The Constitution
The federal election is almost here, so it's time to make sure you're fully familiar with the how and why of the Constitution of the United States.
Obviously, the first step is to read it. It's certainly not long, I've posted a link above, and I have a couple copies you may come read, if you prefer hardcopy.
Further research is necessary, of course. The Federalist Papers are an in depth discussion of each element of the constitution written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay and published in major newspapers to try to convince the states to ratify the Constitution. These are thick, advanced reading, but invaluable.
Lastly, two good political philosophy books: The Wealth of Nations [.pdf] by Adam Smith is the foundational writing for our entire free market economic system, and Second Treatise of Government by John Locke, which argues for a free, democratic government and was one of the major founding pieces that inspired our nation.
I give you the original texts so as to be fair in what I'm about to say, and so that even if you don't take the time to read them you'll understand that my statements have a foundation upon which they are built.
Our forefathers were conservative, even the most liberal of them. The constitution lays out more than just the basic structure of our government, but specifically describes what power it has. The primary and intended implication in the Constitution is that the government is not allowed to do anything but precisely what this document says it can do. Here are two examples. The first, by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper #84 describing why no Bill of Rights was added to the original constitution:
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.
Of course, the Bill of Rights was amended onto the Constitution, and it included the Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The later of these is most important, because it states, in the highest law of the land, that the federal government may not do anything not approved by the constitution. This amendment has, of course, been broken on many, many occasions. Every social program we have, from Social Security to college grants violate the Tenth Amendment.
The tenement here, laid down in Wealth of Nations, and proven by the past two hundred years of success, is that individuals are the best equipped at running their own lives. Governments suck at it, as proven by every communist nation in the world, and any social program you can find. They collapse economically in the case of the former, or can't fund themselves in the case of the later. Governments are monopolies, and monopolies always grow corrupt and inefficient.
Which is why I cannot understand the depths of liberalism in our part of the country. Obviously, its not bad to be compassionate, but compassion doesn't mean we should throw away solid foundations when making political decisions. Being a little liberal is fine, and can even be helpful sometimes, but he dominate liberal party has become practically socialist recently with the government programs it wants to introduce, or the freedoms it tries to impair.
It's mostly a big city problem. I speculate that increased population breeds a distrust of others, and a disillusionment of what seems like a system. How can you trust your neighbors when you've probably never even met them? The only sense of community adults have in large cities is either in the government or in churches. One breeds socialism, the other gives a religious base to conservative politics.
And it provably hasn't worked. Cities like Detroit have had Democratic leaders for decades now, and still have the highest poverty and crime rates in the country. Why? If my principles hold true, then it's because the compassion that gets liberals elected also leads to policies that take away peoples will or power (which amount to the same thing) to lift themselves up. Being poor isn't a sad circumstance that society needs to prevent. It's a challenge that a person with determination can pull out of, and perhaps proper encouragement will make the difference, like the knowledge that no one else will make it for you. It seems cold, but it's really the best medicine.
Now to be truly fair, I have to mention one liberal argument that has valid basis, for two reasons. That is the exceptional social and political power of wealthy corporations. Anti-monopoly laws are strong, as they are also based in the theory of free trade. Essentially, the argument becomes that trade is no longer free when it becomes dominated by a single powerful company. This is true. What is also true is that lobbyists skew power and have undue influence. This part, of course, is corruption on the part of politicians, and this takes place on both sides of the isle. A handful of people can be easily swayed by a whole lot of money. As of this writing, I have no idea of what the proper solution to this is.
The biggest and worst of the powerful conglomerates, though, is mass media. They hold the biggest sway over the bombardment of information we get in a given day, and they no longer act with responsibility, especially not with the responsibility demanded by the amount of power they have. Of course, we the people could strip them of power in an instant, if we chose to, but we won't make that choice because we'd never get that idea from them.
The market is correcting itself, at the moment, with the internet. It's very easy to create your own outlet for media, or to produce your own media, and the broad internet media industry is slowly gaining the sophistication of the mainstream media. I can't say if it will be enough, but I'm hopeful. This is a topic for it's own essay.
In the meantime, it's time to wrap this up. Thank you for your attention.
--Jeff
Obviously, the first step is to read it. It's certainly not long, I've posted a link above, and I have a couple copies you may come read, if you prefer hardcopy.
Further research is necessary, of course. The Federalist Papers are an in depth discussion of each element of the constitution written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay and published in major newspapers to try to convince the states to ratify the Constitution. These are thick, advanced reading, but invaluable.
Lastly, two good political philosophy books: The Wealth of Nations [.pdf] by Adam Smith is the foundational writing for our entire free market economic system, and Second Treatise of Government by John Locke, which argues for a free, democratic government and was one of the major founding pieces that inspired our nation.
I give you the original texts so as to be fair in what I'm about to say, and so that even if you don't take the time to read them you'll understand that my statements have a foundation upon which they are built.
Our forefathers were conservative, even the most liberal of them. The constitution lays out more than just the basic structure of our government, but specifically describes what power it has. The primary and intended implication in the Constitution is that the government is not allowed to do anything but precisely what this document says it can do. Here are two examples. The first, by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper #84 describing why no Bill of Rights was added to the original constitution:
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.
Of course, the Bill of Rights was amended onto the Constitution, and it included the Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The later of these is most important, because it states, in the highest law of the land, that the federal government may not do anything not approved by the constitution. This amendment has, of course, been broken on many, many occasions. Every social program we have, from Social Security to college grants violate the Tenth Amendment.
The tenement here, laid down in Wealth of Nations, and proven by the past two hundred years of success, is that individuals are the best equipped at running their own lives. Governments suck at it, as proven by every communist nation in the world, and any social program you can find. They collapse economically in the case of the former, or can't fund themselves in the case of the later. Governments are monopolies, and monopolies always grow corrupt and inefficient.
Which is why I cannot understand the depths of liberalism in our part of the country. Obviously, its not bad to be compassionate, but compassion doesn't mean we should throw away solid foundations when making political decisions. Being a little liberal is fine, and can even be helpful sometimes, but he dominate liberal party has become practically socialist recently with the government programs it wants to introduce, or the freedoms it tries to impair.
It's mostly a big city problem. I speculate that increased population breeds a distrust of others, and a disillusionment of what seems like a system. How can you trust your neighbors when you've probably never even met them? The only sense of community adults have in large cities is either in the government or in churches. One breeds socialism, the other gives a religious base to conservative politics.
And it provably hasn't worked. Cities like Detroit have had Democratic leaders for decades now, and still have the highest poverty and crime rates in the country. Why? If my principles hold true, then it's because the compassion that gets liberals elected also leads to policies that take away peoples will or power (which amount to the same thing) to lift themselves up. Being poor isn't a sad circumstance that society needs to prevent. It's a challenge that a person with determination can pull out of, and perhaps proper encouragement will make the difference, like the knowledge that no one else will make it for you. It seems cold, but it's really the best medicine.
Now to be truly fair, I have to mention one liberal argument that has valid basis, for two reasons. That is the exceptional social and political power of wealthy corporations. Anti-monopoly laws are strong, as they are also based in the theory of free trade. Essentially, the argument becomes that trade is no longer free when it becomes dominated by a single powerful company. This is true. What is also true is that lobbyists skew power and have undue influence. This part, of course, is corruption on the part of politicians, and this takes place on both sides of the isle. A handful of people can be easily swayed by a whole lot of money. As of this writing, I have no idea of what the proper solution to this is.
The biggest and worst of the powerful conglomerates, though, is mass media. They hold the biggest sway over the bombardment of information we get in a given day, and they no longer act with responsibility, especially not with the responsibility demanded by the amount of power they have. Of course, we the people could strip them of power in an instant, if we chose to, but we won't make that choice because we'd never get that idea from them.
The market is correcting itself, at the moment, with the internet. It's very easy to create your own outlet for media, or to produce your own media, and the broad internet media industry is slowly gaining the sophistication of the mainstream media. I can't say if it will be enough, but I'm hopeful. This is a topic for it's own essay.
In the meantime, it's time to wrap this up. Thank you for your attention.
--Jeff