Discussions on the nature and limits of government

As many know, kcbrown and I tend to get sidetracked into discussions about the first principles of government. Those who are not interested in such matters will have an easier time ignoring us in separate thread, but I would like to encourage others to jump in. The founders were wise and practical men, but what they wrought requires much of each citizen, and we are,though the vote, the architects of our government, and we must, therefore, concern ourselves with its principles as well as its practice. To do otherwise is to dishonor the founders , and, as well, makes a mockery of the principle of self Government.

Much has been made of the distrust the founders had for "the popular mind" , which then, as now, they held to unequal to the task of government, not only of others, but of themselves in their private lives-- our current predicament speaks in favor of that distrust, and suggests once again that the American experiment is a fools errand doomed to failure ..


Thus, before returning to the particulars of this current debate, I wanted to give a presmable to set the stage for why I think this is worth my time and yours as well ---
We are the architects of our own government,and it is is best that we start thinking like such-- If we cannot then 'government of the people, by the people, and for the people, should perish from the earth'.

Brooklyn

After viewing the latest poll in the Sun, I have to wonder when this transformation to such an uninformed populace occurred. (I'm speaking specifically of Maryland.) I'm sure it's taken place over many years and is more evident now since we seem to be over the tipping point. I don't know what the solution can be when the general public excludes reason and logic from their thought process and relies completely on shortsighted emotion.
I found this quote from the rag that is The Sun completely disheartening:
"Among other findings, the poll showed that most Democrats — 59 percent — think the state is headed in the right direction. An overwhelming majority of Republicans — 84 percent — think it's not. The relative contentment of Democrats as O'Malley prepares to leave office could help to explain why Gansler's message attacking the O'Malley-Brown administration has not secured more support in the primary."
"I like the way the state is, and I think we should continue this way," said Audrey Johns, a 57-year-old florist from Baltimore County who supports Brown. She called his resume "amazing."

I wonder if this is one of those times when the best way to fix something is to just let it fail completely so we can start from scratch.

This is the link to the poll: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/bs-md-governor-poll-20140607,0,3193018.story

I posted this in another thread. I feel it is directly related to this discussion:

Executive over-reach until controlled by court. Same as being used at the federal level.

Executive branch at all levels has given up on self regulation, a major power grab. They realize it takes money, time and sustained effort to put them in their place ...

Click to expand...

FMD said:

I wonder if this is one of those times when the best way to fix something is to just let it fail completely so we can start from scratch.

Click to expand...

That's a long slow downward spiral to failure with plenty of suffering along the way because there's no reset button. Rome didn't fall overnight.
We can hope for a change of mentality somewhere along that road to nowhere but things will have to get much worse before most people will tear themselves away from the plethora of easy distraction entertainment and gratification that defines our modern society.

I've considered this also and the problems seem manifold, at least to me.

First, with regard to the populace, we have it too easy. There was a time when people in my father's generation said "what we need is a good war" and while the merits of an actual war can be argued, the idea that so many of our fellows don't have the desire or see the need to fight for what they believe in is apparent. They can seldom articulate what they believe in with any specificity. We have become lazy, similar to the Romans.

Second, we have moved as a nation in the last decade or two into a thought process that says ideologies like communism have merit and that no one who went before us was 'good enough' to make it work properly. This ignores the primal nature of power and its influence on a mind without a core value system. The weak are willing to be led by the nose while the strong and valueless want to dominate. It's a well trodden path, historically and it never changes in terms of outcome.

Third and tangential to the above, we have a society that is every day attempting to remove more values and make more things OK. There is no right or wrong, only darker or lighter greys. When a person doesn't look to a higher power or truly listen to their internal compass when making decisions but looks only for instant gratification, the idea of a constitutional reset is nearly impossible. What would you base your ideal changes to the constitution on when you talk to someone with values different from yours as though they were an idiot, a savage or a tyrant? I personally don't care what your personal values are, only the fruits of those values in a civil society. Jefferson was an athiest? I don't care. I only care that the fruits of the values he expressed and attempted to live by meant more freedom to pursue individual goals and move that society forward to greater freedoms, greater progress and greater opportunity for the citizens.

Finally, we now live in society of classes, the very thing our fore fathers attempted to escape from though not kings and dukes. We have the political class that collaborates in secret with the money class to rig the political system in a way that benefits themselves. The goal of much of the legislation over the last 20 years is clear. It is not to make the populace more secure to pursue their dreams or more able to build their personal wealth or to create more opportunity. It is to control and dictate and ensure that the control structure is limitless. They do TO us, not FOR us. Then we look for politicans who can win in elections because they are good politicians. Then we're surprised when they compromise OUR values for their gain behind closed doors, coming out and saying our side won. Won what?

I don't know how or if these kinds of systemic problems can be remedied but I can say that the eventual end of the road is fairly clear and visible from where we stand on it at this moment. Personally I think that the knowledge of that road and our inability to slow our progress on it is what makes the zombie apocalypse fiction so popular right now. It's another flavor of the same problem.

well said

Brooklyn said:

Thus, before returning to the particulars of this current debate, I wanted to give a permeable to set the stage for why I think this is worth my time and yours as well ---
We are the architects of our own government,and it is is best that we start thinking like such-- If we cannot then 'government of the people, by the people, and for the people, should perish from the earth'.

Brooklyn

Click to expand...

The miracle that is the Constitution of the United States will unlikely ever be repeated. It is the fruit that was born of a small number of educated people, with similar backgrounds, understanding of history, and a common view of the world. They spent several months arguing and coming to agreement of what should be put to paper. They made a few unfortunate mistakes that were a necessity of compromise (slavery being one).

You would be unable to find an equivalent group today that could get past the words "We the people..." if given 100 months to negotiate. This is the same problem that got us so far off the track and into the mess we call a government today. There is too wide of a morality gap, too little work ethic and not enough selflessness to ever fix the problem. Not that there are not people with the qualities, but they are out numbered, beat down and circling the wagons to protect their own.

Boxcab said:

Not that there are not people with the qualities, but they are out numbered, beat down and circling the wagons to protect their own.

Click to expand...

+1

The issue that sparked the debate, is the same that sparked the birth of the nation. What is government for and from whence is its power derived.


The prevailing view of the time was that of rule by divine right of kings -- what this implied is that god himself had chosen the government and ,that, therefore no man could challenge it.

Locke and the rest of the enlightenment thinkers changed all that. But now we find that, having killed god, the liberals have made a god of the state, and still no man may challenge it. Locke answers this as well -- but most here will not like the answer -- it forces upon us terrible choices.

Many here think we are done for, many also hope we are done for -- a kind of fatalism that lets us all of the hook. "How can we be expected to do what the founders could not ?", they say.

Well for one thing they did not succeed.. they never rose above self interest, and the Constitution bears the scars that prove it.-- "Well then how can we hope to do any better, then"?

Because Locke does not require that we rise above our self interest, it requires only that we understand what that interest actually is. The federalist constitution has more to do with the pragmatics of the day and the failure of the Articles of Confederation that is does with Classical liberalism and the thinking of Locke.

Now, I have no idea if this generation is up to the task, or even if they are worthy of the attempt, but the writing of Locke is still there for those who might want to know what inspired the founders to even think it was possible to question Government, in itself revolution against divine right theory, and to to the extent that it is believed, against the the divine itself.

Tomorrow, should I still care enough, I will examine the idea that Government is not an entity, that it is what would naturally emerge from what Locke calls the state of nature if all men had the power to see and act upon their own self interest.

Agree or disagree , it is a useful idea. It challenges the basic assumptions many have about Government and that is always enlightening, I think.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1690locke-sel.asp

I have not read Locke's work, but think I have a feel for what the founders intent was. They didn't see the Divine right bestowed upon one person, or one family, as we can see Dem's still doing with the Kennedy's, the Clinton's, and now maybe even the Obama's. They saw that the country could be led by God to do the right thing. Providence is talked about throughout their works and that God didn't put all his power into one man's house. Even Christ had his limitations.

As the nation, especially the city folk move further and further away from God, God is not going to show favor towards us as a country. When Locke and others speak of Nature and Natural Law they are speaking to God's law.

I have many friends who are very descent people yet don't really believe in God. It would appear that they talk about belief, but don't really believe. Faith can be a tough lesson.

In our own country I don't think the will will appear again until we hit rock bottom. That is why the Government is pushing out food stamps and welfare. As long as people have food in the belly and feel obliged to Big Government it will persist. I can see us heading towards a large collapse in the near future. Maybe then people will seek God again and right the ship.

As mentioned a long time ago, "There are no atheists in a foxhole!" Maybe when it comes to that we will wake up. Some find God on their own, others must have their asses kicked over their heads to get the point.

Vic

Historically god leads to hierarchy. This will be no exception. If you can find the time read Locke. You can belive in god and still adear to Locke.. Government does not depend on god. If it does Christan values are doomed in the face of Islam because Islam takes no prisoners..

Read Locke

Vic said:

I have not read Locke's work, but think I have a feel for what the founders intent was. They didn't see the Divine right bestowed upon one person, or one family, as we can see Dem's still doing with the Kennedy's, the Clinton's, and now maybe even the Obama's. They saw that the country could be led by God to do the right thing. Providence is talked about throughout their works and that God didn't put all his power into one man's house. Even Christ had his limitations.

As the nation, especially the city folk move further and further away from God, God is not going to show favor towards us as a country. When Locke and others speak of Nature and Natural Law they are speaking to God's law.

I have many friends who are very descent people yet don't really believe in God. It would appear that they talk about belief, but don't really believe. Faith can be a tough lesson.

In our own country I don't think the will will appear again until we hit rock bottom. That is why the Government is pushing out food stamps and welfare. As long as people have food in the belly and feel obliged to Big Government it will persist. I can see us heading towards a large collapse in the near future. Maybe then people will seek God again and right the ship.

As mentioned a long time ago, "There are no atheists in a foxhole!" Maybe when it comes to that we will wake up. Some find God on their own, others must have their asses kicked over their heads to get the point.

Vic

Click to expand...

No they are not. You can disagree, but first you must understand.

It sounds to me very much like Locke was the original objectivist. While I agree whole heartedly with most of it, I believe, as do others, that it falls down when it comes to faith and grace. It doesn't account for the things that are bigger than the individual or the things that 'just happen' occasionally that have no explanation and no reason but still result in what I would call a blessing but others would call something else. I've been witness to it too many times in my life to discount it. It seems like mysticism to those who don't believe in God but it's perfectly reasonable to those who do and it gives guidance that is beyond the wisdom that any single person can bring to the table.

That said, I don't personally think that Locke and faith are mutually exclusive. Instead I believe that we were given the ability and desire to succeed and to be free in the secular sense.

My fear is that 'rock bottom' as a nation will expose us to anarchy and invasion at a time when we cannot effectively defend ourselves. There are no guarantees that when you hit the bottom that the only way is up. Plenty of civilizations just stayed at the bottom. The fall can happen slowly in a decade or century or it can happen fast in just a few days (see Europe WWII).

But I take solace in the fact that this experiment did happen at least once in history. If we fight for it but it still falls, it can happen again. The spirit of man is such that we will continue to strive. The best thing we can do is ingrain freedom in our children's minds and hearts and teach them to do the same for their children.

axshon said:

It sounds to me very much like Locke was the original objectivist. While I agree whole heartedly with most of it, I believe, as do others, that it falls down when it comes to faith and grace. It doesn't account for the things that are bigger than the individual or the things that 'just happen' occasionally that have no explanation and no reason but still result in what I would call a blessing but others would call something else. I've been witness to it too many times in my life to discount it. It seems like mysticism to those who don't believe in God but it's perfectly reasonable to those who do and it gives guidance that is beyond the wisdom that any single person can bring to the table.

That said, I don't personally think that Locke and faith are mutually exclusive. Instead I believe that we were given the ability and desire to succeed and to be free in the secular sense.

My fear is that 'rock bottom' as a nation will expose us to anarchy and invasion at a time when we cannot effectively defend ourselves. There are no guarantees that when you hit the bottom that the only way is up. Plenty of civilizations just stayed at the bottom. The fall can happen slowly in a decade or century or it can happen fast in just a few days (see Europe WWII).

But I take solace in the fact that this experiment did happen at least once in history. If we fight for it but it still falls, it can happen again. The spirit of man is such that we will continue to strive. The best thing we can do is ingrain freedom in our children's minds and hearts and teach them to do the same for their children.

Click to expand...

Well now you are getting closer. Your claim that faith and god just be accounted for is suspect and circular. Locke does not deny God.. no need... he build his system on an Ocams Razor basis, and is therefore not dependent on such a brief. This is valuable for secular government since we do need to compel anyone to believe.

The fact is 95 % agreement can be achieved without forcing a religious view. If you take that 95% and run with it no need to hit bottom. If you force war... well you will loose that war.

Islam takes no prisoners ... and frankly those virgins start to sound real tempting after we hit bottom.


Bring about the end of the world at your own risk..

I still don't understand what you are trying to say. Maybe I just don't have the ability.

I personally think that our founders were deeply spiritual people. Many, like Washington, were deists rather than Christians, but still held faith in divine guidance. The reason they pushed Freedom of religion was they understood the true nature of faith. Church is simply the beginning of a journey in faith. No church, in and of itself, can get you too the answer. The answer can only be found by the inward journey each must make on their own. That is much more difficult in a Theocracy or any strong centralized Government. Freedom is the only path that allows self discovery and it cannot be found by thought.

The founders sought self determination because they wanted us all to find ourselves thus making our way of life superior to all others and thus untouchable. We have become complacent. The seeds of faith are being killed by secular government and those who want Government to be the center of our life.

Even with this I feel an awakening occurring in our country and throughout the world. People are asking, is there more than this, who am I and as always, finding their true selves and the true nature of the universe. I only pray we find truth before we destroy our country or in the larger picture, humanity.

Vic

Vic said:

I still don't understand what you are trying to say. Maybe I just don't have the ability.

I personally think that our founders were deeply spiritual people. Many, like Washington, were deists rather than Christians, but still held faith in divine guidance. The reason they pushed Freedom of religion was they understood the true nature of faith. Church is simply the beginning of a journey in faith. No church, in and of itself, can get you too the answer. The answer can only be found by the inward journey each must make on their own. That is much more difficult in a Theocracy or any strong centralized Government. Freedom is the only path that allows self discovery and it cannot be found by thought.

The founders sought self determination because they wanted us all to find ourselves thus making our way of life superior to all others and thus untouchable. We have become complacent. The seeds of faith are being killed by secular government and those who want Government to be the center of our life.

Even with this I feel an awakening occurring in our country and throughout the world. People are asking, is there more than this, who am I and as always, finding their true selves and the true nature of the universe. I only pray we find truth before we destroy our country or in the larger picture, humanity.

Vic

Click to expand...

The founder were not Locke. Locke had different ideas. He knew that faith also led to bloddy conflict. So he invented a way of establishing moral government which is compatible with religious views but not dependent on them.. I think this is a strength of the system. Faith leads, historically,to violence.. that's a problem. Is it not.?

If Locke can help us avoid bloodshed that's good right. And if you can still have your faith and get along with others that have a different faith or a contrary faith , or even no faith that's good too.
Locke helps us avoid crusades...

I read a science fiction short story a long time ago. It was about future earth and that our science had developed to the point that everyone could have whatever they wanted because they learned to turn energy into matter and vice versa. Kind of like the Star Trek ideas. Anyway, the populace could have whatever they wanted and saw no need for defense since no one would attack since they could provide attackers with what ever they desired, jewels, food, anything.

The crux of the story was that a race came that still conquered the earth. Humans couldn't understand why they would do that. They gave them whatever they wanted, but for the conquerors what they wanted was the earth and they didn't particularly like humans either. Mankind hung in the balance.

Much of this could be said about life today. Many try to appease radical Islam but they cannot be appeased. Their doctrine says they must rule over the earth and if you don't agree with Allah, then you need to die. I don't know how much of the faith has that view but I do think it comes directly from the Koran.

All faiths can get along, since there are many ways to skin that cat, but you cannot have a faith that says all other faiths are not only inferior, but should be eradicated. I actually practice multiple religions to develop faith. Most are not mutually exclusive. However, some religions believe that other religions are wrong and as such shouldn't exist.

Can faith lead to bloody conflict, yes. Can nationalism lead to bloody conflict, yes. Can ego lead to bloody conflict, absolutely.

Acceptance and inclusion are the key, but even this can be used by ego to cause harm.

Vic

Oh, and faith doesn't lead to bloody violence, religion does. Faith can actually stop violence.

Vic said:

Oh, and faith doesn't lead to bloody violence, religion does. Faith can actually stop violence.

Click to expand...

Be that as it may Locke is not anti faith or anti religion.. read if you wish or not...

But Locke was anti nationalism. ...

axshon said:

It sounds to me very much like Locke was the original objectivist. While I agree whole heartedly with most of it, I believe, as do others, that it falls down when it comes to faith and grace. It doesn't account for the things that are bigger than the individual or the things that 'just happen' occasionally that have no explanation and no reason but still result in what I would call a blessing but others would call something else. I've been witness to it too many times in my life to discount it. It seems like mysticism to those who don't believe in God but it's perfectly reasonable to those who do and it gives guidance that is beyond the wisdom that any single person can bring to the table.

Click to expand...

And if it had any substantial real-world effect, there would be a measurable and consistent difference in the fortunes of those who have faith (and are thus receiving the guidance you speak of) versus those who don't.

And yet, no such difference has been consistently and repeatably observed (at least that I've ever heard of), particularly such that it can be traced back to the faith in question.

Whatever advantage you believe faith confers upon the faithful, it must clearly be limited to some realm outside of the observable world.

That's not to say that those who have faith are incorrect to have the faith they have. They might well be correct. However, one cannot legitimately, based on substantive real-world evidence, claim that those who have faith have any real-world advantage over those who do not.


Some of the most horrific periods in the history of the world happened on the watch of the "faithful", so it seems that whatever "guidance" they received, it did not help them avoid causing monumental amounts of harm to others. But, then, so too have some of the greatest works been done by the faithful. It seems, then, that said "guidance" is no more ethical than are the acts of those who lack such "guidance".

That said, I don't personally think that Locke and faith are mutually exclusive. Instead I believe that we were given the ability and desire to succeed and to be free in the secular sense.

Click to expand...

Precisely so. Locke's views appear (in what limited reading I've done thus far) to be independent of faith.