- Banned
- #101
Terrific. This is the best attempt at refutation in the thred.
And, I hope, it should serve as an example of the level of argument we should have.
But, I have read the entire Wilson essay, and some of his other work, and he clearly believes that the the points that I made earlier, and won't reprise now, and is as anti-American as can be.
Further, I would recommed the "The American Concept of Liberty," by Johns Hopkins President Frank Johnson Goodnow, who pioneered with Woodrow Wilson a science of administration separated from the limits of constitutional government. In this essay, Goodnow both promotes the idea of separation of politics and administration, and critiques the human rights theory of the Declaration of Independence and its influence on the practice of American government.
Goodnow explains the European viewpoint toward the rights of the individual: “In a word, man is regarded now throughout Europe, contrary to the view expressed by Rousseau, as primarily a member of society and secondarily as an individual. The rights which he possesses are, it is believed, conferred upon him, not by his Creator, but rather by the society to which he belongs. What they are is to be determined by the legislative authority in view of the needs of that society. Social expediency, rather than natural right, is thus to determine the sphere of individual freedom of action.”
This, of course was the desire of Goodnow and the Progressives for America. If you continue your study of the provenance of Progressivism, and are the kind of person you appear to be, you will, I am certain, come away with the same view of Progressivism that I have.
In addition, you should review the difference between Common Law, and Civil Law. The Inquisition, Renaissance, the Napoleonic Code, and the Holocaust are all, in part, an outgrowth of the lex regia: “The will of the prince has the force of law.”( Quod principi placuit, legis haget vigorem) Today, European law gives preeminence to legislatures, the institution that drafted the statute prevails. In Anglo-American Common Law tradition, the institution that interprets and adjudicates the statute has the final word. Due to the absence of a jury, and the deference to whomever writes the laws, Civil Law tradition is friendlier to tyrannical regimes than the Common Law tradition. Note how this plays into the view of Progressives who look to German jurisprudence perspectives.
Again, nice job. I hope you will continue your research.
Well written.
So in essence you're saying that Progressivism is Government without Religious influence which considers the needs of the many above the needs of the individual, Or the "Pro-Spock" philosophy...
...while Conservatism is Government with religious influence which considers the needs of the individual above the needs of the many? Or the Anti-Spock Philosophy?
I may accept that definition. That doesn't mean I believe that the Constitution supports the Conservative viewpoint, or that Progressivism is inherently "Anti-American", however.