We the People

[dblack]

Simply stated, We The People are (in effectivenness) and is (in expressivenness) the resolution and congregation of perfecting courses and forces of action sharing fundamental principles based on their union through recognition of prospecting and already established and safe guarding multiplicities and similarities.

No offense, but before you tackle "We the People", you might want to look up the phrase "Simply stated".

If it is no offense where is the continuity to the topic? Would you like me to reword it? I am now aware that your simplicity is on another parameter than mine. I can lower or raise my standards accordingly. What would you prefer so that you can participate in the topic too?

Uh.... ok.

 

[Skylar]

Let's talk about what this phrase means. In particular, its common misappropriation as a call for majority rule.

The most famous and foundational use of that term would be the preamble to the Constitution. In that context, I think Madison's comments on secession give an excellent insight into what the founders thought it meant:

"The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. "

Letter to Nicholas Trist, December 23, 1832

 

[Agit8r]

Let's talk about what this phrase means. In particular, its common misappropriation as a call for majority rule.

"we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it"
-- James Madison; from Federalist #39

 

[Skylar]

Ooooh. Nice quote!

 

[Agit8r]

of course not all historical figures agreed with Madison:


"I see two diametrically opposed principles: the principle of democracy which, wherever it is allowed practical effect is the principle of destruction: and the principle of the authority of personality which I would call the principle of achievement"
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech to Dusseldorf Industry Club (Jan. 27, 1932)

 

[Skylar]

of course not all historical figures agreed with Madison:


"I see two diametrically opposed principles: the principle of democracy which, wherever it is allowed practical effect is the principle of destruction: and the principle of the authority of personality which I would call the principle of achievement"
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech to Dusseldorf Industry Club (Jan. 27, 1932)

Yeah, I'm gonna have to go with Madison with this one. Classic Liberalism is a much more consistent and less harmful system than offshoots of Romantic Nationalism.

Generally speaking a system that lauds the value of the individual over the state is better in my estimation than one that lauds that state or group over the individual. Though there are shades of nuance in either system that require consideration.

 

[Agit8r]

of course not all historical figures agreed with Madison:


"I see two diametrically opposed principles: the principle of democracy which, wherever it is allowed practical effect is the principle of destruction: and the principle of the authority of personality which I would call the principle of achievement"
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech to Dusseldorf Industry Club (Jan. 27, 1932)

Yeah, I'm gonna have to go with Madison with this one. Classic Liberalism is a much more consistent and less harmful system than offshoots of Romantic Nationalism.

Generally speaking a system that lauds the value of the individual over the state is better in my estimation than one that lauds that state or group over the individual. Though there are shades of nuance in either system that require consideration.

Ummm, yeah, Madison is the correct answer

 

[Skylar]

of course not all historical figures agreed with Madison:


"I see two diametrically opposed principles: the principle of democracy which, wherever it is allowed practical effect is the principle of destruction: and the principle of the authority of personality which I would call the principle of achievement"
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech to Dusseldorf Industry Club (Jan. 27, 1932)

Yeah, I'm gonna have to go with Madison with this one. Classic Liberalism is a much more consistent and less harmful system than offshoots of Romantic Nationalism.

Generally speaking a system that lauds the value of the individual over the state is better in my estimation than one that lauds that state or group over the individual. Though there are shades of nuance in either system that require consideration.

Ummm, yeah, Madison is the correct answer

Laughing...well obviously. But I wanted to get into the why.

 

[Agit8r]

of course not all historical figures agreed with Madison:


"I see two diametrically opposed principles: the principle of democracy which, wherever it is allowed practical effect is the principle of destruction: and the principle of the authority of personality which I would call the principle of achievement"
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech to Dusseldorf Industry Club (Jan. 27, 1932)

Yeah, I'm gonna have to go with Madison with this one. Classic Liberalism is a much more consistent and less harmful system than offshoots of Romantic Nationalism.

Generally speaking a system that lauds the value of the individual over the state is better in my estimation than one that lauds that state or group over the individual. Though there are shades of nuance in either system that require consideration.

Ummm, yeah, Madison is the correct answer

Laughing...well obviously. But I wanted to get into the why.

Yeah. Fascism is only concerned with individuals who are "elites"

"This whole edifice of civilization is in its foundations and in all its stones nothing else than the result of the creative capacity, the achievement, the intelligence, the industry, of individuals: in its greatest triumphs it represents the great crowning achievement of individual God-favored geniuses"
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech to Dusseldorf Industry Club (Jan. 27, 1932)

y'know, a wordy version of "You did build that"

 

[Skylar]

of course not all historical figures agreed with Madison:


"I see two diametrically opposed principles: the principle of democracy which, wherever it is allowed practical effect is the principle of destruction: and the principle of the authority of personality which I would call the principle of achievement"
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech to Dusseldorf Industry Club (Jan. 27, 1932)

Yeah, I'm gonna have to go with Madison with this one. Classic Liberalism is a much more consistent and less harmful system than offshoots of Romantic Nationalism.

Generally speaking a system that lauds the value of the individual over the state is better in my estimation than one that lauds that state or group over the individual. Though there are shades of nuance in either system that require consideration.

Ummm, yeah, Madison is the correct answer

Laughing...well obviously. But I wanted to get into the why.

Yeah. Fascism is only concerned with individuals who are "elites"

"This whole edifice of civilization is in its foundations and in all its stones nothing else than the result of the creative capacity, the achievement, the intelligence, the industry, of individuals: in its greatest triumphs it represents the great crowning achievement of individual God-favored geniuses"
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech to Dusseldorf Industry Club (Jan. 27, 1932)

y'know, a wordy version of "You did build that"

Fascism is an offshoot of Romantic Nationalism, which itself was a post Enlightenment response to Classic Liberalism. Hitler was a furiously extreme example, but we see similar sentiment in terms of governance as early as Napoleon. A man who put the 'nation' above the individual citizen.

The entire concept of nationalism, putting the 'nation' of people above the individual, is a step that when taken to an extreme, can lead to fascism. Putting the individual above the nation, as Classic Liberalism does, is a bulwark against it.

The distinction is worth noting, especially in a discussion of 'We the People'.

 

[Agit8r]

The entire concept of nationalism, putting the 'nation' of people above the individual, is a step that when taken to an extreme, can lead to fascism. Putting the individual above the nation, as Classic Liberalism does, is a bulwark against it.

I agree that the individual should be the basic unit of society. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the individual should be placed above the well-being of society. There must be a balance between these, when conflicts arise.

 

[Skylar]

The entire concept of nationalism, putting the 'nation' of people above the individual, is a step that when taken to an extreme, can lead to fascism. Putting the individual above the nation, as Classic Liberalism does, is a bulwark against it.

I agree that the individual should be the basic unit of society. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the individual should be placed above the well-being of society. There must be a balance between these, when conflicts arise.

Not 'above' the well being of society. These are the nuances I'm speaking of. Its more about the foundational unit of society. Is society fundamentally a 'nation' (ie, the French people, the german people, the kurdish people) in which individuals exist in service to their nation. Or is society fundamentally individuals, around which a nation exists in service to its people?

Nationalism pushes the former narrative more than the latter. Romantic Nationalism farther still. And Fascism, to an almost ludicrous degree.

That's not to say that serving one's nation lacks utility. Or that an individual cannot be harmful to society. But the foundational priority on which serves which has profound implications in terms of governance.

Classic liberalism recognizes that rights exist individually, that power is wielded collectively, and that the State exists to preserve those rights. With this fundamental recognition exemplified by the phrase 'We the People'. As it is the people that are the foundation unit of society. Not a nation.

 

[dblack]

Wow - top quality posting today! Thanks!

 

[Skylar]

Another expansion on the initial question as it relates to governance would be in how people in general are considered. The concepts of Classic Liberalism weren't limited to a particular nationality, but to all men universally. When you see political rhetoric centered around the dehumanization of a particular group, you're seeing an assault on this principle of 'We The People'.

 

[dblack]

Another expansion on the initial question as it relates to governance would be in how people in general are considered. The concepts of Classic Liberalism weren't limited to a particular nationality, but to all men universally. When you see political rhetoric centered around the dehumanization of a particular group, you're seeing an assault on this principle of 'We The People'.

Well said, and I agree. "The People" is a universal reference to a society of free individuals, not a nation-state.

I continue to see the common theme, expressed in most traditional uses of the phrase, of distinguishing people as something apart from government, something over and above government. That's why I find it disturbing that it is, today, so often used as a 'call to arms' for majority rule via government. That certainly wasn't Jefferson's intent.

 

[MarathonMike]

The people did not create the Constitution. A group of the most brilliant men ever assembled got together and designed and created the Constitution so that "We the people" could pursue Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness in a more perfect union. A union of states. The Founders designed the government to be self correcting and limited in order to best serve the people. The design was not for a strong central government but with more powers allocated to the states. That is why they named our country The United STATES of America not the United Federation of America.

 

[Skylar]

The people did not create the Constitution. A group of the most brilliant men ever assembled got together and designed and created the Constitution so that "We the people" could pursue Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness in a more perfect union. A union of states. The Founders designed the government to be self correcting and limited in order to best serve the people. The design was not for a strong central government but with more powers allocated to the states. That is why they named our country The United STATES of America not the United Federation of America.

Many of the founders didn't expect the United States to last a generation. Plus the constitution was deeply, deeply flawed. Almost fatally so. You may be putting the Founders on a pedestal that's a little too high and shiny.

 

[MarathonMike]

What was flawed in the Constitution and what fixed it? You used past tense so I am assuming you think it's 'ok' now, but that is an assumption.

 

[dblack]

What was flawed in the Constitution and what fixed it? You used past tense so I am assuming you think it's 'ok' now, but that is an assumption.

The part about giving slavery a pass was kinda fucked up.

 

[Skylar]

What was flawed in the Constitution and what fixed it? You used past tense so I am assuming you think it's 'ok' now, but that is an assumption.

Lets see.....off the top of my head:

Only land owners could vote. Only men could vote. Voting was generally limited to whites. Slavery. The Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States, so the States could commit wild violations of individual rights with no oversight or restrictions.

We fixed all that shit. With the meat in that shit sandwich costing us hundreds of thousands of lives and almost destroying this nation.