small businesses do not deserve all the same rights as people.

[Mokele]

The great thing about the Founding Fathers is that there were enough of them who lived long enough and wrote enough that you can find a quote for ANYTHING.

 

Quote-mining the FF is practically a national pastime.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Oh, and because this is perfect for this thread:

 

[ParanoiA]

That's exactly how I feel, however you're trying to apply those same rights to non-human entities like businesses and corporations. I draw the line at humans, sorry. I like the idea of unencumbered small business but small businesses do not deserve all the same rights as people.

 

And I guess that's right where we split. I cannot separate the business from the individual since, in reality, they are not separate at all. The business does not run on its own without people. It's not an end table or a batting machine. It's people engaged in trade competing with others to gain capital. Corporations, businesses and so forth are just grouped up people in various forms, using their numbers and cooperation to gain an advantage in the competition of trade.

 

I translate your point to mean that you are for individual rights, and not group rights.

 

I still admire your position more than most. I don't think very many are really for individual rights as much as they claim. And I guess I understand your position a little better too.

[Mokele]

I cannot separate the business from the individual since, in reality, they are not separate at all. The business does not run on its own without people. It's not an end table or a batting machine. It's people engaged in trade competing with others to gain capital. Corporations, businesses and so forth are just grouped up people in various forms, using their numbers and cooperation to gain an advantage in the competition of trade.

 

But, while they are composed of people, they *aren't* people, and can never really be treated as such.

 

A big difference is in the effects of laws. If I, as an individual private citizen, dump toxic wastes into the groundwater, resulting in numerous cases of birth defects, cancer, early death, etc, I will go to jail for a very, VERY long time, and in some states might be executed. If a corporation or business does the same, who goes to jail? Sure, they may pay a fine, but it's likely small compared to their profits. The government cannot say "As a punishment, we're taking every single dime of profit you make for the next 30 years", but they can easily send an individual to jail for 30 years, depriving them of a lot more than mere money and property.

 

I'm not trying to say "OMG teh ebil companys!!1!", only to illustrate that a conglomerate, simply by *being* a conglomerate, is fundamentally different from a person, especially in terms of what it can and cannot do, or what can or cannot be done to it. Just as a bee hive is considered a 'super-organism', rather than just a complex organism with multiple bodies, a coglomeration of people of any sort has different properties from an individual.

 

Also, does this mean you support extending corporate law to cover any group of humans, ranging from hobby clubs to trade unions?

 

IMHO, we can't treat them the same, and we collectively need to take a step back and re-adjust our methods of dealing with corporations to ensure it's fair, effective, and realistic, especially the a modern world of instantaneous global commerce.

[bascule]

One of my take-aways from Greenspan's post mortem of the financial crisis that a company acting in its own best interests is not necessarily acting in the best interests of the system. I'm sure Bear Stearns made a lot of money being the proverbial whipping boy of the financial sector, until things started to go really bad systemically. Suddenly all of its customers had large amounts of toxic assets, and thus Bear Stearns died. When they died, they began setting off a chain reaction which, had action not been taken, could've lead to the collapse of AIG and with it much larger financial companies.

 

I don't pick and choose who gets to be free - everyone does. Their rights end where other's begin.

 

Bad decisions made at Bear Stearns had ripple effects throughout the economy. I'm not to say they're singlehandedly to blame for the financial crisis, but because they and the other financials had the freedom to leverage themselves up the wazoo the way they did, everybody else in the entire world is worse off because of it.

 

Is that really fair?

[ParanoiA]

A big difference is in the effects of laws. If I, as an individual private citizen, dump toxic wastes into the groundwater, resulting in numerous cases of birth defects, cancer, early death, etc, I will go to jail for a very, VERY long time, and in some states might be executed. If a corporation or business does the same, who goes to jail? Sure, they may pay a fine, but it's likely small compared to their profits. The government cannot say "As a punishment, we're taking every single dime of profit you make for the next 30 years", but they can easily send an individual to jail for 30 years, depriving them of a lot more than mere money and property.

 

And don't you think that's wrong? Why should a business be allowed to murder people and just pay fines for it? Sounds like people should be doing time, since people committed the crime. The business is their group label. So they construct a building and meet there everyday...big deal. They are a group of people and should be treated as such.

 

I'm not trying to say "OMG teh ebil companys!!1!", only to illustrate that a conglomerate, simply by *being* a conglomerate, is fundamentally different from a person, especially in terms of what it can and cannot do, or what can or cannot be done to it. Just as a bee hive is considered a 'super-organism', rather than just a complex organism with multiple bodies, a coglomeration of people of any sort has different properties from an individual.

 

Just to be clear, this is an argument for what is, which is not a sound argument for what should be.

 

Also, does this mean you support extending corporate law to cover any group of humans, ranging from hobby clubs to trade unions?

 

Not sure exactly what you mean here. An example would help as I'm drawing a blank on corporate law.

 

Bad decisions made at Bear Stearns had ripple effects throughout the economy. I'm not to say they're singlehandedly to blame for the financial crisis, but because they and the other financials had the freedom to leverage themselves up the wazoo the way they did, everybody else in the entire world is worse off because of it.

 

I asked you about this in our last exchange on the subject. Again, did this leveraging happen asymmetrically? Did they manipulate and use regulation and law to do this? Or did they create this co-dependency by shrewd trading practices?

 

Coke has their soda in every freaking restaraunt and fast food joint in the country, exclusively. If they started having financial problems to the point they could not provide a steady product flow to those who depend on them, then that could be considered systemic damage, no? If business suffers for these dependents, how is that fair? It's not their fault. It's not my fault as a consumer either. Yet all of us would be losing out.

 

Granted, soda is a far cry from banking, but we all assume the risk when we participate in a market. No, I don't think it's fair for one to be voluntarily ignorant about the banking system while investing heavily in that very system, capitalizing and getting what one wants from the system and then crying foul and appealing to fairness when details of the system - that were always available - suddenly become apparent to them.

 

A better educated citizenry is the answer to these issues. We are ridiculously stupid about how we prioritize education. My 13 year old ought to be able to tell me about stocks, the nature of money and how it gets its value. We ought to act like we live in a capitalist country and teach the framework required to live in it. Instead, we allow it to be "advanced" knowledge, so only a small number of people really understand it, while most just drift along oblivious to the entire concept.

 

People are suffering because they are participating in a system they don't understand and can't make informed decisions about.

[iNow]

A better educated citizenry is the answer to these issues. We are ridiculously stupid about how we prioritize education. My 13 year old ought to be able to tell me about stocks, the nature of money and how it gets its value. We ought to act like we live in a capitalist country and teach the framework required to live in it. Instead, we allow it to be "advanced" knowledge, so only a small number of people really understand it, while most just drift along oblivious to the entire concept.

 

People are suffering because they are participating in a system they don't understand and can't make informed decisions about.

 

Very well said. You seem to have successfully localized a serious root of the problems here, and I would struggle to add to what you've already stated.

[bascule]

I asked you about this in our last exchange on the subject. Again, did this leveraging happen asymmetrically?

 

Most certainly

 

Did they manipulate and use regulation and law to do this? Or did they create this co-dependency by shrewd trading practices?

 

I don't know the law on the matter, but in 20/20 hindsight their actions were anything but shrewd.

 

Coke has their soda in every freaking restaraunt and fast food joint in the country, exclusively. If they started having financial problems to the point they could not provide a steady product flow to those who depend on them [...]

 

Granted, soda is a far cry from banking

 

Yes, a systemic problem with the world economy is a far cry from "we're all out of coke"

 

I don't think it's fair for one to be voluntarily ignorant about the banking system while investing heavily in that very system, capitalizing and getting what one wants from the system and then crying foul and appealing to fairness when details of the system - that were always available - suddenly become apparent to them.

 

[...]

 

People are suffering because they are participating in a system they don't understand and can't make informed decisions about.

 

So when Joe Blow loses his job because the company he's working at went out of business due to the depression, that's his fault?

[Mr Skeptic]

So when Joe Blow loses his job because the company he's working at went out of business due to the depression, that's his fault?

 

As he said, due to not knowing/understanding. Not so much his fault, but he could have noticed the company was going down and gotten a different job.

[The Bear's Key]

Echoing iNow, yes, ParanoiA has made a very crucial point. If we're to live most productively in a given system, we must be able to understand the common/major intricacies without spending a lifetime.

 

 

Also, does this mean you support extending corporate law to cover any group of humans, ranging from hobby clubs to trade unions?[/quote']Not sure exactly what you mean here. An example would help as I'm drawing a blank on corporate law.

I think what Mokele's referring to is corporate personhood, the way that a corporation is treated like a single person with associated "rights" (illegitimately at that).

 

Nothing is "free market" about a corporation, they have existed only with special permission from the government. But somewhere along the way, corporates gained the ability to nearly be a single individual.

 

So would you be happy to simply let other entities, groups, hobby clubs, social networks, and online communities become legally viewed as a person with Constitutional rights that our forefathers meant only for individuals to have?

 

What if all groups could avoid legal repurcussions for each of its members, by making the entire group itself a person (and the one taking all the blame...just like a corporation)? Heck -- with the groups' new personhood status, might they eventually gain the ability to run for President and hold office anywhere? Will Corporations gain that ability?

 

Check the link below, you'll find out something about each process that led the corporate entities to their present-day (and undeserved) status.

 

 

http://www.rachel.org/files/document/POCLAD_Model_Legal_Brief.htm

The people of these United States created local, state, and federal governments to protect, secure, and preserve the people's inalienable rights, including their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is axiomatic that the people of these United States -- the source of all governing authority in this nation -- created governments also to secure the people's inalienable right that the many should govern, not the few. That guarantee -- of a republican form of government -- provides the foundation for securing people's other inalienable rights and vindicates the actions of people and communities seeking to secure those rights.

 

Corporations are created by State governments through the chartering process. As such, corporations are subordinate, public entities that cannot usurp the authority that the sovereign people have delegated to the three branches of government. Corporations thus lack the authority to deny people's inalienable rights, including their right to a republican form of government, and public officials lack the authority to empower corporations to deny those rights.

 

Over the past 150 years, the Judiciary has "found" corporations within the people's documents that establish a frame of governance for this nation, including the United States Constitution. In doing so, Courts have illegitimately bestowed upon corporations immense constitutional powers of the Fourteenth, First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, and the expansive powers afforded by the Contracts and Commerce Clauses.

 

Wielding those constitutional rights and freedoms, corporations regularly and illegitimately deny the people their inalienable rights, including their most fundamental right to a republican form of government. Such denials are beyond the authority of the corporation to exercise.

 

Such denials are also beyond the authority of the Courts, or any other branches of government, to confer.

 

...........

 

II. Corporations are Created by State Governments as Subordinate, Public Entities Through the Chartering Process, and Thus Cannot Act to Deny People's Rights to Safety, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness, or a Republican Form of Government Within this Nation's Frame of Governance.

 

The cause of the American Revolution was the systemic usurpations of the rights of colonists by the English King and Parliament. [13] Those usurpations occurred primarily through the King's empowerment of eighteenth century corporations of global trade -- such as the East India Company -- and through Parliamentary Acts taxing colonial trade. Oft-cited as the final spark of the Revolutionary War, the Boston Tea Party was the direct result of colonial opposition to the East India Company's use of the English government to enable the Company to monopolize the tea market in the colonies.

 

The signing of the Declaration of Independence transformed crown corporations and royal proprietorships into constitutionalized states. Elected State legislators, possessing personal knowledge of the power of English trading corporations, [15] worked to ensure that corporations within the new nation would be controlled and defined exclusively by legislatures.

 

Accordingly, people made certain that legislatures issued charters, one at a time and for a limited number of years. They kept a tight hold on corporations by spelling out rules each business had to follow, holding business owners liable for harms or injuries, and revoking corporate charters.

 

Side by side with control and authority over corporations -- exercised through their elected legislators -- the people experimented with various forms of enterprise and finance. Artisans and mechanics owned and managed diverse businesses; farmers and millers organized profitable cooperatives; shoemakers created unincorporated business associations. [19] Towns routinely promoted agriculture and manufactures. They subsidized farmers, public warehouses, and municipal markets, protected watersheds, and discouraged overplanting.

 

Legislatures also chartered profit-making corporations to build turnpikes, canals, and bridges, declaring that corporations could only be chartered for "public purposes." By the beginning of the 1800's, only some three hundred such charters had been granted.

 

Many people argued that under the Constitution no business could be granted special corporate privileges. Others worried that once incorporators amassed wealth, they would control jobs and markets, buy the newspapers, and dominate elections and the courts.

 

Premised upon the widespread public knowledge of the powers wrought by English corporations and the people's opposition to them, early legislators granted few charters, and only after long, hard debate. Legislators usually denied charters to would-be incorporators when communities opposed the proposed corporation.

 

People shared the belief that granting charters was their exclusive right. Moreover, as the Supreme Court of Virginia reasoned in 1809, if the applicants' object is merely "private" or selfish; if it is detrimental to, or not promotive of, the public good, they have no adequate claim upon the legislature for the privileges.

Edited May 12, 2009 by The Bear's Key