Comments on the Philosophy of the Founding Fathers

[Son of Martha]

This is an outline for a module offered at the Toccoa Appleseed.  'Njoy.

SoM

[EEL]

Aaarrrrgggggg !!   

What is this in?   My browser can't open it.  Can this be posted in MS Word or a PDF???

Or....give us un-savy folks some directions?   

Thanks,
EEL

[eaglescouter]

.odt files are from Open Office, and can be opened by:

Mac OS:
  OpenOffice.org Writer
NeoOffice Writer
AbiSource AbiWord
Apple TextEdit
IBM Lotus Notes 8 or later

Windows OS:
  OpenOffice.org Writer
Sun Microsystems Writer (included with StarOffice)
AbiSource AbiWord
Microsoft Word with OpenXML/ODF Translator Add-in
IBM Lotus Notes 8 or later

Linux OS:
  OpenOffice.org Writer
Sun Microsystems Writer (included with StarOffice)
KOffice KWord
AbiSource AbiWord
IBM Lotus Notes 8 or later

[The Machine]

Thanks for sharing this SoM. 

I attached a Windows version with the .doc ending.

[V]

The way I've always thought about this is thus:

At one end you have Hobbes: All men are bad so you need the biggest and baddest to keep them all in line - The Sovereign - Leviathan rules over all.

At the other end you have Rosseau: All men are good, do what you will, kumbaya, democracy is great - can't we all just get along.

In the middle is Locke: Men try to be good but will fail. Put in a framework to which everyman holds every other man when they fail - no Leviathan, no chaos. We don't follow my law or your law - we follow the Natural Law, the Eternal Verities.

I'd love to have these discussions at an Appleseed but when do you find the time! This is great stuff for campfire discussions.

And as for your point on the uniqueness of our situation the quote I always work in is Daniel Webster: (Senator in a senate debate ~1825)

Hold tight, my friends, to the Constitution and the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not Cluster. That which has happened but once in 6000 years will never happen again. Hold tight to the Constitution for if the American Constitution fails there will be chaos throughout the world.


Thanks for the summary.

[CaptG]

SoM,
Where did you run across John Danford? Took 2 semesters of Ancient & Modern Political Thought with him as prof in early 80's. Sharp Man!
Guy

[V]

I'm sorry this is a thread hijack but I'm hoping you history buffs out there can help me. Take it to PM or email if you prefer.

I've always been bothered by Benjamin Franklin... don't get me wrong, great guy, entrepreneur, inventor, author... but his only two contributions to the two foundational documents have been a disaster!

1. He had property changed to happiness... Why? We've been defending capitalism ever since. Did he want popular resentment of the capitalists such as himself diverted away? Why was that really done? I've not been able to come up with a convincing argument but the pursuit of property as per Locke was widely known and understood so why water it down...

2. With no trace of discussion in Madison's Notes or anywhere else, there in the constitution is the patents and copyrights clause! Now this one I have more info on. As the author/publisher of the highly successful Little Richard's Almanac Ben really wanted to protect that income stream! Everyone knows the stories of him flying kites in storms. At the time he had invented the lightning conductor to protect buildings. In the colonies he was dying cos once any old  blacksmith had seen his system they could knock out copies without paying Ben. This is why he was in France and Britain. There he was selling his new invention (its on a lot of French Chateau's and English Castles) with the monopoly protection of "patents" from the kings. So no wonder he backported this feature into the new Constitution. Patents and copyright in the US legal system interpretations are killing technology developments nowadays.

So I guess my point is that inserting self-interested pork into new legislation is nothing new... and that the Lockean ideal actually works. As individuals the Founding Fathers were not perfect paragons of virtue, they all had personal interests in one way or another, but as a group, debating, holding out for rational argument and logical defense of positions, they produced a near perfect set of documents. Not perfect, but closer than anything else to date!

Cheers
Phil

[Son of Martha]

Only know Mr. Danford by his book.

In it, he discusses some of the enlightenment ideas among which is the idea of progress.  Prior to enlightenment people apparently considered it a given that history was cyclical, and that "ordinary" folks should be resigned to their lot in life.  Enlightenment opened the door to the use of reason to lead to more perfect forms of government, and also scientific exploration and learning that would lead to technological abilities that would improve the quality of life for everyone.  Thus the idea that happiness was now potentially attainable by the average Joe.

I think that the Founders considered that the purpose of property was to attain happiness.  This is prior to the scourge of materialism, and at the time any increase in property would definitely help one be happier.  Perhaps Franklin just wanted to emphasize the objective...

SoM

[snaphook75]

Dear V,

First, thank you for your invaluable contribution to our cause. We are indeed fortunate that you "swam the pond"!

With regard to your concern and frustration over Franklin's "watering down" of Locke's Rights, I can offer an explanation that I've come across several times, though I am unprepared to footnote at this time (I'm leaving for the range in 30 min to test drive my new Garand!). Here goes:

The great paradox of Freedom-loving individuals throughout history is, by definition, that they are rugged individualists. Because of who we are, we don't organize very well - witness Madison's sarcastic comments (in his notes of the Constitutional Convention) regarding the inability of the Anti-Federalists to even put forth a single well-organized plan to challenge the Federalists due to their widely differing opinions. On the other hand, socialists and the other brain-dead in society will queue up without even knowing what's being offered at the other end of the line! Sooooo....

Imagine how difficult it was in 1775 and 76 to reach a consensus that would pull together representatives from such diverse colonies as Georgia and New York! The Second Continental Congress' only hope for success was unity - yet many of the representatives from the NE staunchly opposed founding a Republic "conceived in the notion that all men are created equal" (yes, I know I time warped...but I'm allowed) when the institution of slavery was held as legal. Remember, at this time "Property" had a very special meaning to those in the South. Their entire economy was based on the labor of human property. The argument goes, that Franklin proposed this change in verbiage to, at some later date, disarm the slave holding states from arguing that the Founding Document cleary supported their RIGHT to own PROPERTY, and their slaves are their most valuable PROPERTY. Thus, the door was left open for the future reconciliation of the great contradiction cited above. And, as we all know, four score and nine years, and 600,000 lives lost later, the contradiction was resolved.

I realize that statements without footnotes are categorized as mere opinion, but I believe that research will substantiate at least that more repected and studied individuals than myself have advance this theory.

Best Regards from Georgia

Snaphook

[smiley_dan]

Imagine how difficult it was in 1775 and 76 to reach a consensus that would pull together representatives from such diverse colonies as Georgia and New York! The Second Continental Congress' only hope for success was unity - yet many of the representatives from the NE staunchly opposed founding a Republic "conceived in the notion that all men are created equal" (yes, I know I time warped...but I'm allowed) when the institution of slavery was held as legal. Remember, at this time "Property" had a very special meaning to those in the South. Their entire economy was based on the labor of human property. The argument goes, that Franklin proposed this change in verbiage to, at some later date, disarm the slave holding states from arguing that the Founding Document cleary supported their RIGHT to own PROPERTY, and their slaves are their most valuable PROPERTY. Thus, the door was left open for the future reconciliation of the great contradiction cited above. And, as we all know, four score and nine years, and 600,000 lives lost later, the contradiction was resolved.

I realize that statements without footnotes are categorized as mere opinion, but I believe that research will substantiate at least that more repected and studied individuals than myself have advance this theory.

If you think of the nature of property, you might come to a different conclusion.  Another argument for "happiness" is that if all men can own property, no man can own another man.  Ownership is control.  A slave who owns property can not control it, and so doesn't actually own property, or a slave can control property, and is no longer a slave.  In my opinion, substitution "happiness" for "property" was an act of cowardice.

In either case, continuing to treat some people (non-whites, the poor, women, and children) as subhuman damns the founders in my eyes, regardless of the reasons.  Considering they were supposedly the smartest and most educated people of their age, ignorance is hardly an excuse.