[MD] Political Wars

[Ham Priday]

Krimel --



> I was tempted to say that that is still what the US is about
> but there is problem in your statement. I would be with you
> if you had said, "... freedom for individuals to pursue their
> own goals with the least possible regulation and interference."
> Government is not the only source of interference and
> regulation. The United State came into existence at the dawn
> of the industrial revolution. There was nothing in colonial
> experience that would indicate the turmoil in economic
> understanding that would arise in the wake of transforming
> agrarian societies into industrial societies.

Turmoil in economic understanding?  Why not "lessons to be learned"? 
Besides, I was speaking of the constitutional basis of our free republic, 
which is not primarily economic.

> First let me point out that securing the blessings of liberty
> is the last of several purposes listed for establishing a
> constitutional government. The others are:
> - To form a more perfect Union
> - Establish Justice
> - Insure domestic Tranquility
> - Provide for the common defense
> - Promote the general Welfare
>
> They did indeed seek to limit power through a system of checks
> and balances. They understand that in a dynamic environment
> when power begins to accumulate, a positive feedback loop ensues.
> If there is nothing to stop the accumulation of power (no negative
> feedback) that power can dominate every other source of power.
> What they could not have foreseen is how dramaticallyeconomic
> power could be concentrated and how corrosive radical growth
> of economic power could become to individual freedom.

The Founding Fathers sought to limit government power, not the wealth of the 
people. The "positive feedback loop" is the accumulation of wealth that 
represents "the pursuit of happiness" associated with private property.  Not 
only did a limited government  ensure this freedom, it provided the 
individual incentive needed for the industrial economy to follow.  Economic 
power is generated by the people who produce and market the goods of 
commerce.  Until progressive taxation was adopted in 1913, producers were 
free to keep or invest the rewards of their labors, while the federal 
government got along quite well on foreign tariffs and a two-year public tax 
to pay for the Civil War.  Apparently you believe that economic power must 
be artificially restricted to prevent "radical growth", which is contrary to 
a free market economy.

> There is very little in the constitution that specifies what sort of
> economic system our government would support and absolutely
> nothing to suggest that they had laissez-faire in mind. The
> constitution in fact gives congress the power to control interstate
> and foreign commerce, collect federal taxes, coin money, defend
> the states, and patents and copyrights. The Constitution also
> supports property rights, the sanctity of contracts, and due process
> of law. This is hardly laissez-faire in fact it provides government
> with the tools to set the rules for economic activity.

The Founders in their wisdom did not wish to meddle with the commerce of 
their new republic.  "Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, 
Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common 
Defence and general Welfare of the United States."  Congress also was 
empowered to coin money and regulate (not "control") commerce with foreign 
nations and between the states, establish post offices, raise armies 
(two-year limit on appropriations), maintain a navy, and promote the advance 
of science and the arts.  That was about the extent of it (in the days of 
limited government).

 [Ham, previously]:
> By amendment, judicial edict, and the gradual "democratization"
> of America over the course of two hundred years, liberalism
> has taken on a new meaning.

 [Krimel]:
> Exactly, over the course of time, with the benefit of experience,
> our understanding of government, economics and human rights
> has grown and changed. We have evolved and we are still evolving.
> The idea that we can return to some bygone era of pure ideals
> is a little nor than the myth of Eden run amok.

The idea that we can dismiss the supreme law of the land for the sake of 
social equality or some new understanding of "global order" with impugnity 
is a screwball approach to governance which can only lead us back to the 
tyranny that our Founders understood from first-hand experience.

> One of the enduring patterns in America's vision of itself
> is that we are a great experiment in politics and governance.
> Warren's account reminds me of something from the
> notebooks of those great experimental psychologists, the
> behaviorists.
>
> In most kinds of experiments you need large samples with
> lots of controls to establish causality. Some of the behaviorists
> were concerned with establishing the cause of behavior change
> in a single individual. They invented what is call single case design.
>
> What you do is:
> ...establish a baseline called condition A; what happens when
> you do nothing.
>
> Then you implement something designed to change the behavior, condition B
> and see if the baseline behavior changes. ...

Yes, I've read Skinner's 'Walden Two' and am quite familiar with Watson's 
Behaviorist school.  That theory is fine for training monkeys or teaching 
skills to young children.  When applied to adults or -- heaven forbid --  
imposed by an absolute state on its citizens, you annul value sensibility 
and individual freedom, ending up with fascism, which our constitutional 
Founders also understood well and warned us against.

> ...after all we haven't had a lot of recent experience with being smart.

You've just demonstrated that again to me, Krimel.

--Ham