15

"The political philosophy of America's Founding Fathers is so thoroughly buried under decades of statist... " - Ayn Rand

Posted by awebb 9 years, 5 months ago to Pics
133 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Quote of the day:

"The political philosophy of America's Founding Fathers is so thoroughly buried under decades of statist misrepresentation on one side and empty lip-service on the other, that it has to be re-discovered, not ritualistically repeated." - Ayn Rand


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by broskjold22 9 years, 5 months ago
    The good of the founding fathers has a sure hierarchical foundation that begins with the right of an individual to his own life.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jdg 9 years, 4 months ago
      I would love it if we could point to even one of the Founders and say he was that ideologically pure. But I doubt that any of them was.

      About the best thing I can say about the Founders as a group, especially the writers of the Constitution, is that given the knowledge available, they did about the best possible job of designing a system that would last a long time before abuses crept in. But it's way past its sell-by date now.

      I'd like to start or join an effort to do a good, scholarly job of improving on that design, even though it will take a miracle -- or at least very good luck -- for anyone to get a chance to put the result into practice, here or anywhere else.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 9 years, 5 months ago
    For re-discovery to happen, people would need to be able to think on their own to see how things have morphed into a shape never intended by the founders. Its certainly possible, but long odds.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by RonC 9 years, 4 months ago
      For re-discovery to begin...I think the checks have to start bouncing from Washington. Then all of the mooches would gain a clear understanding of what solving their own problems is about.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ sjatkins 9 years, 4 months ago
        Given that they own the money printing presses and are running at $18 trillion in debt officially and at least another $50 trillion in unfunded liabilities I don't see that mere checks bouncing are going to deter them.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by RonC 9 years, 4 months ago
          Checks bouncing would cause the mooches to begin to solve their own problems, rather than wait for the government cheese to be redistributed every month. The way I look at it, even if the mooches stole enough to eat, it would add to the productivity somewhere to make up the loss. The government dole creates nothing and is actually a grander theft, because the overhead and salaries of the government system are also stolen from the productive class. Regardless, when the gov't can no longer pay people to sit at home, a lot less people will be sitting at home.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ jdg 9 years, 4 months ago
            Not even. Checks bouncing would simply cause the feds to print even more money, giving us the economy of a banana republic, followed shortly by the huge inflation, corruption, unfriendly police, and mostly-off-the-books economy that you can see now in countries from Guatemala to Argentina. A country that goes that route will probably never recover, even if some foreign foe doesn't take that situation as an opportunity to invade.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 4 months ago
    Many people no longer think. They have electronics to do it for them. But to understanf the Founders, you must start by understanding the Declaration and the Constitution. Then a bit of history wouldn't hurt. Pity that it is no longer taught in schools. The way things are taught today you might as well keep the kids at home, teach them to read and write and you'll have them as educated as most kids finishing primary school. And I'm not so sure that many school kids can actually read and write.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ winterwind 9 years, 4 months ago
      they can't. their handwriting is enough to make you shriek with frustration. they can type, but not fast touch-typing like we learned [or those who want to learn]. This is why so many jobs require a BA or BS, so they can be relatively sure the candidate has a high school education.
      Most importantly, they can't think. All their sentences start with "I feel like that Russia, should maybe think about..." or the equivalent.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 4 months ago
        Not only does it fail to teach the basics, but its omissions are unconscionable. There is no history, instead there is propaganda. We are turning out a generation of ignoramuses.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Technocracy 9 years, 4 months ago
      Many schools have stopped teaching Cursive writing altogether.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 4 months ago
        i would guess all. I have seen no evidence to the contrary. Nor the ability to do simple arithmetic without a sort of calculator with pictures. Twenty years ago one could get on the honor role for ''Good trys.'' As for constructing a simple sentence? Perhaps two. Huuuh? and Duuuh?

        I would hate to publicly admit I was a teacher these days even if I was one of the few remaining real teachers.No wonder school budgets are votes down and the students leave early to attend GED classes at the JC's.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 9 years, 4 months ago
          All sentences, including complex ones like "Huuuh?" are to include a warmup preamble filler while searching for the complex thought about to be expressed, and concluded with a trailing filler to wind down, rest your brain, and cool off. E.g.:

          "Here's the thing. Huuuh?, y'know?"
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Thoritsu 9 years, 4 months ago
        Yes, but that is a net positive. Like teaching buggy whip manufacture or shorthand. Cursive is a illegible waste of time!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 9 years, 4 months ago
          Hello Thoritsu,
          My typing is atrocious. My fingers are too fat or imprecise I guess. My caps button hates me... Too close to the vowel a. I must constantly proofread. I can write cursive much better and faster than typing or printing, but unless I slow down only I can decipher it. :) Still I think it should be taught for the human touch and individuality it brings and value the (albeit limited) security a signature brings.
          Regards,
          O.A.
          P.S. For clarity, that would be the caps lock button.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Thoritsu 9 years, 4 months ago
            You are definitely in the minority.

            I learned cursive, but never used it, because it is illegible. I can print as fast as most people can write, and anyone can read it, even though it isn't pretty.

            To me this is like learning an instrument to play, and if I had to pick one for my kids, it would be piano not cursive.

            BTW - I used to be able to use a slide rule, and I can draw on a drafting board with a 30-60-90 triangle. Those make me a dino too.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 4 months ago
              I own three GPS but still carry a sextant on board. My skill trumps my mistrust of whoever has their finger poised over the on/off button for GPS. I used to work for them. Department of Defense.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 9 years, 4 months ago
              I still have a nice drafting table with a string parallel bar and several triangles in my office. Today they are like antiques gathering dust... showpieces from a bygone era. My printing was exquisite. I could draw by hand letters and numerals that looked as if typed. I haven't used a slide rule in 30 years. Now all of my design work is done on a computer using CAD-CAM software. I miss the old days. I guess I am a dino too. One good thing about that though is that I can still make things without these modern tools and customers occasionally bring me old school jobs to build or repair because there are so few of us left. I have to show my employees how it was once done. Just give me an old fashioned Bridgeport, pencil, paper, a machinist handbook with sin, cos, and tan tables and look out! :)
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by VetteGuy 9 years, 4 months ago
                I'm another Dino who is somewhat jealous of your drafting table. I wanted one, but could never find the space in my small house. Many years ago I found something called a "Pretty Neat Board" that allows use of a triangle with an 8.5 x 11 piece of paper. The last time I used it was to "sketch out" a piping isometric for a drafter to turn into an official CAD drawing. Sadly, the hand sketch ended up being better than the CAD drawing I got back. *sigh* It's hard to get good help sometimes.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Technocracy 9 years, 4 months ago
          So you would prefer that people trust translations instead of reading the founding documents in their original form? Or for that matter most documents produced before the late 60s?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Thoritsu 9 years, 4 months ago
            No, but I wouldn't want a scribe trying to reproduce one by hand. Typing the text, or a scan/photo work fine, and makes them broadly available to many.

            Who said anything about a translation?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Technocracy 9 years, 4 months ago
              You require a translation if cursive becomes a lost skill.

              If they are unable to read it themselves, it must be translated into something they can read. A simple scan does not make it readable. Further processing either by OCR or a human is needed if you don't read corsive.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ Thoritsu 9 years, 4 months ago
                Should we all learn Greek and Latin too then?

                I'd be much happier if they really taught grammar (my kids don't really know what a preposition or gerund are).

                There is limited time to learn things. Cursive is a dead art form, and wholly unnecessary today. In addition, teaching it ends up with 99% of the population writing is some stupid 1/2 cursive, 1/2 printing mess. Reading the Constitution or the Bill of Rights as it was originally written is a weak excuse to waste peoples time learning this writing style when a vast majority of the written communication today is typed.
                My kids can't write cursive, but I just had my daughter recite the Constitution to me from the original. Separately from this, it just isn't that hard if it is written well. We seem to have backward-compatible reading.

                This is a Luddite's argument.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ winterwind 9 years, 4 months ago
                  Thoritsu, et al. -
                  I continually make the argument that people who want to use English well, and understand what they're doing, should study Latin. Those dumb rules that don't make any sense when applied to English were written for Latin, and once you understand them, you will know what a preposition is - and how to use it properly, not stiffly.

                  OK, your daughter can recite the Constitution. Can she explain it, using current events as examples either upholding or downpulling her choice of 5 important parts?

                  and modern cursive is NOT the way the Constitution was written - I have been a professional calligrapher, and I learned how to write copperplate with a modern "cheater" - a pen with an offset nib. I don't find much of it readable because it's too heavily ornamented.
                  I do think that people show know how to write by hand very quickly and very legibly by hand, and it does tend to result in a kind of print/cursive blend, and it doesn't have to be messy! and yes, I can show people how to do it.

                  It belongs to that list of skills, like Heinlein's list, that educated people should know - like "be able to make breakfast for 20 people".
                  edit to ensure delivery to intended recipient.

                  P.S. I would be happy to teach your children [depending on their ages] grammar long distance, if you like.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 9 years, 4 months ago
                    Totally agree that Latin is valuable. I took Latin in high school, and would definitely not have gotten a national merit scholarship without it! It saved my verbal score. My daughter is trying to get into Latin next year.

                    Would love to take you up on teaching grammar. My son (20) is not going to apply himself, but Katie (16) might be up for learning what they should've taught in grammar school!

                    I only seem to remember how to spell "grammar" because it is almost a palindrome. So weird how the mind works.

                    Why isn't printing adequate for handwriting?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ winterwind 9 years, 4 months ago
                      Thoritsu,
                      Usually, because one can't do it fast enough, and it gets totally unreadable if done too fast - you need the [as the Brits say] joined-up parts to make it more efficient.

                      Here's one the best reasons for studying Latin I know: spelling. My favorite example is the word "necessary". People agonize over whether it's a c or an s in the first syllable. However, when they learn the phrase "necesse est" [and the c is always pronounced hard in Latin}, which means "it is necessary or required", the spelling problem usually disappears.
                      I would love to work on grammar with your daughter, and she'll ace her Latin classes! You are welcome to PM me any time.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 4 months ago
                      For a long time a written or cursive signature was required for identification and verification purposes. Bottom of 1040 for example where everyone who signed committed a felony. In some forms of communication it was politeness if nothing else. now an unsigned email is sufficient or as the housing crashed showed a computer printout of a housing loan contract without the original signed contract in hand.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 9 years, 4 months ago
                        Signatures in informal writing are also more personal, just as they are unique in legal documents.

                        The practical benefit to cursive writing over printing is that it is faster. to write. Unfortunately bad handwriting takes longer to read, but at least avoids the need for encryption :-)
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 4 months ago
                    Add to that a bit of 'Greek and an understanding of the genesis and etymology of the language. The people of that time having the advantage of no tv nor texting, at least the educated, were well versed in the use of language. English itself is an offshoot of Gemanic well salted with Latin, Greek, and a number of other languages. One might say it is the word sponge of the world. Any decent dictionary has a chart depicting the branches of the languages from inception to modern day.

                    Be it computer controlled, a typewriter, a pen or pencil the point of language is to communicate. If one cannot write a clear, concise sentence the method of passing that sentence to others is of no consequence. If one cannot communicate one is illiterate beyond him or herself.

                    My first wife was/is an art major looking for a teaching degtree. She saw no need for an understanding of English or any form of communication claiming art speaks for itself.

                    True but not sufficiently true for an instructor of those untrained in art. Those who rapidly become the lumps in the back of the classroom looking out the window.

                    She became a bank teller and never became an artist nor a teacher.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 9 years, 4 months ago
                      The primary purpose of language is cognition, not communication. Those who can't think have nothing to communicate.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 4 months ago
                        ya'll wanna break that down into English? you have a cite or is that an opinion?
                        https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/.../cogni......
                        A cognitive communication disorder is a broad term that's used to describe a wide range of specific communication problems that can result from damage to .


                        https://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/c... ."Quite simply, cognition refers to thinking."

                        com·mu·ni·ca·tion
                        kəˌmyo͞onəˈkāSH(ə)n/
                        noun
                        1.
                        the imparting or exchanging of information or news.
                        "direct communication between the two countries will produce greater understanding"
                        synonyms: transmission, conveyance, divulgence, disclosure; More
                        2.
                        means of connection between people or places, in particular.

                        And those who can't communicate can not pass on their thoughts - except to themselves.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by ewv 9 years, 4 months ago
                          See Ayn Rand's book Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

                          Communicate what? If you don't have concepts, which require words to designate, you have nothing to communicate. That cognition precedes communication does not mean to live in vacuum and not communicate.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Technocracy 9 years, 4 months ago
                  Interesting that you try to play the Luddite card in an online forum.

                  Learning and knowledge is not a game with built in limitations. One can learn as much as they are willing or able to learn. If you don't want your kids to learn cursive, your call. Argue for limitations and soon enough they are yours.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 4 months ago
                    He pleas for proper grammar to be learned and your response includes "One can learn as much as they are willing or able to learn"! :-(

                    One can learn what others are able to? 'One' is 'they'?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ Thoritsu 9 years, 4 months ago
                      Sorry for the grammar mistake. I sometimes use second person instead of third person, and it reads as a personal affront. When editing, I often make mistakes.

                      Even if learning grammar means me, it is still important :)
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 9 years, 4 months ago
                        I understand the problems with the generic "you" being misunderstood. This one was Technocracy's lack of agreement between subject and predicate mixing plural and singular -- one vs. they -- making it sound like two different entities doing the learning, It was ironic in response to your plea for good grammar!
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by $ winterwind 9 years, 4 months ago
                          It's not the "generic" you, it's the singular "thou" that's missing. Christians decreed that it be used only in speaking to God, and smushed everyone else, singular and plural, together. It's amazing how clean your language gets when you got backwards to the actual 2nd person singular.
                          The problem with the sentence discussed is that we all know is rude to say "he" [as is "one can learn as much as he is able.."] so we revert to the plural "they". Objectivists, in general, are very good about having agreed that "he" applies to everyone, and usually use the singular easily. If you're willing to write around it, you can do without the convention but you have to think about it a bit.
                          --from one word -and-grammar geek to others
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 9 years, 4 months ago
                      The clown who downvoted this apparently doesn't know enough English grammar to know the difference between singular and plural and that the sentence it responded to does not make any sense. By all means, continue to keep learning grammar out of the schools.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 9 years, 4 months ago
                    Ivory Tower? Time and gumption are related limitations, the people who don't recognize them are simply always late.

                    There is a big list of things to learn that will help one succeed and be happy. Grammar, literature, mathematics, history in context, music, art, foreign language, finance, law, sports, firearm safety, driving, bike riding, music theory, an instrument, typing, programming, public speaking...growing plants...cooking...cleaning house...carpentry...wiring, automechanics...1000 more...cursive is way down the list, not irrelevant, but not a priority.

                    And I stand by: it essentially teaches 99% of the people to have some illegible, mixed type of handwriting, while even poor printing is clear. It is a net negative form of communication, unless a nun stands over you with a ruler and make you a calligrapher. As practiced by most, it is the written equivalent of the Tower of Babel. Good riddance to cursive and slide rules.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by Technocracy 9 years, 4 months ago
                      You really like to label people. Nope, but keep up with your assumptions.

                      You may not care for cursive, but it will be with us for some time to come.

                      In our business we have to deal with hand written correspondence every day. Delivered by fax or scanned and emailed, but hand written. So much so, that it limits suitability as an employee for someone who cannot read it reasonably well.

                      You are right that cursive handwriting is bad and is getting steadily worse. The high tech alternatives are a major driver of that. A skill you don't practice steadily erodes.

                      However, it is still too prevalent to either pretend it does not exist, or refuse to teach the skill.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by khalling 9 years, 4 months ago
                        I love to hand write letters and cursive is something I miss doing. db likes lists so he gets my bold, loopy handwriting. "Coffee" looks beautiful in cursive. so does "quick" and "dead"
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 4 months ago
                      Wow the electricity is off! I'm helpless! What's this long yellow thing with a rubber end? How could the government let this happen?????

                      Computers like pencils are a tool. They augment but do not replace the mind. Want to turn off the motor of the world?

                      Create a blackout.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 4 months ago
          They can't do it with a computer either. I've seen far too many examples of Duuh and 'huuh including school counselors preparing their scholarship applications because their graduating honor roll seniors can't and won't.

          to make the point the scholarship commitees of the Alumni Association and local clubs like Kiwanis sent back a large percentage stamped Not University level material. The next step was to require a hand written paragraph on the subject of why the applicant should be awarded a scholarship and ended up with a verbal presentation. We were thus able to sift the wheat from the chaff.

          One year we gave out no scholarships and another instituted a second year continuation as a better use of the funds

          Nowadays they just get government loans with a free ride for the females and a signed volunteer for military service form for the males.

          That paper the young men sign at age 18 to get loans and government jobs? No draft or them if Uncle calls. They already volunteered.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 9 years, 4 months ago
    The Tea Party has been re-discovering the Constitution since 2009.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 4 months ago
      And other like-minded, liberty-loving people before then. They just hadn't semi-organized into a force in opposition to the political party that had abandoned them.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ allosaur 9 years, 4 months ago
        I once wrote here about wondering why the Tea Party was asking me to join it after I already had.
        A Gulcher replied that there are different Tea Parties.
        I'd love to see that fractured movement band together into a far more effective political movement.
        The promise-making to be put in power spineless RINOpublincan Party is making me sick.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 4 months ago
          Amen. I think it's probably because the real Tea Party is ideals - not politics. Those who want to politicize it seek to do so for their own ends. The real Tea Party wants power in the hands of the people - not elected representatives.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 4 months ago
        Abandoned or carried out a pre planned sabotage mission as the did to the Populists. I rather believe the latter. Noted they had the support of the left-left wing media in that effort. And all the good little fist clenchers saluted and chantged Seig Heil we serve the party.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by XenokRoy 9 years, 4 months ago
    It is more burred now but luckily there are some great books that one can read to remove much of the fog and get an understanding of the time period. I am particularly fond of these:

    #1 best book: "Making of America" it is excellent and comprehensive but reads like a text book for a college course.

    A few others

    "Washington a Life" and "Hamilton"
    1776 and "John Adams"

    and although its a slightly later time period i would "The First Tycoon" which is about Vanderbilt but he is in some part responsible for the country not spinning back to government contracts and due to him beating repeatedly competitors who had government funding causing a great reduction in government funding of private industry. I would bet with him we would not have had the industrial revolution that followed.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 9 years, 4 months ago
      The 5000 year leap too. I found it to be logical and profound. Now I see why liberal progressives, whom can not create value and in order to survive have to steel value, would illogically rattle their cages over it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 9 years, 4 months ago
      You mean "without" Vanderbilt?

      But the industrial revolution was already well underway by then, and was even earlier in England. It was a result of many individuals operating in freedom under better philosophical conditions across the culture, not any one individual who participated in it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 4 months ago
    i have put together a precis of history on the development of the party system of government which touches on a number of subjects currently under discussion. One and two submitted 1776 to beginning of Civil War. Should have the rest pared down to manageable size and added. For the benefit of those new to the discussions and an opportunity for the experienced to expand or correct urban myths in favor of historical truths.

    Whenever it gets included.....
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years, 4 months ago
    I visited the Thomas Jefferson house in VA a few months ago and watched their videos. I have to say that the intellectual foundation of the constitution is quite incomplete and inconsistent. Its basically a reaction against the english rule, and not a good grounding in individual freedom. Although it separates church and state officially, it was OK to persecute the mormons for polygamy and chase them relentlessly out of the US. It was also ok to have slaves (Jefferson had slaves himself), and it was ok to railroad the Indians from their land. Lots of inconsistencies that have eventually led right up to the present day's socialism. It was a good start, but not grounded in philosophy really.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 9 years, 4 months ago
      The founding principles of the country were much more than a reaction to British rule. It was based on the ideas of reason and individualism in the Enlightenment. There were inconsistencies in government action, but the main insufficiency was in the Enlightenment philosophy itself: Lack of a defense of a morality of individualism with rational self interest, and the failure of the empiricists to defend reason against skepticism. See Leonard Peikoff's book The Ominous Parallels.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 9 years, 4 months ago
        If that is true, why does it look like the constitution is made up of so many compromises so as to make it seem like they could only agree on making it a reaction to english rule
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 9 years, 4 months ago
          The Constitution was not a reaction to British rule, which was already gone. It was an attempt to formulate a proper national government as a federation of the 13 colonies, each of which already a functioning government. There were political compromises on how to frame the allowed powers and their balance. The fundamentals were already accepted.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 9 years, 4 months ago
            Freedom of religion was really freedom to practice THEIR religion. Not for anyone to practice a different religion ( for example the Mormons). There were no specific property rights. Much of government then was for the good of the community (I forget the exact words). They didn't want soldiers taking over and living in their homes, except if you were American Indian. Individual freedom was ok for white settlers from England but not for black slaves.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 9 years, 4 months ago
              This has nothing to do with the previous claims about the Constitution. The earliest colonization was "freedom to practice their own religion" and communal life that nearly lead to their total demise, as with the Puritans in New England. They were still murdering the Amish into the 18th century. It was pre-Enlightenment. The situation was much different by the time of the Revolution and the Constitution.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 9 years, 4 months ago
    Agreed and I have done so..........seeing that none of us were told the truth in school. If You haven't go the hillsdalecollege.com for free lectures and read any of David Barton's books: wallbuilders.com Oh and don't forget...The 5000 year leap.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 9 years, 4 months ago
      The political philosophy of the founding the country is not religion. Hillsdale sometimes offers useful history in other respects. Barton is an evangelical historical revisionist.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 9 years, 4 months ago
        Where do you hear that about Barton, I know David and his immense collection of personal and official writings of our forefathers...He has Un-revised 'Progressive' history. And you are correct about our founding not being about religion...it was about principles, successful principles...something government and most people have lost...the progressive mindless set was always about making it up as they went along.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 9 years, 4 months ago
          I looked into Barton a few years ago when Glenn Beck started pushing him on his previous show on Fox. He was a low level math teacher who jumped into history to push religion. He "finds" religious "sources" and "causes" of the early history of the founding of this country everywhere he looks. A number of the more explicit quotes he attributed to the founding fathers (like the one about the ten commandments) were contrived and Barton had to retract them in a new edition of one of his books when real historians began questioning his sources. He is not credible. You can find better accounts of American history not infected by the progressives.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 9 years, 4 months ago
            Hmm, interesting. I find a huge difference between Historical lessons mankind experienced and recorded as opposed to 'Religion'. I have studied Julian Jaynes who discovered that mankind was not always 'Conscious' [aware of one's own awareness] It explains a lot of some of what objective folks view as bizarre in history recorded in the Old Testament, civilization for dummies in the Torah and the ancient blogs of the New Testament. It is a shame all that was organized with fear and mysticism by creatures that never gained a conscience but assumed they were fit to rule. Turns out that 'Conscious Humans that have chosen to be' are the elite and they are the great unwashed. This explains how we ended up in an upside down paradigm ruled by Kakistocracies. Happens to be what I write about. Trying to articulate a Conscious view and eradicating the mystical view. I think it's Hi time somebody did...don't you?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ Thoritsu 9 years, 4 months ago
              Sorry to barge in our your conversation with ewv, but I am interested in this concept that people were not/less self-aware in the past. Can you point me to a study regarding this?

              Children are not self-aware for a while, even after birth. They respond, but are not aware they are a separate being.

              In your historical example, I'm sure the similar concept of self-awareness is different, but such a different perspective could account for a lot.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 9 years, 4 months ago
                I don't remember every having not been aware of being distinct "me", though it takes time to conceptualize it. Outside of the evolution of the human brain long before anyone could record it for obvious reasons, this has nothing to do with claims of adults not being aware of themselves as conscious beings, let alone being ruled by space aliens. Someone is pulling our leg, or has lost his own and more. .
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 9 years, 4 months ago
                Absolutely, Read, and it's not an easy read, Julian Jaynes: The Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. I also recommend: The theory of everything, By Ken Wilber and a little more difficult exploration of the levels of awareness is the book: Spiral Dynamics by, Beck and Don Edward. As I have integrated, just to give you a perspective, I observed and wrote about in my first book is that in the times of Sumeria and particularly Babylon we were rule by creatures very different from us and quite possibly the descendents of creatures not born of earth like us. They clearly were not like us at all. Before the fall of Babylon it was noticed by the rulers that something was happening to mankind that threatened their status quo, (kind of like in today's world) It was stated at the time and recorded in the O.T.: WE, must go down and confound their language, lest nothing be impossible unto them. That change in our behavior was the emergence of consciousness which gave us a conscience, a subconscious, the development of a 'Mind' and of course a connection to creation; know to quantum science as the ether. You also might be interested in reading my thumbnail sketch: The Fight for Conscious Human Life, at any of the download sites or at authorhouse.com
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ Thoritsu 9 years, 4 months ago
                  I didn't see the "we were ruled by creatures very different than us" part coming, but I have an open mind. It would certainly explain a lot about religion. Thanks. Will look into these references.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 9 years, 4 months ago
                    Yeh, that part gets everyone, It comes from the Book of Enoch, although I observed it through unrelated study...I didn't find that historical reference until after my book was published. This is not to say, or not, that these creatures weren't here before us or that they were aliens from somewhere else...we simply do not know for sure one way or another. It is very clear, just upon observations of their behavior that they were not like us nor were they representative of favored life within creation. I have a very strict way of thinking and often express such observations in degrees of probability.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DeanStriker 9 years, 4 months ago
    Not all of those who so many call "the founding fathers" were of ditto philosophies. e.g. The fine Declaration of Independence by Jefferson was omitted from the "supreme law" called the Constitution, penned by Madison, and then muddied further at the Constitutional Convention by a herd of 54 attendees.

    The result finally became the Constitution, which created our Nation and the Government of Force to Rule over the "citizens" aka slaves. Such breaches all common law of contracts, as it binds only the signators thereto (far fewer than everyone), and cannot properly bind others such as we much-later descendants.

    http://no-ruler.net/3460/failures-of-the...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 4 months ago
      Who then had to pen the Federalist And Anti-Federalist Papers to explain what should have been self-evident. I wish for a time machine that could record the debates over the 10-12 years following the Revolutionary War. Just for the experience of hearing without commercials and half baked opinion spins.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DeanStriker 9 years, 4 months ago
        While the Fed/anti-Fed opinions may be interesting, they became irrelevant upon enactment of the Constitution.

        I would love to find a transcript of the Constitutional Convention. But we have now arrived at "Today" and "What Is".

        What was arguably the best Constitution ever failed (yet again, as always) to protect individual sovereignty, bring America to this brink of human disaster. Governments of Force always fail.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 9 years, 4 months ago
          The Federalist papers described much of what was meant by the provisions in the Constitution and why it was done the way it was in the context of the debates of the time.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 4 months ago
          Ask Google and thous shalt receive.

          About 2,970,000 results (0.56 seconds)
          Showing results for Transcript of Constitutional Convention 1778 to 1787
          Search instead for Transcript of Consitutional Convention 1778 to 1787

          Search Results
          Records of the Constitutional Convention - National ...
          www.archives.gov › Research Our Records › Guide to Federal Records
          360.4 RECORDS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 1787 .... Letters and records of John Paul Jones, 1777-91, including transcripts of letters, 1778- 80.
          Convention and Ratification - Creating the United States ...
          www.loc.gov › Exhibitions › Creating the United States
          Notes of Debates in the Federal Constitutional Convention, May 29, 1787. Manuscript. James Madison ... Read the transcript · Enlarge. “The Virginia Plan of ...
          The Articles of Confederation - Library of Congress
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 4 months ago
          To repeat a suggestion made by someone else look up the Confederate States Constitution and minus the the paragraphs on slavery examine the rest. It corrected a lot of the federalism in our own. Another country Panama used ours as a basis start point. but as the instructor said they are only as good as the people in power. At that time General Noriega (replaced by Cara Pina) was the military dictator and head of state for Panama when the Canal Zone giveaway treaty occurred. I had a front row on site seat.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 9 years, 4 months ago
      There was no need to repeat the principles of the Declaration and the objections to British rule in a document specifying the limited functions and operations of a new government. And it was not re-written by a "herd".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 4 months ago
        as opposed to todays version? Let's see ...written in secret by selected members of the ruling class and passed without being read. Then explained by Spin Doctors but always recalling spin is another word for deceit but each spin provides something for everyone and none of it true. Change half baked to raw dough. In the 1770s and 1780's hand bills were posted openly for public to read or have read to them and copies sent throughout the 13 States. 1776 to 1787 provided time to openly discuss Articles of Confederation and a Constitution. "Today? You have to vote for it to read it." And citizens truly are the herd.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 9 years, 4 months ago
          That does not address what I wrote in response to the anarchist revisionist history dumping on the framers as a "herd" imposing invalid "contracts". The Declaration of Independence was not not appropriate to repeat in the Constitution. The Constitution was a document specifying how the government was supposed to work. It was not a philosophical document and not a declaration of war against Britain. It was written in the context of accepted Enlightenment philosophy and the known results of the Revolution. The corruption of the Constitution today is a direct result of the European counter Enlightenment in the form of the Progressives and Pragmatists replacing the Constitution with statism and collectivism, not the lack of recopying the Declaration of Independence, which along with John Locke and the rest of the Enlightenment has made no difference to them wherever it was written. As for the clown who 'downvoted' my response, so much for serious discussion here.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 4 months ago
            The down check was not me. The comment was meant as contrast and supportive. The intent was the difference between a similar effort being made today versus 240 years ago.

            We may well see an attempt to replace the Patriot Act revision without benefit of amendment or convention.

            I can't get it go up but your 1 is back.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 9 years, 4 months ago
              This problem is much deeper and broader than the abuse in the Patriot Act.

              But even in that realm the recent debate on the Patriot Act reauthorization did not even mention many NSA mass warrantless surveillance practices: https://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram/arc...
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 4 months ago
                If it's wired communication requires a warrant - unless there is a suspicion of terrorism which requires no probable cause nor proof or if it originates or is received or crosses the borders of the USA Such as satellite re-transmissions

                The wire transmissions - the old telephones and the new fiber optics have a blanket warrant in force for suspicion of terrorism with no proof or probable cause required.

                Lots of loopholes no one worried about it until the new Utah facility was begun.

                Remember the big deal about sub-cutaneous implants? Now people line up to own and operate the replacement for that idea although chips in ID and credit/debit cards is another such device. The replacement is the cell radio phone. People pay hundreds to be bugged and monitored.

                How do the eavesdroppers know it's crossing international boundaries or not? By monitoring..
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 9 years, 4 months ago
                  The scope of unconstitutional NSA surveillance is staggering, both in the politics and the technology that few have yet to read about. But the point here on recent attempts at reform is that for all the recent controversy and Rand Paul's stand, it barely began to address what is authorized in the Patriot Act. If Rand Paul had succeeded fully, it would have barely touched the abuse.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo