I am a member of a small local “constitution study group,” where we have been reading The Five Thousand Year Leap and studying the intents of the founding fathers. The book and the group of people have the view that the reason our government has grown in power since this nation’s founding is because the citizens of America have failed (and continue to fail) to uphold the principles that the founding fathers laid out in the Constitution (separation of powers, rule by law, 9th amendment, etc). If only the American people understood and lived by what the founders meant when they wrote the Constitution, then we could have a limited government and lots of freedom and liberty.Then I started to listen to some things by Hans-Hermann Hoppe and he presses the idea that the founders were wrong to create the federal government. The founders wanted to protect our natural rights and they conceived the Constitution to do this. But history seems to have proven them wrong, the government has only grown and grown with little sign of slowing. Unlike The Five Thousand Year Leap’s rationale, Hoppe explains the government’s growth in power as the logical result of creating the Constitution, since the idea of a limited, Constitutional government is a flawed and impossible idea. Hoppe says that the founders could have better preserved our natural rights by creating some sort of confederation or even better, an anarcho-capitalist system. Do I understand Hoppe correctly? Let me know what you think about why the federal government has grown in power since the day it was founded.
Are you talking about this article by Hoppe, On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolution?
In effect, what the American Constitution did was only this: Instead of a king who regarded colonial America as his private property and the colonists as his tenants, the Constitution put temporary and interchangeable caretakers in charge of the country's monopoly of justice and protection. These caretakers did not own the country, but as long as they were in office, they could make use of it and its residents to their own and their protégés' advantage. However, as elementary economic theory predicts, this institutional setup will not eliminate the self-interest-driven tendency of a monopolist of law and order toward increased exploitation. To the contrary, it only tends to make his exploitation less calculating, more shortsighted, and wasteful.
In effect, what the American Constitution did was only this: Instead of a king who regarded colonial America as his private property and the colonists as his tenants, the Constitution put temporary and interchangeable caretakers in charge of the country's monopoly of justice and protection.
These caretakers did not own the country, but as long as they were in office, they could make use of it and its residents to their own and their protégés' advantage. However, as elementary economic theory predicts, this institutional setup will not eliminate the self-interest-driven tendency of a monopolist of law and order toward increased exploitation. To the contrary, it only tends to make his exploitation less calculating, more shortsighted, and wasteful.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
GooPC:The founders wanted to protect our natural rights and they conceived the Constitution to do this.
The founders wanted to protect their natural rights. They certainly didn't care about yours. They made a republic just like the other republics that had been made in Europe up to that time, the kind where the aristocracy was in power and there was no king to limit it. (United Provinces and the English Protectorate)
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
the founding fathers failed in several ways that they could not have foreseen.
1. it seems they mostly took limited suffrage for granted. revisionist history tells us that the founding fathers excluded non-landowners from voting because they were racist and sexist. the actual reason is that you want your voting body to also be the people whom have a long term interest in continued prosperity in the region. this leads us to
2. not fully recognizing the organizational innovations of the joint-stock corporation. votes should come with stock, not simply be free. if you want a say in the governance of something you should be investing your own money into it. this also helps with transparency as everyone knows exactly who to blame when mistakes are made.
3. this directly guards against government inflation. shareholders don't want to dilute their own holdings after all. the ones who would want to (minority shareholders) would be just that: in the minority position.
there's more to viewing the constitution as a corporate charter, but I'm tired.
Stranger: GooPC:The founders wanted to protect our natural rights and they conceived the Constitution to do this. The founders wanted to protect their natural rights. They certainly didn't care about yours. They made a republic just like the other republics that had been made in Europe up to that time, the kind where the aristocracy was in power and there was no king to limit it. (United Provinces and the English Protectorate)
So why did they write a constitution that limited their power? (in their own lifetime, at least)
I think the founders were believers in natural rights and did their best to preserve them, but simply made a miscalculation about the nature of the state. And yes, the state has grown for precisely the reasons that have been specified by Hoppe.
von Vodka:So why did they write a constitution that limited their power? (in their own lifetime, at least)
It didn't limit their power as a class, it simply limited the power of any one of them over the others.
They were still able to enslave large numbers of people.
Thanks for the replies. It seems like I'm on the right track, but this is a big ideological change for me. I've only recently started reading anarcho-capitalist ideas. I have long been a conservative/libertarian with a belief that the Constitution is one of the most important parts of American history and if we only followed the Constitution then we could live in a just world. The first night after I listened to Hoppe I couldn't even fall asleep, it was such a radical change of thought.
Stranger:The founders wanted to protect their natural rights. They certainly didn't care about yours.
I find it hard to believe that the founding fathers wanted to create a system which would reduce to rights of the people. Almost everything they wrote (Federalist Papers, Common Sense, etc) was about the need to limit (federal) government power and ensure that government was only used to protect the rights of man. While the founder's didn't accept the idea of complete freedom for every man, they were way beyond most politicians (and kings) of the time who had little intention to use government to defend man's natural rights. So my current view is that their intentions were pure, but they failed to see the faults of democracy and the Constitution.
caravelle: "They were still able to enslave large numbers of people." i guess. i dont know what level of agreement the people had wiht early us formation and laws. i guess enough of them could have just ignored the faouding fathers, etc
"They were still able to enslave large numbers of people."
i guess. i dont know what level of agreement the people had wiht early us formation and laws.
i guess enough of them could have just ignored the faouding fathers, etc
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard81.html
GooPC: Thanks for the replies. It seems like I'm on the right track, but this is a big ideological change for me. I've only recently started reading anarcho-capitalist ideas. I have long been a conservative/libertarian with a belief that the Constitution is one of the most important parts of American history and if we only followed the Constitution then we could live in a just world. The first night after I listened to Hoppe I couldn't even fall asleep, it was such a radical change of thought.
You should read Democracy: The God That Failed. Your head might explode.
Hoppe's an anarchist so if you think anarchy is better than limited government than yes they failed. If you think anarchy is a bad idea then no they did not fail. No law or Constitution can replace philosophy. A piece of paper is just that, it only works if individuals choose to adhere to it. The founders weren't perfect and either was the Constitution but it was awful close. If American politicians followed it we would be a lot better off. The fundamental philosophy that led to the Constitution doesn't exist anymore for the most part and so the Constitution which depends on has vanished with it.
GooPC: Let me know what you think about why the federal government has grown in power since the day it was founded.
Let me know what you think about why the federal government has grown in power since the day it was founded.
The federal government was a giant powergrab.
Robert Lefevre - The Constitution Revisitedhttp://mises.org/media/1184
---
Johnsson: Do you agree with Ron Paul that we should go by the Constitution and that's it?Rockwell: The Constitution would be a major improvement over what we have today. But we need to realize that the Constitution itself represented a major increase in government power over the Articles of Confederation, which would have served us quite well had it not been overthrown. I'm not impressed by the bunch that foisted the Constitution on us. They were really up to no good. We've all but forgotten that most everyone opposed it at the time. [..]
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/liberal-post-interview.html
GooPC: have long been a conservative/libertarian with a belief that the Constitution is one of the most important parts of American history and if we only followed the Constitution then we could live in a just world.
An you would be correct.
GooPC:While the founder's didn't accept the idea of complete freedom for every man, they were way beyond most politicians (and kings) of the time who had little intention to use government to defend man's natural rights.
That's a good approach. Its important to judge them based on the context in which they lived.
GooPC:Thanks for the replies. It seems like I'm on the right track, but this is a big ideological change for me. I've only recently started reading anarcho-capitalist ideas. I have long been a conservative/libertarian with a belief that the Constitution is one of the most important parts of American history and if we only followed the Constitution then we could live in a just world. The first night after I listened to Hoppe I couldn't even fall asleep, it was such a radical change of thought.
GooPC:I find it hard to believe that the founding fathers wanted to create a system which would reduce to rights of the people. Almost everything they wrote (Federalist Papers, Common Sense, etc) was about the need to limit (federal) government power and ensure that government was only used to protect the rights of man. While the founder's didn't accept the idea of complete freedom for every man, they were way beyond most politicians (and kings) of the time who had little intention to use government to defend man's natural rights. So my current view is that their intentions were pure, but they failed to see the faults of democracy and the Constitution.
They were obviously united against the tyrannical king... however afterwords:
"Gentlemen [of the Constitutional convention] you see that in the anarchy in which we live, society manages much as before. Take care, if our disputes last too long, that the people will come to think they can just as easily do without us."
~ Benjamin Franklin, quoted in Rebirth of Liberty, Carl Watner, 11 July 2005
It remains clear that the Anti-Federalists were right.(They actually opposed the US Constitution).
The Antifederalists were opponents of ratifying the US Constitution. They feared that it would create an overbearing central government, while the Constitution's proponents promised that this would not happen. As the losers in that debate, they are largely overlooked today. But that does not mean they were wrong or that we are not indebted to them.
In many ways, the group has been misnamed. Federalism refers to the system of decentralized government. This group defended states rights — the very essence of federalism — against the Federalists, who would have been more accurately described as Nationalists. Nonetheless, what the so-called Antifederalists predicted would be the results of the Constitution turned out to be true in most every respect.
The Antifederalists warned us that the cost Americans would bear in both liberty and resources for the government that would evolve under the Constitution would rise sharply. That is why their objections led to the Bill of Rights, to limit that tendency (though with far too little success that has survived to the present).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalism
During the period of debate over the ratification of the Constitution, numerous independent local speeches and articles were published all across the country. Initially, many of the articles in opposition were written under pseudonyms, such as "Brutus," "Centinel," and "Federal Farmer." Eventually, famous revolutionary figures such as Patrick Henry came out publicly against the Constitution. They argued that the strong national government proposed by the Federalists was a threat to the rights of individuals and that the President would become a king. They objected to the federal court system created by the proposed constitution. This produced a phenomenal body of political writing; the best and most influential of these articles and speeches were gathered by historians into a collection known as the Anti-Federalist Papers in allusion to the Federalist Papers.
In every state the opposition to the Constitution was strong, and in two states — North Carolina and Rhode Island — it prevented ratification until the definite establishment of the new government practically forced their adherence. Individualism was the strongest element of opposition; the necessity, or at least the desirability, of a bill of rights was almost universally felt. In Rhode Island resistance against the Constitution was so strong that civil war almost broke out on July 4, 1788, when anti-federalist members of the Country Party led by Judge William West marched into Providence with over 1,000 armed protesters.[1]
The Anti-Federalists played upon these feelings in the ratification convention in Massachusetts. By this point, five of the states had ratified the Constitution with relative ease, but the Massachusetts convention was far more bitter and contentious. Finally, after long debate, a compromise (known as the "Massachusetts compromise") was reached. Massachusetts would ratify the Constitution with recommended provisions in the ratifying instrument that the Constitution be amended with a bill of rights. (The Federalists contended that a conditional ratification would be void, so the recommendation was the strongest support that the ratifying convention could give to a bill of rights short of rejecting the Constitution.)
Four of the next five states to ratify, including New Hampshire, Virginia, and New York, included similar language in their ratification instruments. As a result, once the Constitution became operative in 1789, Congress sent a set of twelve amendments to the states. Ten of these amendments were immediately ratified and became known as the Bill of Rights. Thus, while the Anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in their quest to prevent the adoption of the Constitution, their efforts were not totally in vain. Anti-Federalists thus became recognized as an influential group among the founding fathers of the United States.