Once and for all, to fix the Federal Government. . . .

[Foxfyre]

A society cannot operate without the co-operation of the individuals with each other.
This may be enforced or voluntary.
You have huge faith in the civic-mindedness of the individual.

It has nothing to do with civic mindedness, it has to do with an environment conducive to prosperity. In other words, we don't let the thugs shoot it out in front of our store because it is bad for business. This changes when government demands that we DO allow the thugs to roam wild, as is currently the case. 30 years ago, "no loitering" meant the proprietor would drive the hoodlums off with a baseball bat or a shotgun. Now the cops would throw the proprietor in prison and the hoodlums would be awarded damages for emotional distress.

I understand, and on a simplistic level I agree.
But where does it stop?
One of the purposes of the judicial system is to place reasonable limits on behaviour.

What is the reasonable reaction of the same shop owner if he catches a 10 year old lifting a packet of gum...a kick up the bum, a slap across the chops, a punch in the mouth, his hand crushed in a door, shot with his shotgun?
Who judges that?
Then, when the kid's Dad takes exception to the punishment and goes down to chat about it, what is the moderating factor to his reaction?

I think we sometimes are getting sidetracked by not focusing on what should be the role of the federal government. The Founders never intended for the federal government to be involved in laws re shoplifting or even assault and battery that were intended to be within the jurisdiction of the various states, counties, local communities. The federal government would step in if a state should make it legal to commit indiscriminate assault and battery as that would of course be a violation of unalienable rights, but all states have laws against child abuse, assault and battery, et al.

A free people generally will govern itself in a way that provides justice for all.

Many many things are wonderful to do, productive, profitable, necessary, and aesthetically pleasing without the federal government doing it. We will enjoy the blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness much more if the federal government stays out of all of it other than within the very narrow definitions of responsibility defined.

 

[Foxfyre]

Reminder from the OP:

(Civility and respect for respectfully stated opinions requested please. We can set up a food fight or insult fest for the children elsewhere.)

Now moving right along:

Though many of the Founders commented on it, with all concurring that charity or benevolence was not a prerogative of the federal government, James Madison was probably the most 'vocal' of all. Each of the following quotes can be placed within the full context of the remarks without changing the literal meaning in any way:

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
-James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

“…[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
-James Madison

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.” James Madison, “Letter to Edmund Pendleton,”
-James Madison, January 21, 1792, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 14, Robert A Rutland et. al., ed (Charlottesvile: University Press of Virginia,1984).

“An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.”
-James Madison, Federalist No. 58, February 20, 1788

“There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations"--
James Madison, speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788

Entitlement to be free has 2 sides. Free to pursue whatever we want and also free FROM those that pursue nothing other than what they believe others should provide for them.

In my opinion, everybody should be free to provide for whomever he or she wishes unless such provision would violate the rights of others. Whatever we provide for others should be a purely voluntary act and it is a violation of unalienable rights to force any citizen to provide for any other citizen. So yes, you are correct that nobody, other than my spouse that I legally marry and minor children that I bring into the world or adopt, should have any right to what I have.

It is for this reason that I put the option in the poll: The federal government should not be authorized to provide any form of charity or benevolence to anybody as, in my opinion, to do so violates the unalienable rights of the citizens.

 

[Gadawg73]

It has nothing to do with civic mindedness, it has to do with an environment conducive to prosperity. In other words, we don't let the thugs shoot it out in front of our store because it is bad for business. This changes when government demands that we DO allow the thugs to roam wild, as is currently the case. 30 years ago, "no loitering" meant the proprietor would drive the hoodlums off with a baseball bat or a shotgun. Now the cops would throw the proprietor in prison and the hoodlums would be awarded damages for emotional distress.

I understand, and on a simplistic level I agree.
But where does it stop?
One of the purposes of the judicial system is to place reasonable limits on behaviour.

What is the reasonable reaction of the same shop owner if he catches a 10 year old lifting a packet of gum...a kick up the bum, a slap across the chops, a punch in the mouth, his hand crushed in a door, shot with his shotgun?
Who judges that?
Then, when the kid's Dad takes exception to the punishment and goes down to chat about it, what is the moderating factor to his reaction?

I think we sometimes are getting sidetracked by not focusing on what should be the role of the federal government. The Founders never intended for the federal government to be involved in laws re shoplifting or even assault and battery that were intended to be within the jurisdiction of the various states, counties, local communities. The federal government would step in if a state should make it legal to commit indiscriminate assault and battery as that would of course be a violation of unalienable rights, but all states have laws against child abuse, assault and battery, et al.

A free people generally will govern itself in a way that provides justice for all.

Many many things are wonderful to do, productive, profitable, necessary, and aesthetically pleasing without the federal government doing it. We will enjoy the blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness much more if the federal government stays out of all of it other than within the very narrow definitions of responsibility defined.

I totally agree.
The Federal government has no business passing laws against abortion, gay marriage as those are states' issues.

 

[Foxfyre]

I understand, and on a simplistic level I agree.
But where does it stop?
One of the purposes of the judicial system is to place reasonable limits on behaviour.

What is the reasonable reaction of the same shop owner if he catches a 10 year old lifting a packet of gum...a kick up the bum, a slap across the chops, a punch in the mouth, his hand crushed in a door, shot with his shotgun?
Who judges that?
Then, when the kid's Dad takes exception to the punishment and goes down to chat about it, what is the moderating factor to his reaction?

I think we sometimes are getting sidetracked by not focusing on what should be the role of the federal government. The Founders never intended for the federal government to be involved in laws re shoplifting or even assault and battery that were intended to be within the jurisdiction of the various states, counties, local communities. The federal government would step in if a state should make it legal to commit indiscriminate assault and battery as that would of course be a violation of unalienable rights, but all states have laws against child abuse, assault and battery, et al.

A free people generally will govern itself in a way that provides justice for all.

Many many things are wonderful to do, productive, profitable, necessary, and aesthetically pleasing without the federal government doing it. We will enjoy the blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness much more if the federal government stays out of all of it other than within the very narrow definitions of responsibility defined.

I totally agree.
The Federal government has no business passing laws against abortion, gay marriage as those are states' issues.

Until the tax laws are reformed however, the federal government does need to define marriage in a way to keep the tax laws intact and also to allow the states the ability to determine for themselves what marriage laws they will and will not recognize. Protecting states rights is a valid function of the federal government. Dictating what laws the states will have, except where unalienable rights are concerned, should not be the prerogative of the federal government.

 

[Sky Dancer]

It has nothing to do with civic mindedness, it has to do with an environment conducive to prosperity. In other words, we don't let the thugs shoot it out in front of our store because it is bad for business. This changes when government demands that we DO allow the thugs to roam wild, as is currently the case. 30 years ago, "no loitering" meant the proprietor would drive the hoodlums off with a baseball bat or a shotgun. Now the cops would throw the proprietor in prison and the hoodlums would be awarded damages for emotional distress.

I understand, and on a simplistic level I agree.
But where does it stop?
One of the purposes of the judicial system is to place reasonable limits on behaviour.

What is the reasonable reaction of the same shop owner if he catches a 10 year old lifting a packet of gum...a kick up the bum, a slap across the chops, a punch in the mouth, his hand crushed in a door, shot with his shotgun?
Who judges that?
Then, when the kid's Dad takes exception to the punishment and goes down to chat about it, what is the moderating factor to his reaction?

I think we sometimes are getting sidetracked by not focusing on what should be the role of the federal government. The Founders never intended for the federal government to be involved in laws re shoplifting or even assault and battery that were intended to be within the jurisdiction of the various states, counties, local communities. The federal government would step in if a state should make it legal to commit indiscriminate assault and battery as that would of course be a violation of unalienable rights, but all states have laws against child abuse, assault and battery, et al.

A free people generally will govern itself in a way that provides justice for all.

Many many things are wonderful to do, productive, profitable, necessary, and aesthetically pleasing without the federal government doing it. We will enjoy the blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness much more if the federal government stays out of all of it other than within the very narrow definitions of responsibility defined.

The founders never intended that slaves be free, that workers have an eight hour day, that women have the right to vote.

Without a federal government, none of these would be the law of the land, and that would be a pity. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness would have only existed for white men.

 

[Foxfyre]

I understand, and on a simplistic level I agree.
But where does it stop?
One of the purposes of the judicial system is to place reasonable limits on behaviour.

What is the reasonable reaction of the same shop owner if he catches a 10 year old lifting a packet of gum...a kick up the bum, a slap across the chops, a punch in the mouth, his hand crushed in a door, shot with his shotgun?
Who judges that?
Then, when the kid's Dad takes exception to the punishment and goes down to chat about it, what is the moderating factor to his reaction?

I think we sometimes are getting sidetracked by not focusing on what should be the role of the federal government. The Founders never intended for the federal government to be involved in laws re shoplifting or even assault and battery that were intended to be within the jurisdiction of the various states, counties, local communities. The federal government would step in if a state should make it legal to commit indiscriminate assault and battery as that would of course be a violation of unalienable rights, but all states have laws against child abuse, assault and battery, et al.

A free people generally will govern itself in a way that provides justice for all.

Many many things are wonderful to do, productive, profitable, necessary, and aesthetically pleasing without the federal government doing it. We will enjoy the blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness much more if the federal government stays out of all of it other than within the very narrow definitions of responsibility defined.

The founders never intended that slaves be free, that workers have an eight hour day, that women have the right to vote.

Without a federal government, none of these would be the law of the land, and that would be a pity. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness would have only existed for white men.

Most of the founders strongly disapproved of slavery, but saw the unity of the nation as the first priority. Other issues could be dealt with after that unity was achieved.

The Founders saw the most equitable voting base as one vote per family unit with the head of household casting the vote. That was not prejudice against women but came out of their culture. The women were in full agreement with the concept. We seriously err when we hate or condemn another time and culture because they did not think as we think or saw things differently than we see them. To disallow others their thoughts, beliefs, perceptions, concepts most especially within their culture seems pretty intolerant to me.

The Founders would have laughed out loud at anybody who proposed an eight-hour day. In those days such did not exist nor would anybody have suggested that such should exist. Most especially they would have viewed with contempt anybody who proposed that the Federal government be concerned with so mundane a detail that was clearly within the rights of the people to choose for themselves.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Again you are ignoring that I SUPPORT the government's protection of unalienable rights. That is what the federal government is supposed to be all about: Establish the means to select the people in charge who will be responsible to see that our rights are secured, and then leave us alone to form the society we wish to have.

So you can just keep drumming up red herring after red herring and the principle remains the same.

No need for red herrings: the bolded sentence above is self-contradicting.

No it isn't. The Constitution defines what the U.S. federal government is intended to do and how we will select and replace citizens who are responsible to implement that. The Federal government will provide the common defense, promote (not provide) the general welfare meaning everybody, not a targeted group, and secure our unalienable rights (blessings of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.)

Not what you said earlier. If you want some outside entity to "secure your rights," you can't also expect that entity to "leave you alone" to form whatever society you want.

To the main point of your thesis, though: it appears to me that you want a system very much like what existed under the Articles of Confederation. If you haven't already done so, you might want to read up on exactly why the AOC were such a dismal failure.

 

[Foxfyre]

No need for red herrings: the bolded sentence above is self-contradicting.

No it isn't. The Constitution defines what the U.S. federal government is intended to do and how we will select and replace citizens who are responsible to implement that. The Federal government will provide the common defense, promote (not provide) the general welfare meaning everybody, not a targeted group, and secure our unalienable rights (blessings of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.)

Not what you said earlier. If you want some outside entity to "secure your rights," you can't also expect that entity to "leave you alone" to form whatever society you want.

To the main point of your thesis, though: it appears to me that you want a system very much like what existed under the Articles of Confederation. If you haven't already done so, you might want to read up on exactly why the AOC were such a dismal failure.

Well first the federal government is not an 'outside entity'. Secondly you must not have any understanding what unalienable rights are or why the Founders focused on that as the foundation for the entire government. And I'm not going to explain to you again why you are off base re the AOC and/or the Constitution the Founders gave us.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

No it isn't. The Constitution defines what the U.S. federal government is intended to do and how we will select and replace citizens who are responsible to implement that. The Federal government will provide the common defense, promote (not provide) the general welfare meaning everybody, not a targeted group, and secure our unalienable rights (blessings of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.)

Not what you said earlier. If you want some outside entity to "secure your rights," you can't also expect that entity to "leave you alone" to form whatever society you want.

To the main point of your thesis, though: it appears to me that you want a system very much like what existed under the Articles of Confederation. If you haven't already done so, you might want to read up on exactly why the AOC were such a dismal failure.

Well first the federal government is not an 'outside entity'. Secondly you must not have any understanding what unalienable rights are or why the Founders focused on that as the foundation for the entire government.

And if you were genuinely interested in a constructive argument, you'd do something other than try to keep shooting the messenger.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not what you said earlier. If you want some outside entity to "secure your rights," you can't also expect that entity to "leave you alone" to form whatever society you want.

To the main point of your thesis, though: it appears to me that you want a system very much like what existed under the Articles of Confederation. If you haven't already done so, you might want to read up on exactly why the AOC were such a dismal failure.

Well first the federal government is not an 'outside entity'. Secondly you must not have any understanding what unalienable rights are or why the Founders focused on that as the foundation for the entire government.

And if you were genuinely interested in a constructive argument, you'd do something other than try to keep shooting the messenger.

I'm shooting the messenger? You are the one who concluded I want government to be patterned after the AOC even after all these pages of my explicitly explaining where I was coming from. I can only conclude that you do not know what is in the AOC or why the Founders wrote the U.S. Constitution as they did. I have a pretty good grounding in both.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Well first the federal government is not an 'outside entity'. Secondly you must not have any understanding what unalienable rights are or why the Founders focused on that as the foundation for the entire government.

And if you were genuinely interested in a constructive argument, you'd do something other than try to keep shooting the messenger.

I'm shooting the messenger? You are the one who concluded I want government to be patterned after the AOC even after all these pages of my explicitly explaining where I was coming from. I can only conclude that you do not know what is in the AOC or why the Founders wrote the U.S. Constitution as they did. I have a pretty good grounding in both.

Okay then, explain how the system you're advocating avoids the problems that the AOC created.

 

[candycorn]

I think we sometimes are getting sidetracked by not focusing on what should be the role of the federal government. The Founders never intended for the federal government to be involved in laws re shoplifting or even assault and battery that were intended to be within the jurisdiction of the various states, counties, local communities. The federal government would step in if a state should make it legal to commit indiscriminate assault and battery as that would of course be a violation of unalienable rights, but all states have laws against child abuse, assault and battery, et al.

A free people generally will govern itself in a way that provides justice for all.

Many many things are wonderful to do, productive, profitable, necessary, and aesthetically pleasing without the federal government doing it. We will enjoy the blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness much more if the federal government stays out of all of it other than within the very narrow definitions of responsibility defined.

The founders never intended that slaves be free, that workers have an eight hour day, that women have the right to vote.

Without a federal government, none of these would be the law of the land, and that would be a pity. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness would have only existed for white men.

Most of the founders strongly disapproved of slavery, but saw the unity of the nation as the first priority. Other issues could be dealt with after that unity was achieved.

The Founders saw the most equitable voting base as one vote per family unit with the head of household casting the vote. That was not prejudice against women but came out of their culture. The women were in full agreement with the concept. We seriously err when we hate or condemn another time and culture because they did not think as we think or saw things differently than we see them. To disallow others their thoughts, beliefs, perceptions, concepts most especially within their culture seems pretty intolerant to me.

The Founders would have laughed out loud at anybody who proposed an eight-hour day. In those days such did not exist nor would anybody have suggested that such should exist. Most especially they would have viewed with contempt anybody who proposed that the Federal government be concerned with so mundane a detail that was clearly within the rights of the people to choose for themselves.

I'm curious...how many "founders" were there? Because I know about 300 people in this world reasonably well, and not two of them agree on everything. Most can't agree if it's partly cloudy or partly sunny.

So when you're talking about the founders, aren't all you're really doing is cherry picking selected "founders" who support your singularly whacky notion of what we should be doing in 2011? "Federal roads good; Federal standards bad".

Is there any reason why we should listen to this group of men over any others who came after (or before)?

 

[candycorn]

I think we sometimes are getting sidetracked by not focusing on what should be the role of the federal government. The Founders never intended for the federal government to be involved in laws re shoplifting or even assault and battery that were intended to be within the jurisdiction of the various states, counties, local communities. The federal government would step in if a state should make it legal to commit indiscriminate assault and battery as that would of course be a violation of unalienable rights, but all states have laws against child abuse, assault and battery, et al.

A free people generally will govern itself in a way that provides justice for all.

Many many things are wonderful to do, productive, profitable, necessary, and aesthetically pleasing without the federal government doing it. We will enjoy the blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness much more if the federal government stays out of all of it other than within the very narrow definitions of responsibility defined.

The founders never intended that slaves be free, that workers have an eight hour day, that women have the right to vote.

Without a federal government, none of these would be the law of the land, and that would be a pity. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness would have only existed for white men.

Most of the founders strongly disapproved of slavery, but saw the unity of the nation as the first priority. Other issues could be dealt with after that unity was achieved.

The Founders saw the most equitable voting base as one vote per family unit with the head of household casting the vote. That was not prejudice against women but came out of their culture. The women were in full agreement with the concept. We seriously err when we hate or condemn another time and culture because they did not think as we think or saw things differently than we see them. To disallow others their thoughts, beliefs, perceptions, concepts most especially within their culture seems pretty intolerant to me.

The Founders would have laughed out loud at anybody who proposed an eight-hour day. In those days such did not exist nor would anybody have suggested that such should exist. Most especially they would have viewed with contempt anybody who proposed that the Federal government be concerned with so mundane a detail that was clearly within the rights of the people to choose for themselves.

Good to see the founders had priorities and that ALL women--according to you--were in full agreement that they not be given the vote, the right to own land etc...

Your version of history is quite fascinating.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm curious...how many "founders" were there? Because I know about 300 people in this world reasonably well, and not two of them agree on everything.

So how many of your friends DO support slavery?

 

[Foxfyre]

The founders never intended that slaves be free, that workers have an eight hour day, that women have the right to vote.

Without a federal government, none of these would be the law of the land, and that would be a pity. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness would have only existed for white men.

Most of the founders strongly disapproved of slavery, but saw the unity of the nation as the first priority. Other issues could be dealt with after that unity was achieved.

The Founders saw the most equitable voting base as one vote per family unit with the head of household casting the vote. That was not prejudice against women but came out of their culture. The women were in full agreement with the concept. We seriously err when we hate or condemn another time and culture because they did not think as we think or saw things differently than we see them. To disallow others their thoughts, beliefs, perceptions, concepts most especially within their culture seems pretty intolerant to me.

The Founders would have laughed out loud at anybody who proposed an eight-hour day. In those days such did not exist nor would anybody have suggested that such should exist. Most especially they would have viewed with contempt anybody who proposed that the Federal government be concerned with so mundane a detail that was clearly within the rights of the people to choose for themselves.

Good to see the founders had priorities and that ALL women--according to you--were in full agreement that they not be given the vote, the right to own land etc...

Your version of history is quite fascinating.

I don't see that I wrote ALL women anywhere. However, there is nothing in anybody's version of history that there was any protest or objection from the female population any more than in all of the population who debated and eventually ratified the Constitution. I doubt the ratification was unanimous in any state that ratified it. Certainly not every concept that went into the debates or the final Constitution was embraced by every Founder but they found the common ground that they could and compromised where it was feasible to do so. They gave us an entirely unique and remarkable, highly successful, and enduring form of government. Nobody in a position to sign the original Constitution refused to sign it.

And to a man they all did embrace the principle of unalienable rights against which all of the Constitution was measured. And it is on that principle that I test all my opinions and preferences re government.

 

[idb]

Most of the founders strongly disapproved of slavery, but saw the unity of the nation as the first priority. Other issues could be dealt with after that unity was achieved.

The Founders saw the most equitable voting base as one vote per family unit with the head of household casting the vote. That was not prejudice against women but came out of their culture. The women were in full agreement with the concept. We seriously err when we hate or condemn another time and culture because they did not think as we think or saw things differently than we see them. To disallow others their thoughts, beliefs, perceptions, concepts most especially within their culture seems pretty intolerant to me.

The Founders would have laughed out loud at anybody who proposed an eight-hour day. In those days such did not exist nor would anybody have suggested that such should exist. Most especially they would have viewed with contempt anybody who proposed that the Federal government be concerned with so mundane a detail that was clearly within the rights of the people to choose for themselves.

Good to see the founders had priorities and that ALL women--according to you--were in full agreement that they not be given the vote, the right to own land etc...

Your version of history is quite fascinating.

I don't see that I wrote ALL women anywhere. However, there is nothing in anybody's version of history that there was any protest or objection from the female population any more than in all of the population who debated and eventually ratified the Constitution. I doubt the ratification was unanimous in any state that ratified it. Certainly not every concept that went into the debates or the final Constitution was embraced by every Founder but they found the common ground that they could and compromised where it was feasible to do so. They gave us an entirely unique and remarkable, highly successful, and enduring form of government. Nobody in a position to sign the original Constitution refused to sign it.

And to a man they all did embrace the principle of unalienable rights against which all of the Constitution was measured. And it is on that principle that I test all my opinions and preferences re government.

I'm interested, are the only unalienable rights those that are set out explicitly in the Constitution?

 

[Sky Dancer]

The founders never intended that slaves be free, that workers have an eight hour day, that women have the right to vote.

Without a federal government, none of these would be the law of the land, and that would be a pity. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness would have only existed for white men.

Most of the founders strongly disapproved of slavery, but saw the unity of the nation as the first priority. Other issues could be dealt with after that unity was achieved.

The Founders saw the most equitable voting base as one vote per family unit with the head of household casting the vote. That was not prejudice against women but came out of their culture. The women were in full agreement with the concept. We seriously err when we hate or condemn another time and culture because they did not think as we think or saw things differently than we see them. To disallow others their thoughts, beliefs, perceptions, concepts most especially within their culture seems pretty intolerant to me.

The Founders would have laughed out loud at anybody who proposed an eight-hour day. In those days such did not exist nor would anybody have suggested that such should exist. Most especially they would have viewed with contempt anybody who proposed that the Federal government be concerned with so mundane a detail that was clearly within the rights of the people to choose for themselves.

Good to see the founders had priorities and that ALL women--according to you--were in full agreement that they not be given the vote, the right to own land etc...

Your version of history is quite fascinating.

She longs to go back in time to the Civil War. Maybe she hopes the South will win and we'll have slavery again. Hahaha

If Fox knew her history, she would know most of the Founders owned slaves.

 

[Foxfyre]

Good to see the founders had priorities and that ALL women--according to you--were in full agreement that they not be given the vote, the right to own land etc...

Your version of history is quite fascinating.

I don't see that I wrote ALL women anywhere. However, there is nothing in anybody's version of history that there was any protest or objection from the female population any more than in all of the population who debated and eventually ratified the Constitution. I doubt the ratification was unanimous in any state that ratified it. Certainly not every concept that went into the debates or the final Constitution was embraced by every Founder but they found the common ground that they could and compromised where it was feasible to do so. They gave us an entirely unique and remarkable, highly successful, and enduring form of government. Nobody in a position to sign the original Constitution refused to sign it.

And to a man they all did embrace the principle of unalienable rights against which all of the Constitution was measured. And it is on that principle that I test all my opinions and preferences re government.

I'm interested, are the only unalienable rights those that are set out explicitly in the Constitution?

Well life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness covers a lot of territory, but I believe I understand unalienable rights as the Founders understood them.

Unalienable rights are whatever we wish to do, think, own, or say that does not violate or infringe the rights of another and, most importantly, requires no contribution or participation from another other than his/her non interference. Whatever we want/need/hope or wish for that does require contribution or participation by any other, willingly or non willingly, knowingly or non knowingly, is not a right but a privilege.

The only exception is a moral obligation to provide basic necessities for our children that we bring into the world as they had no say in the matter.

 

[candycorn]

Most of the founders strongly disapproved of slavery, but saw the unity of the nation as the first priority. Other issues could be dealt with after that unity was achieved.

The Founders saw the most equitable voting base as one vote per family unit with the head of household casting the vote. That was not prejudice against women but came out of their culture. The women were in full agreement with the concept. We seriously err when we hate or condemn another time and culture because they did not think as we think or saw things differently than we see them. To disallow others their thoughts, beliefs, perceptions, concepts most especially within their culture seems pretty intolerant to me.

The Founders would have laughed out loud at anybody who proposed an eight-hour day. In those days such did not exist nor would anybody have suggested that such should exist. Most especially they would have viewed with contempt anybody who proposed that the Federal government be concerned with so mundane a detail that was clearly within the rights of the people to choose for themselves.

Good to see the founders had priorities and that ALL women--according to you--were in full agreement that they not be given the vote, the right to own land etc...

Your version of history is quite fascinating.

She longs to go back in time to the Civil War. Maybe she hopes the South will win and we'll have slavery again. Hahaha

If Fox knew her history, she would know most of the Founders owned slaves.

I'll speak on her behalf; I think she knows some history but she tries to speak for 40-50 very complex men and come out with a message that...what do you know...perfectly agrees with precisely what she wants. What were the odds of that happening???

It would be much like me listening to the Arizona delegation to Congress, taking the whole of their positions and only picking out the ones I agree with proudly stating that "The delegation feels this way...".

Anybody who sets themselves up as the mouthpiece for the group is often guilty of only wishfully thinking that the group agrees with them and them alone.

I think she's guilty of that.

 

[candycorn]

I'm curious...how many "founders" were there? Because I know about 300 people in this world reasonably well, and not two of them agree on everything.

So how many of your friends DO support slavery?

You'd have to ask them. I won't speak for them all agreeing.