Madison on the "General Welfare" of America: His Consistent Constitutional Vision

The Cato Journal ^ | Robert A. Levy

[philman_36]

I'm almost too demoralized to care any more.
I keep hoping though...

[sourcery]

Sayeth philman_36:	I'm almost too demoralized to care any more. I keep hoping though...
Sayeth sourcery: "Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for they are subtle, and quick to anger!"	Key point: no Constitution, no matter the words it contains, can preserve liberty by itself. Liberty is a way of life, a philosophy and a culture. That's what we've lost. And so, that's what must first be restored, before the government and the laws can possibly be changed.

[philman_36]

Liberty is a way of life, a philosophy and a culture. That's what we've lost. And so, that's what must first be restored, before the government and the laws can possibly be changed.
You say Liberty must first be restored and I see no way in which it can be anymore. We're riddled to death with numerous, overbearing legislation/laws. A Cray probably can't hold all of the legislation we have today. Until such legislation/laws is repealed then there is no way that Liberty can be restored as that same legislation/laws will still be present to destroy such renewed and restored Liberty of the life and mind at any time.
I'm afraid that, like a suckling infant, too many Americans are unwilling to detach from the government's teat. After living so many years on the government teat too many are afraid to let go of it and find the sustenance of "Liberty" on their own.
In your example I simply see the cart before the horse.

[philman_36]

To me, Liberty is supposed to be provided for, and protected, by laws. Where can Liberty exist when laws punish, ban and criminalize it?

[sourcery]

Sayeth philman_36:

In your example I simply see the cart before the horse.

Sayeth sourcery: "Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for they are subtle, and quick to anger!"

I completely understand and sympathize with your frustration. But you yourself have stated the fundamental problem: "too many Americans are unwilling to detach from the government's teat." Exactly so. And too many Americans are unwilling to give up the idea that they rightfully have and justly exercise the collective power to violate others' right to Liberty. It is this attitude, belief, political philosophy--whatever you want to call it--that must be changed before any signfificant progress can be made. In a democracy, you first have to convince the electorate to see things your way before you can can change the laws. You have to have the votes. You can't change the laws before you change the opinions of the lawmakers, and you can't change the opinions of the lawmakers without first changing the opinions of those who elect them.

Learn HTML

[philman_36]

And too many Americans are unwilling to give up the idea that they rightfully have and justly exercise the collective power to violate others' right to Liberty.
No one has the right or can justly exercise the power, collectively or otherwise, to violate other's right to Liberty.
In a democracy, you first have to convince the electorate to see things your way before you can can change the laws.
You don't even seem to understand that we don't live in a Democracy! How can we progress when you don't even understand the form of government we have? And please, don't give me the old "it is just an expression".
As long as you and others don't recognize our form of government then there will never be the recognition of other's right to Liberty! Democracy gives others that very collective ability and power to violate others' right to Liberty you claim they are unwilling to give up. Recognizing our republican form of government forces others to recognize the right to Liberty of others.

You can't change the laws before you change the opinions of the lawmakers, and you can't change the opinions of the lawmakers without first changing the opinions of those who elect them.
Another horse before the cart analogy! Those lawmakers aren't supposed to be influenced by voter's opinions, they're supposed to be influenced by the Constitution and the rights of all. Lawmakers are supposed to represent all and protect everyone's rights, not just those that put them in office. Those who elect them don't represent all Americans. Half of our eligible population doesn't even vote because they don't feel that they are being represented anyway! It is all PACS and special interest groups (opinions) like MADD and HGC nowadays.
Your thinking seems so backwards to me. I guess I've not correspondedd enough with you to really know what your thoughts are after all.
Your "Democracy" and "opinion following legislators" are killing America!

I don't need to learn HTML, but thanks for the link. I just don't see the need to go overboard with it. Sufficient to suffice is my motto.

[sourcery]

No one has the right or can justly exercise the power, collectively or otherwise, to violate other's right to Liberty.

Agreed.

You don't even seem to understand that we don't live in a Democracy! How can we progress when you don't even understand the form of government we have? And please, don't give me the old "it is just an expression". As long as you and others don't recognize our form of government then there will never be the recognition of other's right to Liberty! Democracy gives others that very collective ability and power to violate others' right to Liberty you claim they are unwilling to give up. Recognizing our republican form of government forces others to recognize the right to Liberty of others.

I completely understand that the US Constition of 1789 establishes a Republic, and not a Democracy--using the terms as was common in 1789. However, in modern usage we are a "democracy" (specifically, a "representative democracy.")

But let's not quibble over terms. I understand and agree that the US Constitution does not claim to establish a dictatorship of the majority over the minority, and that even if it did, it would have no right to do so. I am quite familiar with Bastiat's "The Law," and I fully agree with it.

Another horse before the cart analogy! Those lawmakers aren't supposed to be influenced by voter's opinions, they're supposed to be influenced by the Constitution and the rights of all.

Well, that's admittedly what the Founders intended. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way in practice. The only way I know to chastise the politicians who fail to do their duty in this regard is to vote them out of office. Unfortunately, that takes a majority vote. Hence, my contention that "you have to have the votes."

Alternatively, you could sit down with all the misbehaving politicians and argue them into doing what you think is right. The good news is that the politicians tend to be better educated than the general public, and so you wouldn't have to spend as much time on Poltical Philosophy 101 with them. The bad news is that most of them care more about getting (re)elected than about doing the right thing. And so, again, "you have to have the votes."

Understand, please, that I am not contending that "needing the votes" is the way things ought to be. I do not like this situation one bit. But it's reality, like it or not. I think part of the problem is that you are speaking from a theoretical, ideal perspective (the way things should be,) whereas I am talking about what happens in the real world (as opposed to what should happen.)

Lawmakers are supposed to represent all and protect everyone's rights, not just those that put them in office. Those who elect them don't represent all Americans. Half of our eligible population doesn't even vote because they don't feel that they are being represented anyway! It is all PACS and special interest groups (opinions) like MADD and HGC nowadays.

The PACs, the Unions, the media, Big Business all certainly spend a lot of money towards (re)electing their preferred politicians. But it's also true that the politicians extort campaign contributions from those over whom they can a) threaten with adverse laws, regulations and enforcement actions, or b) bribe with favorable laws, regulations and enforcement inaction. It often isn't easy to tell victim from perpetrator. The whole system is evil.

However, the fundamental problem is the electorate. Their ignorance, their apathy, their willingness to be bribed with bread and circuses, and their mindless voting for the same party for which their family's been voting for the last five generations is what enables the evil system to keep itself in power.

Your thinking seems so backwards to me. I guess I've not correspondedd enough with you to really know what your thoughts are after all. Your "Democracy" and "opinion following legislators" are killing America!

I really do think you misunderstand me. I'm a libertarian. I believe that the right to Liberty (the right to do whatever does not violate the rights of others) is the foundation of all other rights. To deny the right to Liberty is to deny one's own right to make any claims whatsoever.

I don't need to learn HTML, but thanks for the link. I just don't see the need to go overboard with it. Sufficient to suffice is my motto.

I wasn't suggesting that you, personally, needed to learn HTML. The reason I put the "Learn HTML" link there was simply as a service to anyone reading who might have been interested. However, if you misinterpreted it, then others probably would also, so I either won't do that, or will do it some other way that makes the intent more clear.

[philman_36]

Following the rabbit down the hole...The United Kingdom exemplifies a representative democracy; Germany has been one since 1949.
It don't say diddly about America being a representative democracy. America ain't the UK and it sure ain't Germany!
I'll have to contemplate the rest of your reply before answering. Thanks for your clarifications.

[philman_36]

However, in modern usage we are a "democracy" (specifically, a "representative democracy.")
From your link...Using this older meaning, it is said that the United States is a federal republic, not a democracy. (Although most people, including most Americans, call it a democracy, they are using the modern definition, not the older one referred to here). This usage of the term republic was particularly common around the time of the American Founding Fathers. The authors of the United States Constitution intentionally chose what they called a republic for several reasons.
Have you read your own link?
I stand by my previous statement, America isn't a Democracy, not even a "representative" one.