Replies

So when was this anti-Federalist written, last summer? ;)

Discussion Topics

Smith raises the specter of class distinctions, pointing out that middle class representatives will have less of a tendency to spend than richer representatives. Likewise he argues that men of the middle class are of greater moral fiber than the rich. He argues that government by the rich will lead to oppression, while government by the middle class will not. None of this has not been borne out by history. Why?

Well he hits all the right points. People who are good with people tend to get rich. More opportunities come their way and they have a better understanding of how to work them. Why hasn’t this lead to oppression? Having a good understanding of people, the rich understand that those who work with them work better when they are involved in the planning and execution. It’s human nature such that even the most narrowly focused person wants to know what they are doing is the best thing to do. People don’t work well when they are exploited. Where this hasn’t proven to be true is when people get stuck in a certain place i.e. small towns. immigrants, slaves, people in the hills of Appalachia. As long as the "Middling" class is able to move, they can find a better situation, have some control over their lives and provide a check on those who would use their superior social skills to take advantage of them.

Smith points out the endemic corruption of European governments, believing that America can offer an alternative to this. Yet corruption was endemic in the colonial and state legislatures and in the Confederation Congress. Why did Smith get this one wrong?

Don’t know. Maybe he believed in his countrymen.

Contradicting Hamilton, Smith believes that the people are not capable of preventing the infringement of their liberties; instead there should be written guarantees in the Constitution. Was he right, and why?

Nope. Disagree. All the words in the word, strung together in just the right way can’t save a people willing to be oppressed. We have to depend on ourselves.

Smith understands that despotism cannot happen overnight, but must proceed incrementally. He views the Constitution as a tool in this process. Was he right, and why?

Oh yes certainly. I think he correctly pointed out the many of the flaws of the constitution, especially when it comes to how it intersected with the flaws of human character. What he failed to foresee was the extent we would become ruled by lawyers. A majority of Senators are lawyers and more than a third in the house. They all believe in the goodness of laws and process. We’ve become saturated with little laws everywhere, especially in our tax code. Where the law is vague, they’ve set up a legal process that can decide most anything. Thinking about it, I probably have to deal with more laws at work than when I pay my taxes. It’s a drain. Then, since these lawyers don’t have the expertise to understand environmental, financial, etc. issues, they turn over their law making responsibility to the bureaucracy only defining the process by which more newer laws are made. I have to think that Smith was right, that our House does not have the skills of the common people and uses the one skill all the rich share, social skill, to guide it’s effort.

The constitution has created a framework for more laws. Moreover since it is a national constitution, we can't move away from it and still stay in America like the "Middling" class could before the constitution was ratified.