*** REQUIRES COMMENTS & Qs ***
1. Active reading, per syllabus instructions on the handout.
2. Use your t.b. Chapt 2 to reinforce.
2. Post your Hofstadter questions here.
– Bromley
51 Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
*** REQUIRES COMMENTS & Qs ***
1. Active reading, per syllabus instructions on the handout.
2. Use your t.b. Chapt 2 to reinforce.
2. Post your Hofstadter questions here.
– Bromley
You must be logged in to post a comment.
1. Why is the notion of men being self-centered creatures translated into a distrust of mankind and democracy?
2. Do natural states always result in anarchy and terror? Would it ever be possible to live without government?
3. How can one man, who is said to be seen as self-centered, possibly maintain control over another, larger group of self-centered men? How could they ever function for the people, who are in turn self-centered?
4. Does the definition of liberty as it was originally intended within the Constitution really matter? Can it not be the current perception of the text, or does the original, anachronistic intent have to apply?
5. Aren’t all revolutionaries selfish on one level or another? Do we hold them in high esteem because their flaws would only serve to confirm our fear that humans aren’t so much special and revolutionary as they are disgruntled and lucky?
6. Why are political rulings taken out of context used to argue their fallacies? Isn’t context the whole point of the ruling in the first place? And if the context is no longer applicable to the current situation, can it not be reinterpreted and adjusted?
If the Constitutional intent still applies it is not anachronistic.
re. need for government and human nature, see Federalist no. 51:
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary…”
Can human beings ever escape the state of being selfish and untrustworthy?
What kind of change in government were the Founding Fathers hoping to see while constructing the Constitution?
Was the current government lacking in efficacy to serves its citizens?
Did the Founding Fathers want a new. non-democracy political system?
What is the connection between liberty and property?
Is it possible that the United States today could fall into a tyranny?
Why did the Founding Fathers fear proletariats?
Does property or money have more value?
Was the current government lacking in efficacy to serves its citizens?
>> that’s a big question for the English: they really thought they were doing right by all Englishmen, but the American colonists didn’t agree. I think the largest cause — and this is my opinion — of the Revolution was post-French-Indian war British policy of direct engagement in colonial affairs to which the colonists were unaccustomed. This would naturally lead to a sense of betrayal by the colonsits and, in our terms, an absence of internal efficacy.
Did the Founding Fathers want a new. non-democracy political system?
non-democratic. Yes. They wanted a republic. You need to know the difference.
What is the connection between liberty and property?
re-read p. 44 1st paragraph
Is it possible that the United States today could fall into a tyranny?
hmmm… Absolutely. BUT.., our governmental structures have served us quite well over the last 200 years and have truly proved themselves adaptable to new circumstances. That must be the genius in the system. But who knows. The people could very easily decide to change: 2/3rds the Congress and 3/4ths the States and the Constitution can be altered into something entirely new, for better or worse.
Why did the Founding Fathers fear proletariats?
proletariat is not a contemporaneous (in their time) word. See Madison on vagabonds.
Does property or money have more value?
in the Founding era, land did. Today, money does, but land is still a great investment!
1. Why was a good political constitution the only way to control the distrust in man?
2. What kind of change were the Founding Fathers expecting in man?
3. How can human nature govern human nature which contains self-centered men?
4. Was the opponents of the Constitution that were demanding what we have now in the first ten amendments, the ones who really gave us what we have now?
5. Could current day United States fall into a tyranny?
6. Why did the Fathers have such a great fear of proletariats?
1. Why was a good political constitution the only way to control the distrust in man?
>> Read this in terms of Federalist no. 10 and your question will go away.
2. What kind of change were the Founding Fathers expecting in man?
>> Good Q! None. They wanted a system that would accommodate a realistic view of human nature.
3. How can human nature govern human nature which contains self-centered men?
>> Hofstadter describes Madison’s views on this nicely with “checking vice with vice”
4. Was the opponents of the Constitution that were demanding what we have now in the first ten amendments, the ones who really gave us what we have now?
>>
5. Could current day United States fall into a tyranny? // 6. Why did the Fathers have such a great fear of proletariats?
>> see above
1. How does power corrupt man, and what can we do to fix it?
2. When had the founding fathers previously experienced democracy?
3. What instances occurred that did not fall into the universal beliefs that the founding fathers originally expected?
4. What flaws can be found in the checks and balances system (campaign, personal connections and influence, etc.) and how can we fix them?
5. How is liberty linked with property?
6. what is the difference between a democracy and a republic(during the time of the creation of the constitution)?
7. What made the founding fathers think that democracy always evolves into tyranny or aristocracy?
8. What changed American’s point of view on democracy and human nature?
1. How does power corrupt man, and what can we do to fix it?
>> Madison doesn’t suggest trying to fix it. Says that would remove oxygen from the atmosphere… 🙂 .
2. When had the founding fathers previously experienced democracy?
>> they enjoyed largely self-governance prior to the Fr-Indian war, if only by default since England was too preoccupied w itself to bother them. More importantly, the Founders studied history, which told them that democracy leads to tyranny.
3. What instances occurred that did not fall into the universal beliefs that the founding fathers originally expected?
>> Interesting Q! I think that they really didn’t expect that empowering dissent would allow such dissent. They became quickly frustrated with each other and their politics turned very bitter very quickly after the new government got running. They truly believed in their own ideas, so I think that belief served as a large check on their own impulses, empowered by the ability of the system they created to absorb faction and vitriol.
4. What flaws can be found in the checks and balances system (campaign, personal connections and influence, etc.) and how can we fix them?
>> A Q for later when we address present problems. I will say this: the distribution of power in this system is very, very effective at negating faction’s direst impulses.
5. How is liberty linked with property?
>> per the above
6. what is the difference between a democracy and a republic(during the time of the creation of the constitution)?
>> neither existed yet 🙂 lol The colonial systems were more republican than democratic, except in local town governments which tended to be very democratic.
7. What made the founding fathers think that democracy always evolves into tyranny or aristocracy?
>> you need to know this for your midterm
8. What changed American’s point of view on democracy and human nature?
>> studying history.
The founding fathers believed the common man to only be concerned with his own interests, why then was it important to establish an institution to control him?
If self-government was fundemental in the creation of the constitution, why then did the founding fathers have such little faith in the people?
Was a representative a choice or a condition?
Government is a reflection of the people, but should this be the case if the people are “animals”?
If the Federal government was created as a mediator between the states, why give the states any rights?
Why was the distribution of property indicative of the distribution of power?
The founding fathers believed the common man to only be concerned with his own interests, why then was it important to establish an institution to control him?
>> b/c they didn’t trust pipples. Ppl = non-virtuous. Re-read Fed 10 on this.
If self-government was fundemental in the creation of the constitution, why then did the founding fathers have such little faith in the people?
>> The idea is that Liberty is a primary value, and self-governance is the best way to protect liberty. However, democratic self-rule leads to tyranny, so Madison devised the idea that only a large republic could contain faction and self-interest and protect agains a devolution into tyranny.
Was a representative a choice or a condition?
>> A condition. English political culture had a tradition of representative gov. Good Q.
Government is a reflection of the people, but should this be the case if the people are “animals”?
>> Ha! Thought you got Madison there, didn’t ya!
If the Federal government was created as a mediator between the states, why give the states any rights?
>> absolute Federal rule would be tyranny. Total or near-total state sovereignty would be chaos (Articles period). So this is a moderating scheme to balance out both.
Why was the distribution of property indicative of the distribution of power?
>> Absolutely! More property spread across more people = more spread of independence nad happiness. This idea is accepted by all but Marxists, thus “land reform” and all kinds of other schemes to alleviate third world poverty.
1. Doesn’t the founding fathers’ belief in the “power of a good political constitution to control man” contradict the idea of self-government?
2. Since the intentions of the Constitution were different from what they are now, isn’t it anachronistic?
3. Do many of the amendments of the Constitution still apply, just in different conditions?
4. Why did the Fathers commonly accept James Wilson’s philosophy that “the ultimate power of government must of necessity reside in the people”?
5. If the constitution had been written differently, what would be the outcome in history? Would America have evolved the same way, or would the government have fallen?
6. Why didn’t the founding fathers believe it was possible to change the nature of man to conform with a more ideal system? IS it possible?
7. If they were around today, would the founding fathers think modern day America was a failure or a success?
8. If states are bound in a federation, how does the central government step in and prevent it from taking complete control by force?
9. How would states secede from the Union? Why would they?
10. Why do Americans venerate the Constitution so deeply if it is based on political theories that at one crucial point stands in direct antithesis to the mainstream of American democratic faith?
11. How were the liberties that the constitutionalists hoped to gain chiefly negative if they had good intentions?
12. Do the constitution’s intentions now differ from when it was created?
13. Doesn’t this mean that the constitution is not stringent enough?
14. Is liberty paramount to property? Vice versa?
15. What was the largest issue that America has had with the constitution in history?
16. So why are the Fathers so revered now, if they weren’t back then, and had controversial opinions?
17. Although there were many doubts about the Constitution, it still lasts to today. Why has it lasted?
18. Is it possible that it will continue to last, or is it anachronistic?
19. John Jay’s favorite maxim is “The people who own the country ought to govern it”. Is he referring to the people having a RIGHT or an OBLIGATION?
Why did the Fathers commonly accept James Wilson’s philosophy that “the ultimate power of government must of necessity reside in the people”?
Context: “consent of the governed” = a challenge to divine rule
13. Stringent: look it up next time… it means strict, carefully enforced
lots of Qs, so I won’t be able to get to them all. Let’s see what we can do:
1. Doesn’t the founding fathers’ belief in the “power of a good political constitution to control man” contradict the idea of self-government?
>> yes. It regulates it. Or maybe controls it, but I don’t think so.
2. Since the intentions of the Constitution were different from what they are now, isn’t it anachronistic?
>> No, b/c intentions are not the same as outcomes. Regardless of the intentions, if the outcomes produced b y the Constitution are beneficial, then the Constitution (or that part of it) is beneficial. The ongoing danger is any attempt to recreate what is a pretty good solution. Great Q.
3. Do many of the amendments of the Constitution still apply, just in different conditions?
>> This is a problem for Court cases to study in two weeks
4. Why did the Fathers commonly accept James Wilson’s philosophy that “the ultimate power of government must of necessity reside in the people”?
>> self-rule negates divine rule, and if all men are born equal, you can’t have divine rule.
5. If the constitution had been written differently, what would be the outcome in history? Would America have evolved the same way, or would the government have fallen?
>> Yes. Think contingency.
6. Why didn’t the founding fathers believe it was possible to change the nature of man to conform with a more ideal system? IS it possible?
>> not if pipples are evil, or some of them.
7. If they were around today, would the founding fathers think modern day America was a failure or a success?
>> Think toilet paper. Great success! I’ll let you answer other aspects of that question.
10. Why do Americans venerate the Constitution so deeply if it is based on political theories that at one crucial point stands in direct antithesis to the mainstream of American democratic faith?
>> or does it? Cognitive dissonance? Irrational beliefs? Or cultural wisdom. Dunno.
11. How were the liberties that the constitutionalists hoped to gain chiefly negative if they had good intentions?
>> Negative law is not negative. It pre-exists government. Pipples are born with it, so they weren’t hoping to gain what they already had. They wanted to protect those rights from government.
15. What was the largest issue that America has had with the constitution in history?
>> Depends if you’re black, Catholic, gay, business owner, hunter, immigrant, farmer, industrialist, banker… and so on. Get it?
Got to thinking about your no. 7 this morning. There are a few things that would freak them out besides technology. I think they’d be very very concerned about the need for so many police and a standing army. They’d think we blew it by getting involved in world affairs, as it corrupts us.
Now, you know I think our world presence is unavoidable. The founders would understand it once they comprehended modern trade. They’d probably be pretty psyched about out export of democracy, too. Just thinking out loud here.
A)What principles characterize a human as selfish? And why are men selfish?
pg.41
B)If the “ultimate power of government must reside on the people” and if the constitution is a critical component of the what the government is. Then what sort of ultimate power did “all the people” contribute in establishing the constitution?
pg.42
C)What does Hofstadter mean by, “You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” Why is this action considered a difficulty?
pg.43
D)What is true regulation? How can it be identified if the government is regulating fairly?
pg.44
E)How is democracy a system that is a “transitional stage” in government? Why is it a transitional stage?
pg.45
What is a “free” government?
F)What other factors other than property can contribute to liberty for men?
pg.46
A)What principles characterize a human as selfish? And why are men selfish?
pg.41
>> Selfishness is not a problem until it is imposed on another person. Selfishnish + power = tyranny.
B)If the “ultimate power of government must reside on the people” and if the constitution is a critical component of the what the government is. Then what sort of ultimate power did “all the people” contribute in establishing the constitution?
pg.42
>> Ha! Yes and no. There was a large “middle class” that affirmed the Founding. The “middle class” of then would be urban tradesmen and rural property-owning farmers, which were a large portion of the population. Good Q.
C)What does Hofstadter mean by, “You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” Why is this action considered a difficulty?
pg.43
>> This is Madison’s idea that he is referring to about controlling faction..
D)What is true regulation? How can it be identified if the government is regulating fairly?
pg.44
>> regulation = set rules; control = own. Only with good internal efficacy can fairness in regulation be achieved (the regulated have a say). In control, or state ownership, there is no internal efficacy.
E)How is democracy a system that is a “transitional stage” in government? Why is it a transitional stage?
pg.45
>> The founders believed that democracy leads to tyranny, so the democratic stage is always “transitional” in that it will eventually lead to tyranny.
What is a “free” government?
>> self-rule
F)What other factors other than property can contribute to liberty for men?
pg.46
>> life and happiness. And intellectual freedoms and freedom of movement and privacy and, and and … 🙂
What motivated the Founding Fathers to ratify the constitution in a non-democratic manner, (meaning that they did so without taking in collective opinion)?
Should the Founding Fathers adopted a constitution that led to a more ideal nature of man?
What led the and rich to poor interactions of ” plundering” to be considered inevitable?
When establishing a government would it be possible to eliminate or limit this behavior?
Is property the only factor of liberty?
What qualifies an idea or action as a civil liberty?
How does democracy destroy liberty by redistributing property?
What is the Fathers dilemma regarding the image of man?/ How is it skewed?
What motivated the Founding Fathers to ratify the constitution in a non-democratic manner, (meaning that they did so without taking in collective opinion)?
>> Well, the states ratified it, so there was local control over the decision. The 9/13ths requirement was pretty tricky, though …
Should the Founding Fathers adopted a constitution that led to a more ideal nature of man?
>> You trust pipples with power? They didn’t
What led the and rich to poor interactions of ” plundering” to be considered inevitable?
>> History shows it. See Hofstdadter p 45 >> demagogues across history used “the people” as an excuse to take power and use it against enemies.
When establishing a government would it be possible to eliminate or limit this behavior?
>> Got any better ideas? Honestly, I don’t see any. All other solutions depend on the goodwill of man. That’s a religion at best.
Is property the only factor of liberty?
>> No, and not even back then, but it was the most tangible definition of liberty and a the most salient. Madison’s rhetoric allows for self-interest to be expressed in more than property, but remember that property and life were intertwined and, really, still are. (Can you live without your Iphone?)
What qualifies an idea or action as a civil liberty?
>> natural law. here’s where it gets mixed up: where to natural rights end and positive law begin? Driving cars? Abortion? Cable tv? Big questions, actually.
How does democracy destroy liberty by redistributing property?
>> Isn’t that by definition tyrannical to take someone’s property? Now, some will say that property is abuse, but, really? Ill-gotten property is abuse, but we need to be careful about throwing that one around. Stolen property is not liberty.
What is the Fathers dilemma regarding the image of man?/ How is it skewed?
>> see above
1. If the founding fathers set up this nation and government with the sole idea that people were inherently bad and needed to be controlled, why would we not then embrace this idea and allow the government to control the people in a country that seems to bring up the “founding fathers” in political rhetoric more often than our own constitution? And if we do not agree that the government should have control over the people to tell them right and wrong, should we then go about disputing the founding fathers, and therefore reform the very government we are a part of?
2. If the founding fathers wanted the government to come from the people and for the government to control the people, is that a paradox that became the cornerstone of our political tension?
3. If the founding fathers were able to view today’s country and politics, would they be ashamed that America had fallen into the hands of a select elite few (the wealthy) or would they be satisfied that their prediction had become correct?
4. At the time when the founding fathers wrote about liberty being menaced by democracy, the only way to have a say in politics was to have property and thereby gain liberty. Would the politics of today and liberty of all citizens being equal truly contrast with what the founding fathers initially thought of when democracy would menace liberty?
5. Does the ability to have a voice matter in todays political society, or does the representation by a government official matter?
6. In trying to control man, did the founding fathers create a system that best shows their thoughts of man being a self-serving creature?
1. If the founding fathers set up this nation and government with the sole idea that people were inherently bad and needed to be controlled, why would we not then embrace this idea and allow the government to control the people in a country that seems to bring up the “founding fathers” in political rhetoric more often than our own constitution? And if we do not agree that the government should have control over the people to tell them right and wrong, should we then go about disputing the founding fathers, and therefore reform the very government we are a part of?
>> The Founders did not want gov to control people. They wanted to ensure that factions could not get ahold of gov to control their opponents and other “obnoxious” sorts… Re-read your question.
2. If the founding fathers wanted the government to come from the people and for the government to control the people, is that a paradox that became the cornerstone of our political tension?
>> same as above. And re-read Madison, also.
3. If the founding fathers were able to view today’s country and politics, would they be ashamed that America had fallen into the hands of a select elite few (the wealthy) or would they be satisfied that their prediction had become correct?
>> I do wonder that today’s world is not more pluralistic — by far — than that of the Founders. Yes, the wealthy wield great power, but I’d guess that all of them essentially feel powerless when it comes down to it. I’d suggest your premise is not truly operative, at least in a historical sense.
4. At the time when the founding fathers wrote about liberty being menaced by democracy, the only way to have a say in politics was to have property and thereby gain liberty. Would the politics of today and liberty of all citizens being equal truly contrast with what the founding fathers initially thought of when democracy would menace liberty?
>> Here’s my opinion: no. Madison’s essential idea that representation is an important filter on democracy still stands. Notions of property have changed and I’d suggest that property has expanded and not decresased since the founding, thereby affirming their view of it. That’s person opinion
5. Does the ability to have a voice matter in todays political society, or does the representation by a government official matter?
>> Right to petition still stands. People do it..
6. In trying to control man, did the founding fathers create a system that best shows their thoughts of man being a self-serving creature?
>> The Founders didn’t want to control faction, they wanted to control its effects. See Madison.
1.Does this mean that our Constitution was based on the selfishness of absentee owners to preempt squatters from their property?
2.Why did they consider that freedom for property would result in liberty for men if they knew not all men would be guaranteed it (such as indentured servants)?
3.Why did the Fathers believe that a unchecked democracy would become a tyranny or an aristocracy?
4.Why was democracy only thought of as an transitional stage and not a permanent one?
5.Does that mean that the Fathers were not expecting their constitution to last long let alone over one hundred years, that they were expecting it to go back to republicanism?
6. Was the government made because of the lack of trust and selflessness in the era of the Fathers?
7.Why did the Fathers deem it their responsibility to govern the country?
1.Does this mean that our Constitution was based on the selfishness of absentee owners to preempt squatters from their property?
>> Yes and no. There were more absentee owners in the British islands than in the American colonies, which is why they didn’t rebel. Active local property ownership was a large impulse for the rebellion by the 13 colonies. That said, they didn’t like the idea of redistributing property, since that was historically just another form of politics and faction rivalry.
2.Why did they consider that freedom for property would result in liberty for men if they knew not all men would be guaranteed it (such as indentured servants)?
>> The Founders had no problem with property ownership by freedmen. They were racist regarding social relations, but they respected the property of former servants and slaves. (The antebellum South and post-bellum segregationist world was different)
3.Why did the Fathers believe that a unchecked democracy would become a tyranny or an aristocracy?
>> Passion to faction is tyranny!
4.Why was democracy only thought of as an transitional stage and not a permanent one?
>> see above
5.Does that mean that the Fathers were not expecting their constitution to last long let alone over one hundred years, that they were expecting it to go back to republicanism?
>> I believe that they believed their system was for the ages.
6. Was the government made because of the lack of trust and selflessness in the era of the Fathers?
>> In some ways, yes. But remember that this system is designed to allow for selfishness and not squash it, which would destroy all liberties
7.Why did the Fathers deem it their responsibility to govern the country?
>> Government has to happen, one way or the other. This was their idea of it.
What does it mean by liberty was linked not to democracy but to property?
How does the whole system work together to check and control one another?
What does modus vivendi mean?
modus vivendi = a way to get along between people
(how many students read this but didn’t ask the question? look it up!)
What does it mean by liberty was linked not to democracy but to property?
>> democracy = marjority rule. If the majority wants your property, vote it and take it. Property needs protection from majority rule.
How does the whole system work together to check and control one another?
>> This is Madison’s central theme: by channeling faction through a divided, competitive political system, it will not be able to control everything.
What does modus vivendi mean?
>> way of getting along
p.41
– Given how Shay’s rebellion was in response to failures on the part of the government (under the Articles) to pay the veterans, was this really a determined expression of man’s nature or a rational response to government failure?
– What makes the common man vs. the one fit to rule, and how does this determinism contradict the values of new American government ?
p.42
– Were the founders TRUE representatives even though most of them were elites?
– Why does this conclude the founders followed Hobbes in “any kind of government must be accepted in order to avert the anarchy and terror of a state of nature…” when this is opposite to Locke, who believes in the responsibility of the governed to rise up against the governors when there is tyranny?
– How did these group of men with these Hobbes based fears convince the rest of the populous besides methods like the publishing of the Federalist papers? Did the rest of the populous share these fears or have different ones? What other factors influenced these fears? (news of the French revolution?)
– Is concentration of power inevitable? What factors cause concentration of power?
– On the idea of “checking vice with vice”, wouldn’t this contribute to distructive disunity?
– What are these vices/virtues? Aren’t people better controlled with incentives than adversaries?
p.43
– Government is claimed to be as a solution to man’s problems, however shouldn’t government follow human nature, and not go against it?
– If the government facilitates vices against vices, how can it make sure they balance?
– How have our expectations and understandings of liberty changed over time? What causes these changes? New ways of thinking, or new situations?
p. 44
– Conversely to democracy being essential to liberty, is liberty also an essential to democracy?
– How broadly should liberty be read and granted?
– Did the founders act in self interest in some sections? (14 years in the U.S. to become president… all of them in that room, slavery, etc.)
– Is there more emphasis of liberty or equality in the constitution? In the articles? What was the shift between the two and why did it happen?
– Why was the bill of rights originally left out and why did they hesitate?
– Do the federal and state governments have separate interests? Are they competing?
– What makes a man worthy? Is it an arbitrary determination of innateness? If liberty and rights are based on worthiness and it is in fact arbitrary based on birth, how is this distribution of power not unjust?
p.45
– Is property itself or opportunity to property paramount? Should it be equal to be just?
– How much property satisfies the right? Do people have the right to have more?
– Does it undermine the system if the ruling class chose a republican (vs. democratic) system which they would end up being representatives in and continuing to rule?
p. 46
– Why should land or social power equal political power? Doesn’t this promote economic and social gaps and a feudal system? What does this have to do with knowledge/ the informed electorate?
– In the founding era, do the methods of communication and socialization along with social circles limit who can be in the ruling/influential political class?
p.41
– Given how Shay’s rebellion was in response to failures on the part of the government (under the Articles) to pay the veterans, was this really a determined expression of man’s nature or a rational response to government failure?
>> Shay’s wasn’t about pay. It was about soft v hard money and harsh collections of debt. It scared the elites into wanting to protect their property, lol ! I personally think Shay’s is overestimated in its effects. Sure it scared them, but so did the OJ trial.
– What makes the common man vs. the one fit to rule, and how does this determinism contradict the values of new American government ?
>> not sure what you mean. I will add this: Madison thought that republican form would yield more virtuous leaders than the democratic form of government.
p.42
– Were the founders TRUE representatives even though most of them were elites?
>> In the larger sense of stewardship, absolutely, I mean, look what they’ve accomplished. In the particulars, well, they were elites. An honest analysis would have to agree that property ownership is constructive of stewardship more than envy of what the next guy else has.
– Why does this conclude the founders followed Hobbes in “any kind of government must be accepted in order to avert the anarchy and terror of a state of nature…” when this is opposite to Locke, who believes in the responsibility of the governed to rise up against the governors when there is tyranny?
>> Hofstadter doesn’t say this about the Founders and Hobbes. He points out that they disagreed with Hobbes. Re-read p 42. They agree with Hobbes than men are brutish, but they disagree with his solutions
– How did these group of men with these Hobbes based fears convince the rest of the populous besides methods like the publishing of the Federalist papers? Did the rest of the populous share these fears or have different ones? What other factors influenced these fears? (news of the French revolution?)
>> I’m gonna skip this one,.
– Is concentration of power inevitable? What factors cause concentration of power?
>> Absent the US Constitution, yes! With it, yes but with limits. Great Q!
– On the idea of “checking vice with vice”, wouldn’t this contribute to distructive disunity?
>> Well, the idea it to avoid that. Got a better idea?
– What are these vices/virtues? Aren’t people better controlled with incentives than adversaries?
p.43
>> Don’t go sociological on us! In the Madison view, vices are self-interest imnposed on another, as in breaking the Golden Rule.
– Government is claimed to be as a solution to man’s problems, however shouldn’t government follow human nature, and not go against it?
>> You gonna trust the pipples and empower their worst nature? Or, go with Hobbes, and squash it. Or, worse, go with the French and fake yourself into thinking pipples are really nice and then find out the hard way when Robespierre puts your head into the guillotine.
– How have our expectations and understandings of liberty changed over time? What causes these changes? New ways of thinking, or new situations?
p. 44
>> Technology. Economics. Geography (movement). Pluralism. And so on. But, have the principles changed or just the particulars?
– Conversely to democracy being essential to liberty, is liberty also an essential to democracy?
>> Absolutely not! History has proved this over and over again. 51% is a very powerful thing.
– How broadly should liberty be read and granted?
>> Natural rights are not granted. Unless you believe otherwise.
– Did the founders act in self interest in some sections? (14 years in the U.S. to become president… all of them in that room, slavery, etc.)
>> Hypocrites!
– Is there more emphasis of liberty or equality in the constitution? In the articles? What was the shift between the two and why did it happen?
>> Procedural rights and limits on power are the core elements.
– Why was the bill of rights originally left out and why did they hesitate?
>> The Constitution was to set up a government. Natural rights were presumed. The anti-federalists weren’t so trusting and demanded the bill of rights.
p.45
– Is property itself or opportunity to property paramount? Should it be equal to be just?
– How much property satisfies the right? Do people have the right to have more?
>> Don’t confuse property with abuse. Abuse is abuse. Abuse of property is abuse, not property.
– Why should land or social power equal political power? Doesn’t this promote economic and social gaps and a feudal system? What does this have to do with knowledge/ the informed electorate?
>> It protects against feudalism, which empowers the common person by guaranteeing their right to property, if only in the abstract.
Was the Constitution ever formed from any internal efficacy?
Were the solutions to fixing any troubles from the masses philosophical or logical? Considering how the Fathers were play makers behind making the rules of the government.
Were there any styles of representation first used in the mechanism of representation, to make a “good constitutional government”?
What made men worthy for the freedom of property?
Why was owning land a presumable guarantee to the owner’s safety? Was that guarantee earned from his responsibility as a citizen or their status as landowners?
How much influence do the Fathers have in the making of the government?
Was the Constitution ever formed from any internal efficacy?
>> The idea of allowing faction to exist rather than squashing it promotes internal efficacies.
Were the solutions to fixing any troubles from the masses philosophical or logical? Considering how the Fathers were play makers behind making the rules of the government.
>> They dealt with realities, just as the poor would Without the rich, they’d all have been poor… but a healhier society has a large middle class, which the colonies had.
Were there any styles of representation first used in the mechanism of representation, to make a “good constitutional government”?
>> constitutional government can be anything. in this case, they chose republican (represetational) government. Not sure what you mean here, then.
What made men worthy for the freedom of property? Why was owning land a presumable guarantee to the owner’s safety? Was that guarantee earned from his responsibility as a citizen or their status as landowners?
>> If arbitrary rulers can take away anything from you at any time, what good property? On the other hand, if under rule of law, you can be secure in your property, you are more free.
How much influence do the Fathers have in the making of the government?
>> they needed and got popular support for it.
1. If the Founding Fathers believed that Americans were “selfish and untrustworthy” why did they not initially account for this with a court system?
2. Was our constitution written on a predetermined notion that there would have be equality for all?
3. How did a democracy come about if the Founding Fathers lacked faith in the people to make decisions?
4. Where is balance found between controlling the governed and controlling the government itself?
5. Do the concepts of liberty and democracy change over time? If so, do their ideas become more contradictory towards one another? How does society determine the difference if there is one?
6. How is liberty linked to property?
7. During the muckraking period, did people support the ideals of the Founding Fathers aside from the fact that they didn’t believe they deserved their positions?
8. Are the urban proletariat still taking over today? If so, do they put any form of restriction on political power?
1. If the Founding Fathers believed that Americans were “selfish and untrustworthy” why did they not initially account for this with a court system?
>> Courts belonged to kings, so they weren’t trusted.
2. Was our constitution written on a predetermined notion that there would have be equality for all?
>> yes it was, even if it didn’t create immediately it created conditions for equality to follow.
3. How did a democracy come about if the Founding Fathers lacked faith in the people to make decisions?
>> We do not have a “democracy’. We have a democratic form of government in general, specifically a republican form of gov.
4. Where is balance found between controlling the governed and controlling the government itself?
>> Good Q! That’s the trick to it, isn’t it?
5. Do the concepts of liberty and democracy change over time? If so, do their ideas become more contradictory towards one another? How does society determine the difference if there is one?
>> The tensions between liberty and equality and pubic safety guide this process which is every tilting towards one or the other but always being pulled back again.
6. How is liberty linked to property?
>> see above
7. During the muckraking period, did people support the ideals of the Founding Fathers aside from the fact that they didn’t believe they deserved their positions?
>> The progressives felt that Constitutional limits restricted the progressive agenda, so they became impatient with those limits. Right or wrong, the progressives were just another faction fighting it out within the Constitutional framework created by the Founders that they detested.
8. Are the urban proletariat still taking over today? If so, do they put any form of restriction on political power?
>> I think soccer moms have as much power as urban dwellers. Not sure where the proletariat resides, though: they must have moved out of the factories and into Section 8 housing?
If the government needs to control man, then does man have liberty?
Looking back, were there any times in history that the English monarchial system was a model system?
Although a monarchy has some good connections, would a monarchy ever succeed without a legislative house?
What makes a man “worthy”? If worthy men have privileges, then how can man be equal?
Is it important to represent everyone in a government, or is it okay to make rules not relevant to everyone?
In a government, is it possible for a politician to stay out of the upper class? Does politics not often make a person wealthy and elite?
If the government needs to control man, then does man have liberty?
>> STOP!! Government doesn’t need to control man. Madison rejected that solution. Go back to him.
Looking back, were there any times in history that the English monarchial system was a model system?
>> Yep! Centrally controlled governments have distinct advantages. De Tocqueville will illuminate many of the weaknesses of the American democracy.
Although a monarchy has some good connections, would a monarchy ever succeed without a legislative house?
>> Monarchs were/are still subject to popular will to the extent that they still need to deliver basic needs to the populace. Think external/internal efficacy.
What makes a man “worthy”? If worthy men have privileges, then how can man be equal?
>> Don’t know where you’re going with this one.
Is it important to represent everyone in a government, or is it okay to make rules not relevant to everyone?
>> Madison argued that to represent every voice is impractical and not desirable. Thus his republican solution.
In a government, is it possible for a politician to stay out of the upper class? Does politics not often make a person wealthy and elite?
>> Quite the opposite. See Hofstadter p45 for the “rich demagogue’ which is a typical form in the history of democracies.
Page 41
1.How could the framers beleive that people need to be totally submissive to a sovereign, but still preach freedom?
2. Did the distrust of the common man lead to the creation of the electoral college?
Page 42
1. Did the framers make common prejudices laws to help create a legitimacy in the newly formed democracy?
2. A vice for a vice is like an eye for an eye, it will make the whole world blind. Wouldn’t a vice for a vice just hurt the
governed and not help much if at all?
Page 43
1. How does ambition counteracted by ambition prevent arbitrary rule?
2. The framers wanted to protect the government against a popular uprising, like the one they had just completed. Wouldn’t that be
preventing ture democracy, if the majority wanted to change the government?
Page 44
1. Would restricting a squatter from living on unused land, for the financial speculator be an inequality biased toward the
constituents with more money?
2. How did the Fathers become involved with the idea of freedom of trade?
Page 45
1. Is a government successful based on how long it can stay a democracy before it turns into tyranny or an aristocracy?
2. Is any government formed based on reaction sustainable for a long time?
Page 46
1. For a governemnt to stay modern do the actions of the Fathers need to always be put into the context of the time?
2. Can the Hobbesian war be made more stable and less murderous by our current government?
Page 41
1.How could the framers beleive that people need to be totally submissive to a sovereign, but still preach freedom?
>> they didn’t believe that. re-read Hoftsadter on the founders and Hobbes, per the above.
2. Did the distrust of the common man lead to the creation of the electoral college?
Page 42
>> yes, as did all of the Constitutional structure that limit direct democracy. Good Q!
1. Did the framers make common prejudices laws to help create a legitimacy in the newly formed democracy?
>> Moral codes are policing powers which belong to the states traditionally.
Page 43
2. The framers wanted to protect the government against a popular uprising, like the one they had just completed. Wouldn’t that be preventing ture democracy, if the majority wanted to change the government?
>> Yes, their system does work to prevent absolute majority rule.
Page 44
1. Would restricting a squatter from living on unused land, for the financial speculator be an inequality biased toward the constituents with more money?
>> Isn’t that theft? There are laws guiding squatters rights, btw. Very complex common law rules, in fact.
2. How did the Fathers become involved with the idea of freedom of trade?
Page 45
>> Hofstdadter claims they were more mercantalists (controlling trade for self-benefit) than Adam Smith free traders. But their system corresponds much with Smith, whether they intended that or not.\
1. Is a government successful based on how long it can stay a democracy before it turns into tyranny or an aristocracy?
>> Yes. We’re 200 years, give or take bouts with tyranny.
2. Is any government formed based on reaction sustainable for a long time?
Page 46
>> Or any government. Period. Isn’t monarchy essentially reactionary? It works, though.
1. For a governemnt to stay modern do the actions of the Fathers need to always be put into the context of the time?
>> That’s a BIG Q for this class!
2. Can the Hobbesian war be made more stable and less murderous by our current government?
>> Hobbesian rule? Not sure where you’re going with this one.
Questions on Hofstadter reading
Page 41: The founders wanted the new political constitution to address issues of human nature. Human nature can get to be extraordinarily complex, therefore, could the document that aimed to address human nature, become too complex? And consequently become dysfunctional?
Page 42: According to Hofstadter, the founders did not propose changing the nature of humans to fit with a more ideal system because they saw it as impossible. Why is it impossible and how do we overcome those problems?
Page 43: Why can government be seen as the greatest refection of human nature?
Page 44: “Freedom for property would result in liberty for men”. What if an individual intentionally had no property? Does this person have liberty?
Page 45: Some think that the founding fathers were selfish. But, who and/or what were they selfish for? Were their motives so strong that their selfishness can be disregarded?
Page 46: Why should a political constitution address the problems of the nature of humans?
Page 41: The founders wanted the new political constitution to address issues of human nature. Human nature can get to be extraordinarily complex, therefore, could the document that aimed to address human nature, become too complex? And consequently become dysfunctional?
>> One of the beauties of the Constitution is its focus on simplicity. I see your point, but I think they could have truly gotten complex had they wanted to regulate or control every aspect of human society. But they didn’t want to.
Page 42: According to Hofstadter, the founders did not propose changing the nature of humans to fit with a more ideal system because they saw it as impossible. Why is it impossible and how do we overcome those problems?
>> This is the Madison theory.
Page 43: Why can government be seen as the greatest refection of human nature?
>> The idea there is that since government has power it can reflect either the best or the worst of human nature. Ideally, the best. Madison was trying for that.
Page 44: “Freedom for property would result in liberty for men”. What if an individual intentionally had no property? Does this person have liberty?
>> That’s a differnence in today’s world. I think we view “privacy” today as they viewed property.
Page 45: Some think that the founding fathers were selfish. But, who and/or what were they selfish for? Were their motives so strong that their selfishness can be disregarded?
>> Good point! They are what they did, and they created the modern world. In my view, the progressives were a bunch of putzes who couldn’t stand limits on their own fears.
Page 46: Why should a political constitution address the problems of the nature of humans?
>> Any form of government will have to address this issue. It just is.
HW # 3 Hofstadter Questions
Page 41 Question 1
If the founders believed that all humans were selfish and untrustworthy, why did they establish a government that run by the people (essentially) and believe so strongly in self government. Would the idea and practice of the checks and balances be an incorrect answer to the previous question, in that, the supreme court was an afterthought and going by the logic of the founders’ the lawmakers in America could have acted unchecked had the Supreme Court and judicial review not been established?
Page 42 Question 2
Was the establishment of the American government a miracle or a byproduct of the founders fear of establishing a country that could one day oppress its people?
¬¬
Page 43 Question 3
Did the founders’ write the Constitution to protect the rights of minorities while tending to the needs of majority? If so, did founders’ write the Constitution this way to prevent the government from going too far right (Anarchism or Fascism) or too far left (Socialism or Communism)?
Page 44 Question 5
What are the charms of liberty and do they outweigh the needs of the people, government or overall democracy? If the founders were so allured by the charms of liberty and breaking free from the bondage of oppression, then why did they not outlaw slavery? Why did the founders’ not include the bill of rights in the original document of the Constitution? What did liberty mean to the founders’?
Page 45 Question 6
Why was owning property so important to the founders’? Why did the founders’ see democracy as the best form of government for America if they felt that democracy unchecked was on par with oppression? What is modus Vivendi? Why was the new American government seen as a dangerous leftist experiment by conservatives in Europe and as a medium of destroying local governments by (18th century liberals?)?
Page 46 Question 7
What does John Jay mean when he says the people who own the country should govern it? Is he implying that the government should have been an oligarchy run by the richest landowners or is he saying the citizens of the United States collectively own the country and therefore the country should be run as a direct democracy? What is the dilemma with the philosophy of the founders’, from a humanistic standpoint?
HW # 3 Hofstadter Questions
Page 41 Question 1
If the founders believed that all humans were selfish and untrustworthy, why did they establish a government that run by the people (essentially) and believe so strongly in self government. Would the idea and practice of the checks and balances be an incorrect answer to the previous question, in that, the supreme court was an afterthought and going by the logic of the founders’ the lawmakers in America could have acted unchecked had the Supreme Court and judicial review not been established?
Page 42 Question 2
Was the establishment of the American government a miracle or a byproduct of the founders fear of establishing a country that could one day oppress its people?
¬¬
Page 43 Question 3
Did the founders’ write the Constitution to protect the rights of minorities while tending to the needs of majority? If so, did founders’ write the Constitution this way to prevent the government from going too far right (Anarchism or Fascism) or too far left (Socialism or Communism)?
Page 44 Question 5
What are the charms of liberty and do they outweigh the needs of the people, government or overall democracy? If the founders were so allured by the charms of liberty and breaking free from the bondage of oppression, then why did they not outlaw slavery? Why did the founders’ not include the bill of rights in the original document of the Constitution? What did liberty mean to the founders’?
Page 45 Question 6
Why was owning property so important to the founders’? Why did the founders’ see democracy as the best form of government for America if they felt that democracy unchecked was on par with oppression? What is modus Vivendi? Why was the new American government seen as a dangerous leftist experiment by conservatives in Europe and as a medium of destroying local governments by (18th century liberals?)?
Page 46 Question 7
What does John Jay mean when he says the people who own the country should govern it? Is he implying that the government should have been an oligarchy run by the richest landowners or is he saying the citizens of the United States collectively own the country and therefore the country should be run as a direct democracy? What is the dilemma with the philosophy of the founders’, from a humanistic standpoint?
HW # 3 Hofstadter Questions
Page 41 Question 1
If the founders believed that all humans were selfish and untrustworthy, why did they establish a government that run by the people (essentially) and believe so strongly in self government. Would the idea and practice of the checks and balances be an incorrect answer to the previous question, in that, the supreme court was an afterthought and going by the logic of the founders’ the lawmakers in America could have acted unchecked had the Supreme Court and judicial review not been established?
Page 42 Question 2
Was the establishment of the American government a miracle or a byproduct of the founders fear of establishing a country that could one day oppress its people?
¬¬
Page 43 Question 3
Did the founders’ write the Constitution to protect the rights of minorities while tending to the needs of majority? If so, did founders’ write the Constitution this way to prevent the government from going too far right (Anarchism or Fascism) or too far left (Socialism or Communism)?
Page 44 Question 5
What are the charms of liberty and do they outweigh the needs of the people, government or overall democracy? If the founders were so allured by the charms of liberty and breaking free from the bondage of oppression, then why did they not outlaw slavery? Why did the founders’ not include the bill of rights in the original document of the Constitution? What did liberty mean to the founders’?
Page 45 Question 6
Why was owning property so important to the founders’? Why did the founders’ see democracy as the best form of government for America if they felt that democracy unchecked was on par with oppression? What is modus Vivendi? Why was the new American government seen as a dangerous leftist experiment by conservatives in Europe and as a medium of destroying local governments by (18th century liberals?)?
Page 46 Question 7
What does John Jay mean when he says the people who own the country should govern it? Is he implying that the government should have been an oligarchy run by the richest landowners or is he saying the citizens of the United States collectively own the country and therefore the country should be run as a direct democracy? What is the dilemma with the philosophy of the founders’, from a humanistic standpoint?
HW # 3 Hofstadter Questions
Page 41 Question 1
If the founders believed that all humans were selfish and untrustworthy, why did they establish a government that run by the people (essentially) and believe so strongly in self government. Would the idea and practice of the checks and balances be an incorrect answer to the previous question, in that, the supreme court was an afterthought and going by the logic of the founders’ the lawmakers in America could have acted unchecked had the Supreme Court and judicial review not been established?
>> Don’t forget Madison’s equation: stifling human nature (self-interest and faction) is not desirable. So everything they did stems from that premise.
Page 42 Question 2
Was the establishment of the American government a miracle or a byproduct of the founders fear of establishing a country that could one day oppress its people?
>> There were so many particular conditions that defined that moment. It’s up to us to recognize and evaluate them. Good Q!
Page 43 Question 3
Did the founders’ write the Constitution to protect the rights of minorities while tending to the needs of majority? If so, did founders’ write the Constitution this way to prevent the government from going too far right (Anarchism or Fascism) or too far left (Socialism or Communism)?
>> Precisely. Re-read Federalist no. 10!!
Page 44 Question 5
What are the charms of liberty and do they outweigh the needs of the people, government or overall democracy? If the founders were so allured by the charms of liberty and breaking free from the bondage of oppression, then why did they not outlaw slavery? Why did the founders’ not include the bill of rights in the original document of the Constitution? What did liberty mean to the founders’?
>> It may well be a conceit of the modern to think that they could have outlawed slavery. It was a choice they had, but not really. I’m not sure it was a viable choice form them. But they put in place a system that would outlaw it and then empower minority rights like no other in the world or in history,
Page 46 Question 7
What does John Jay mean when he says the people who own the country should govern it? Is he implying that the government should have been an oligarchy run by the richest landowners or is he saying the citizens of the United States collectively own the country and therefore the country should be run as a direct democracy? What is the dilemma with the philosophy of the founders’, from a humanistic standpoint?
>> To them, property was stewardship was responsibility. They did not restrict citizenship or suffrage to property (suffrage in some cases), so that means that they accepted the property-less into their political culture, even if denying it as much stewardship as property holders.
1. So was our Constitution written with no altruism whatever and with only the writers’ interests in mind?
2. Our Fathers were no necessarily corrupt, but why did they provoke thought in the most negative, selfish, and pessimistic way while writing our Constitution?
3. In addition to the three advantages listed from a good constitutional government, can there be any more possible advantages that either stack up to its level of importance or even better?
4. Should individual properties be sacrificed at times for the community of propertied interests?
5. Why were the Fathers encouraged about their own era by the broad dispersion of landed property?
6. The impact did John Jay have on the on the writing of the Constitution?
Q1: Bam!
1. So was our Constitution written with no altruism whatever and with only the writers’ interests in mind?
>> I bammed that last night b/c it struck me as getting to the heart of the argument: how is it possible an entirely self-interested group created a system that has benefited so many? Precisely because they created a system that protects and allows self-interest, theirs and of others.
2. Our Fathers were no necessarily corrupt, but why did they provoke thought in the most negative, selfish, and pessimistic way while writing our Constitution?
>> Go back to Fed 10.
3. In addition to the three advantages listed from a good constitutional government, can there be any more possible advantages that either stack up to its level of importance or even better?
>> Procedural law and limits on power are key!!! Good Q!
4. Should individual properties be sacrificed at times for the community of propertied interests?
>> By the Constitution (5th amendment), only for “public” purposes. To take from Paul to give to John is against the spirit of the Constitution, even though it happens all the time in modern governance.
5. Why were the Fathers encouraged about their own era by the broad dispersion of landed property?
>> See above
6. The impact did John Jay have on the on the writing of the Constitution?
>> Will have to go to the book of knowledge on him. I don’t know him so well. The Constitution was the result of a pluralistic process that included the voices of many individuals, even if they were of common elite status, they represented a variety of opinions, perspectives and ideas.
1. Does the constitution really controls man now more than before or vi-versa?
2. Why did the Founding Fathers fear that any kind of government must be accepted in order to avert the anarchy and terror of a state of nature?
3. Why is there conflict on giving power to the people?
4. What did they envision man would always be?
5. In what ways would the poor plunder the rich and the rich plunder the poor?
6. Why did the Founding Founders concerned about democracy?
7. What is meant by “remedy worse than the disease”?
8. Did the voice of the people before matter?
9. Is it unfair that the rules being set for the people, who were “given” the opportunity to elect their representation, do not get a say?’
10. It is wrong that the rules set and the way the constitution is written by landowners’ unjust rules?
1. Does the constitution really controls man now more than before or vi-versa?
>> The idea is NOT to control, but to regulate passion/faction
2. Why did the Founding Fathers fear that any kind of government must be accepted in order to avert the anarchy and terror of a state of nature?
>> Please clarify this in Fed 10. Its quite the opposite.
3. Why is there conflict on giving power to the people?
>> If you think pipples are potentially eveil, would you give them power?
4. What did they envision man would always be?
>> Virtuous if regulated by law and good governance. The Founders were OPTIMISTIC, not pessimistic. They were also realistic about people.
7. What is meant by “remedy worse than the disease”?
>> = the medicine will kill you before the sickness.
8. Did the voice of the people before matter?
>> Self-government is a principal of the Founding. See Hofstdater p 42 !!!
9. Is it unfair that the rules being set for the people, who were “given” the opportunity to elect their representation, do not get a say?’
>> Again, the elites did not act alone in the creation of this government. They had deep popular support.
10. It is wrong that the rules set and the way the constitution is written by landowners’ unjust rules?
>> Not sure what you mean by that. Are landowners unjust or the law?
Page
41. So if the founding fathers were to create their first constitution, in the 21st century, what would be the three basic rights they would place to group up all rights? (e.g. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness)
42. So were the founding fathers correct? Is the nature of man in the 21st century the same as the nature of man in the 18th century, considering we still abide to the basis of the Constitution to this day?
43. The author implys that democracy and liberty may overlap in some cases, is this true? How?
44. Compare and contrast the concept of liberty as it is percieved now and then.
45. Why did the fathers believe that to potect property was the only way to protect men?
46. Were the founding fathers to be alive now, what would be their present day motives in writing the Constitution?
41. So if the founding fathers were to create their first constitution, in the 21st century, what would be the three basic rights they would place to group up all rights? (e.g. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness)
>> Ha! I’d say they’d end up arguing about public schools and offensive lyrics in music. The Founding is special because it was a particular moment that had particular conditions for this to happen that no longer exist. We are it’s inheritors and beneficiaries.
42. So were the founding fathers correct? Is the nature of man in the 21st century the same as the nature of man in the 18th century, considering we still abide to the basis of the Constitution to this day?
>> That’s for you to say!
43. The author implys that democracy and liberty may overlap in some cases, is this true? How?
>> As per above, we need to measure the tensions between equality, liberty, and the public safety.
44. Compare and contrast the concept of liberty as it is percieved now and then.
>> We will get there! Working on it… Great Q!
45. Why did the fathers believe that to potect property was the only way to protect men?
>> Again, in a world in which your land was your livelihood, taking land meant taking life. The same idea still applies to today, btw.
46. Were the founding fathers to be alive now, what would be their present day motives in writing the Constitution?
>> I won’t get into toilet paper here … lol Different conditions. They set our conditions.
Those who haven’t posted yet still need to. I won’t reply, though. Please go back to both Madison Federalist no. 10 and Hofstadter and clarify your understanding. Read and re-read it all!