Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
The conservative and revolutionary nature of our founding.
Author Message
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,287
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #1
The conservative and revolutionary nature of our founding.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/07/was-...servative/

Good discussion of the basis of our country-it was a revolution but also appealed conservatively back to natural laws recognized by the Greeks and Romans.
03-08-2018 08:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #2
RE: The conservative and revolutionary nature of our founding.
(03-08-2018 08:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/07/was-...servative/

Good discussion of the basis of our country-it was a revolution but also appealed conservatively back to natural laws recognized by the Greeks and Romans.

The idea that the King was subject to law was established by John Cooke's prosecution of Charles I that led to his beheading.

There is a good bit of scholarly debate as to why the Founders hammered on George III in the Declaration, given that by then Parliament was running the show. Royal Assent had last been withheld in 1707 or 1708.

My opinion, the Federalist is really stretching hard to call the American Revolution a conservative enterprise. Yes the Founders were in generally classically educated and knew those older writings but there is a reason the movement was a part of Classical Liberalism, the idea of civil liberties protected by rule of law and generally includes the idea of economic freedom.

The Revolutionary movement hinged on the demand for representation and economic freedom. They were influenced heavily by John Locke.

The Federalist wants to rebrand the movement simply because liberalism has been preached as dirty word.
03-08-2018 06:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #3
RE: The conservative and revolutionary nature of our founding.
Just to add.
I don't buy into "Natural Law". The premise that there are certain universal rights that one can just know and that the people having a voice in their government is a stretch.

If these were the "natural order" they would occur more often throughout history.

My non-scholarly observation is that the rights Locke, Cooke and others believed "natural" only occur under the right conditions. A society must feel secure from internal and external threat, a supermajority of the people must have secure food and housing, and there must fairly broad access to capital.

Societies where there is fear of threat, fear of housing or food shortages, or there is restricted access to capital rarely become or remain free societies where the people either approve legislation either directly or via elected representatives and rarely have broadly protected rights.

The closest the US has come to some brand of totalitarian president chronologically John Adams, the country had economic problems, tense international relations, and Adams was able to pass legislation to jail people speaking out against the government. Lincoln had a civil war and suspended habeas corpus and wasn't averse to jailing critical press or jailing or otherwise preventing state legislatures from meeting to consider secession. Woodrow Wilson gained power in a period of restricted capital and the first significant post-reconstruction challenges to Jim Crowe. He got legislation passed to jail opposing media, fired virtually all blacks working in non-custodial roles in Federal government (after claiming to support re-enfranchising blacks) then became more autocratic during the war. FDR won four terms, tried to pack the Supreme Court and used government agencies to pursue enemies. Nixon used government agencies as weapon unlike any president since, operated on the belief anything the president did was legal (Charles I lost his head making a similar argument).

We saw post-9/11 a mad dash to approve expansion of government internal investigatory powers.
Germany and Italy went fascist in the Depression. The US had a cabal of business owners attempt to organize a coup during the depression as well.

France veered from one reign of terror to another after the monarchy.

Cuba which was pretty free and open prior to the great depression began a long march into greater and greater totalitarianism
(This post was last modified: 03-09-2018 11:15 AM by arkstfan.)
03-09-2018 11:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
miko33 Offline
Defender of Honesty and Integrity
*

Posts: 13,117
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 848
I Root For: Alma Mater
Location:
Post: #4
RE: The conservative and revolutionary nature of our founding.
Count me in as someone who also does not believe that there is an innate natural law that is our "natural state" if all other things are equal. If you want delve into the human being's natural state, we are basically social creatures that reside in packs - IOW our most basic and natural state when it comes to laws is on the tribal (extended family) level. Our "natural state" is to embrace a hierarchical structure. From tribalism to city-state to kingdom to empire is our evolution. The notion of the Republic based on everyone having a say on "moderately equal" footing is an evolved idea from philosophers and other great thinkers. I strongly believe in the idea of natural laws (rights) as a critical foundation of a democratic republic. But IMHO there is nothing natural about natural laws.
03-12-2018 06:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #5
RE: The conservative and revolutionary nature of our founding.
(03-12-2018 06:30 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Count me in as someone who also does not believe that there is an innate natural law that is our "natural state" if all other things are equal. If you want delve into the human being's natural state, we are basically social creatures that reside in packs - IOW our most basic and natural state when it comes to laws is on the tribal (extended family) level. Our "natural state" is to embrace a hierarchical structure. From tribalism to city-state to kingdom to empire is our evolution. The notion of the Republic based on everyone having a say on "moderately equal" footing is an evolved idea from philosophers and other great thinkers. I strongly believe in the idea of natural laws (rights) as a critical foundation of a democratic republic. But IMHO there is nothing natural about natural laws.

History says tribalism will permit people to kill and steal from people not in the tribe.

One thing I think the US has gotten wrong in nation building exercises has been trying to get representative democracy going in places where the people do not feel secure from internal and/or external threats and do not feel secure in housing or food.

Maybe there is a "natural law" that representative democracy and individual rights protection evolves under the umbrella of security.
03-13-2018 10:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,648
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #6
RE: The conservative and revolutionary nature of our founding.
(03-13-2018 10:05 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(03-12-2018 06:30 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Count me in as someone who also does not believe that there is an innate natural law that is our "natural state" if all other things are equal. If you want delve into the human being's natural state, we are basically social creatures that reside in packs - IOW our most basic and natural state when it comes to laws is on the tribal (extended family) level. Our "natural state" is to embrace a hierarchical structure. From tribalism to city-state to kingdom to empire is our evolution. The notion of the Republic based on everyone having a say on "moderately equal" footing is an evolved idea from philosophers and other great thinkers. I strongly believe in the idea of natural laws (rights) as a critical foundation of a democratic republic. But IMHO there is nothing natural about natural laws.
History says tribalism will permit people to kill and steal from people not in the tribe.
One thing I think the US has gotten wrong in nation building exercises has been trying to get representative democracy going in places where the people do not feel secure from internal and/or external threats and do not feel secure in housing or food.
Maybe there is a "natural law" that representative democracy and individual rights protection evolves under the umbrella of security.

Democracy does not work well where there is not a working free market economy. One of the critical rights in any democracy is property. And that right does not truly exist without a market economy. In a subsistence economy, I will do what I have to do in order to eat, regardless of the will of the majority. Only after my basic needs are met am I content to live in a democracy.
03-13-2018 10:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #7
RE: The conservative and revolutionary nature of our founding.
(03-13-2018 10:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(03-13-2018 10:05 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(03-12-2018 06:30 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Count me in as someone who also does not believe that there is an innate natural law that is our "natural state" if all other things are equal. If you want delve into the human being's natural state, we are basically social creatures that reside in packs - IOW our most basic and natural state when it comes to laws is on the tribal (extended family) level. Our "natural state" is to embrace a hierarchical structure. From tribalism to city-state to kingdom to empire is our evolution. The notion of the Republic based on everyone having a say on "moderately equal" footing is an evolved idea from philosophers and other great thinkers. I strongly believe in the idea of natural laws (rights) as a critical foundation of a democratic republic. But IMHO there is nothing natural about natural laws.
History says tribalism will permit people to kill and steal from people not in the tribe.
One thing I think the US has gotten wrong in nation building exercises has been trying to get representative democracy going in places where the people do not feel secure from internal and/or external threats and do not feel secure in housing or food.
Maybe there is a "natural law" that representative democracy and individual rights protection evolves under the umbrella of security.

Democracy does not work well where there is not a working free market economy. One of the critical rights in any democracy is property. And that right does not truly exist without a market economy. In a subsistence economy, I will do what I have to do in order to eat, regardless of the will of the majority. Only after my basic needs are met am I content to live in a democracy.

I suppose democracy "could" exist in some other form of economy but someone will need to invent an economy that provides the needs of a super majority of the people and leaves open the plausible belief that a person's situation can improve. So far no one has invented that.

After the devastation of the plague in Europe, the economy became more free and property ownership increased. The black death was a major redistribution of wealth. Nephews and distant cousins were inheriting estates and stored wealth of the estate holders. A peasant might inherit the meager wealth of several relatives. The shortage of labor meant wages rose and peasants would relocate to where the landowner demanded lower rents or paid higher wages or demanded fewer days of work.

That free market and rising wealth of the underclasses put us on the path to the modern free market and representative democracy.
03-13-2018 11:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


miko33 Offline
Defender of Honesty and Integrity
*

Posts: 13,117
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 848
I Root For: Alma Mater
Location:
Post: #8
RE: The conservative and revolutionary nature of our founding.
(03-13-2018 10:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(03-13-2018 10:05 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(03-12-2018 06:30 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Count me in as someone who also does not believe that there is an innate natural law that is our "natural state" if all other things are equal. If you want delve into the human being's natural state, we are basically social creatures that reside in packs - IOW our most basic and natural state when it comes to laws is on the tribal (extended family) level. Our "natural state" is to embrace a hierarchical structure. From tribalism to city-state to kingdom to empire is our evolution. The notion of the Republic based on everyone having a say on "moderately equal" footing is an evolved idea from philosophers and other great thinkers. I strongly believe in the idea of natural laws (rights) as a critical foundation of a democratic republic. But IMHO there is nothing natural about natural laws.
History says tribalism will permit people to kill and steal from people not in the tribe.
One thing I think the US has gotten wrong in nation building exercises has been trying to get representative democracy going in places where the people do not feel secure from internal and/or external threats and do not feel secure in housing or food.
Maybe there is a "natural law" that representative democracy and individual rights protection evolves under the umbrella of security.

Democracy does not work well where there is not a working free market economy. One of the critical rights in any democracy is property. And that right does not truly exist without a market economy. In a subsistence economy, I will do what I have to do in order to eat, regardless of the will of the majority. Only after my basic needs are met am I content to live in a democracy.

Locke talked about Life, Liberty and Property - and I agree with you that Property is one of the 3 legs of the stool that make it all possible. You need the Rule of Law, Freedom to live your life as you wish and Economic (owning property/assets, buying and selling, etc). In order for a representative republic to function properly. I'd even argue that the Rule of Law and Property Rights (free participation in the economic system) come together in a complementary manner to allow for Liberty to occur. Security and Wealth are required in order to have a functioning democracy. Without these, we devolve into a more tribal mentality and revert to our "kill or be killed" mentality and compete for resources.

See Venezuela as a great case study on what happens when the free market component gets crushed. Any semblance of the Rule of Law in that country is pretty much dead, and you have individuals and if they are lucky - groups (tribes?) come together to try to survive together.

Agree with you Arkstate when it comes to the "hierarchy of needs" coming into play and squelching those inalienable rights we have from natural law when fundamental goods like food and shelter are scarce and people have to compete directly for them or die.
03-13-2018 09:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,299
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #9
RE: The conservative and revolutionary nature of our founding.
Regarding the Hillsdale College approved analysis.

1) Our founding was actually radical for its day. It skewed heavily towards more democracy, more freedom for those outside the norms of society and strict limits on majoritarian rule over the minority
2) It allowed for it to be a living document, and allowed the country to change with the time. It was never intended to be a static document
3) It was an inherently flawed document that was the result of many tradeoffs that do not fit into any particular coherent ideology. The ban on an export tax was placed into it because of the demands of New England merchants. Slavery was protected. An Electoral College was established to frustrate the will of the majority for the purpose of retaining slavery. Constitutional compromises are routinely part of constitutional formation in other places too.

The Constitution is a flawed document. Our founders were flawed people too. The document they wrote was good enough to allow our country to grow, but was by no means perfect.

----

You also can't turn this argument into a Hegel v Marx argument either. Hegel basically argued that society is inherently greedy and will never act for the communal good. Therefore we need strong government and an economic policy that motivates society with economic rewards for good economic behavior. Marx, felt that society was inherently good, and that people if freed from need, would work in the best interest of society at law. The Republicans come closer to a Hegelian perspective than a Marxist outlook. And the Democrats do too.

---

Venezuela isn't representative of any economic movement or party with any credible support anywhere in the First World. Basically, Venezuela is what can happen when you get a large portion of society with zero stake in the economic system. Basically, until last year, the people in the Ranchos around Caracas and other big VZlan cities could care less about economic freedom, because they never saw any of it anywhere. What good is economic freedom if you really don't have a real shot at participating in it? You've seen movements like that in Bolivia under Morales, in several African countries, and it appears to be the economic theory under the EFF in South Africa. Free markets (in the contemporary sense) mean nothing when people aren't really able to access them. Remember that a free market (in the classical sense) also means one where there's no collusion, oligarchies or monopolies to stifle innovation, movement, or access. To have a classically free market, you need to have regulation, because without it, you'll simply be substituting inherited wealth as the constraint prohibiting economic movement.

----

Economic matters, as enumerated in the constitution, generally create scenarios where the side with the most economic power generally is allowed to overreach up to a point, at which point regulation invariably occurs. The Plutocrats of the 1890's brought us income/estate taxation and regulation of business. Government indifference to the Great Depression led to FDR's New Deal. Racial and Geographic based economic disparities created the Great Society and the beginnings of a mild social welfare regime.

Maslov was brought up here. I refer to Maslov a lot, but remember that a lot of what is happening today doesn't really fit into a Maslovian Economics perspective. I would argue that Tribalism has trumped need in many cases.
(This post was last modified: 03-15-2018 01:12 PM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
03-15-2018 12:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #10
RE: The conservative and revolutionary nature of our founding.
The thing the Founders were capable of over our modern day hacks is they were willing to accept less than 100% agreement in order to advance the big picture.
03-15-2018 05:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,287
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #11
RE: The conservative and revolutionary nature of our founding.
(03-15-2018 05:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The thing the Founders were capable of over our modern day hacks is they were willing to accept less than 100% agreement in order to advance the big picture.

And the electoral college had nothing to do with slavery. Tom keeps pushing that fake news. There were other compromises on slavery. That wasn't one of them.

The 1860 slave states had nearly the same population as the 1860 free states when the Constitution was created, with 49.5% of the population. New York state and New Jersey had substantial slave populations at the time. It wasn't eliminated until 1827 in New York. The last slaves weren't freed in New Jersey until 1865. Every state but Maine and Massachusetts still had slaves in 1790. Slavery was legal in every state prior to independence. It was only in the 1780s that New England and Pennsylvania started towards abolition.

The electoral college was as much about Vermont as it was about Delaware and Georgia. The lower population states didn't want to be ruled by the 6 largest states who had close to 65% of the population:
Virginia 748k
Pennsylvania 434k
N. Carolina 393k
Massachusetts 379k
New York 340k
Maryland 320k

Note that 3 of those 6 disadvantaged states (and the largest % of population) were 1860 slave states.

So don't derail a serious thread with lies about the electoral college.
03-20-2018 09:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #12
RE: The conservative and revolutionary nature of our founding.
(03-20-2018 09:45 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(03-15-2018 05:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The thing the Founders were capable of over our modern day hacks is they were willing to accept less than 100% agreement in order to advance the big picture.

And the electoral college had nothing to do with slavery. Tom keeps pushing that fake news. There were other compromises on slavery. That wasn't one of them.

The 1860 slave states had nearly the same population as the 1860 free states when the Constitution was created, with 49.5% of the population. New York state and New Jersey had substantial slave populations at the time. It wasn't eliminated until 1827 in New York. The last slaves weren't freed in New Jersey until 1865. Every state but Maine and Massachusetts still had slaves in 1790. Slavery was legal in every state prior to independence. It was only in the 1780s that New England and Pennsylvania started towards abolition.

The electoral college was as much about Vermont as it was about Delaware and Georgia. The lower population states didn't want to be ruled by the 6 largest states who had close to 65% of the population:
Virginia 748k
Pennsylvania 434k
N. Carolina 393k
Massachusetts 379k
New York 340k
Maryland 320k

Note that 3 of those 6 disadvantaged states (and the largest % of population) were 1860 slave states.

So don't derail a serious thread with lies about the electoral college.

This is sort of a what lens do you view through?

If slaves counted zero then the south would have been apportioned fewer representatives and been weaker under the electoral college.

But that raises a question. Why would slaves be counted zero? Women, people under age 21 and those not owning property were not able to vote yet they counted in apportionment of representatives and of course the electoral college.

If slaves had been treated like the others who were disenfranchised the southern slave states would have been even more powerful under the electoral college (and in the house).
03-20-2018 12:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
miko33 Offline
Defender of Honesty and Integrity
*

Posts: 13,117
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 848
I Root For: Alma Mater
Location:
Post: #13
RE: The conservative and revolutionary nature of our founding.
(03-20-2018 12:34 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(03-20-2018 09:45 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(03-15-2018 05:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The thing the Founders were capable of over our modern day hacks is they were willing to accept less than 100% agreement in order to advance the big picture.

And the electoral college had nothing to do with slavery. Tom keeps pushing that fake news. There were other compromises on slavery. That wasn't one of them.

The 1860 slave states had nearly the same population as the 1860 free states when the Constitution was created, with 49.5% of the population. New York state and New Jersey had substantial slave populations at the time. It wasn't eliminated until 1827 in New York. The last slaves weren't freed in New Jersey until 1865. Every state but Maine and Massachusetts still had slaves in 1790. Slavery was legal in every state prior to independence. It was only in the 1780s that New England and Pennsylvania started towards abolition.

The electoral college was as much about Vermont as it was about Delaware and Georgia. The lower population states didn't want to be ruled by the 6 largest states who had close to 65% of the population:
Virginia 748k
Pennsylvania 434k
N. Carolina 393k
Massachusetts 379k
New York 340k
Maryland 320k

Note that 3 of those 6 disadvantaged states (and the largest % of population) were 1860 slave states.

So don't derail a serious thread with lies about the electoral college.

This is sort of a what lens do you view through?

If slaves counted zero then the south would have been apportioned fewer representatives and been weaker under the electoral college.

But that raises a question. Why would slaves be counted zero? Women, people under age 21 and those not owning property were not able to vote yet they counted in apportionment of representatives and of course the electoral college.

If slaves had been treated like the others who were disenfranchised the southern slave states would have been even more powerful under the electoral college (and in the house).

Hence the compromise of making a slave equal to 3/5ths of a person in the constitution. It was the northern states who did not want the slaves to be counted as people while the south wanted slaves to be counted just like the whites.
03-20-2018 03:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


49RFootballNow Offline
He who walks without rhythm
*

Posts: 13,053
Joined: Apr 2009
Reputation: 984
I Root For: Charlotte 49ers
Location: Metrolina
Post: #14
RE: The conservative and revolutionary nature of our founding.
(03-20-2018 03:17 PM)miko33 Wrote:  
(03-20-2018 12:34 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(03-20-2018 09:45 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(03-15-2018 05:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The thing the Founders were capable of over our modern day hacks is they were willing to accept less than 100% agreement in order to advance the big picture.

And the electoral college had nothing to do with slavery. Tom keeps pushing that fake news. There were other compromises on slavery. That wasn't one of them.

The 1860 slave states had nearly the same population as the 1860 free states when the Constitution was created, with 49.5% of the population. New York state and New Jersey had substantial slave populations at the time. It wasn't eliminated until 1827 in New York. The last slaves weren't freed in New Jersey until 1865. Every state but Maine and Massachusetts still had slaves in 1790. Slavery was legal in every state prior to independence. It was only in the 1780s that New England and Pennsylvania started towards abolition.

The electoral college was as much about Vermont as it was about Delaware and Georgia. The lower population states didn't want to be ruled by the 6 largest states who had close to 65% of the population:
Virginia 748k
Pennsylvania 434k
N. Carolina 393k
Massachusetts 379k
New York 340k
Maryland 320k

Note that 3 of those 6 disadvantaged states (and the largest % of population) were 1860 slave states.

So don't derail a serious thread with lies about the electoral college.

This is sort of a what lens do you view through?

If slaves counted zero then the south would have been apportioned fewer representatives and been weaker under the electoral college.

But that raises a question. Why would slaves be counted zero? Women, people under age 21 and those not owning property were not able to vote yet they counted in apportionment of representatives and of course the electoral college.

If slaves had been treated like the others who were disenfranchised the southern slave states would have been even more powerful under the electoral college (and in the house).

Hence the compromise of making a slave equal to 3/5ths of a person in the constitution. It was the northern states who did not want the slaves to be counted as people while the south wanted slaves to be counted just like the whites.

Both sides were wrong on that one.
03-21-2018 01:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,111
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #15
RE: The conservative and revolutionary nature of our founding.
(03-13-2018 10:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(03-13-2018 10:05 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(03-12-2018 06:30 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Count me in as someone who also does not believe that there is an innate natural law that is our "natural state" if all other things are equal. If you want delve into the human being's natural state, we are basically social creatures that reside in packs - IOW our most basic and natural state when it comes to laws is on the tribal (extended family) level. Our "natural state" is to embrace a hierarchical structure. From tribalism to city-state to kingdom to empire is our evolution. The notion of the Republic based on everyone having a say on "moderately equal" footing is an evolved idea from philosophers and other great thinkers. I strongly believe in the idea of natural laws (rights) as a critical foundation of a democratic republic. But IMHO there is nothing natural about natural laws.
History says tribalism will permit people to kill and steal from people not in the tribe.
One thing I think the US has gotten wrong in nation building exercises has been trying to get representative democracy going in places where the people do not feel secure from internal and/or external threats and do not feel secure in housing or food.
Maybe there is a "natural law" that representative democracy and individual rights protection evolves under the umbrella of security.

Democracy does not work well where there is not a working free market economy. One of the critical rights in any democracy is property. And that right does not truly exist without a market economy. In a subsistence economy, I will do what I have to do in order to eat, regardless of the will of the majority. Only after my basic needs are met am I content to live in a democracy.

I would reverse that dependency. A viable and healthy market economy cannot exist without the idea of personal property and rights in property.

I would also say is that the entire issues that are addressed obliquely in the Bill of Rights equates to 'this is a rule of law'. And, a market economy, while possible without a rule of law, is magnified tremendously by the existence of rule of law.

Edited to add: just saw that I parroted Miko's post that responded to the one I did......
(This post was last modified: 03-23-2018 04:44 PM by tanqtonic.)
03-23-2018 04:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.