Where do you come down on the Jefferson Adams divide in their view on the strength of government?

[Moonbeam]

Today on NPR there was a program on about John Adams in which his differences with Jefferson were explained in a similar way to how I think gun control plays out.

I suggested that ones views on gun control are intimately connected to to ones geographic location and specifically on whether guns are protecting you or pointed your way.

In the inner cities people are communities are ripped apart by gun violence and demand regulation whereas in rural areas guns serve as a deterrent for people far from law enforcement, etc.

Adams grew up in Boston, it was suggested, in a time of much chaos and free wheeling justice and lack of civil law. He saw and experienced the darker side, the fallen side, of human nature and believed that a strong central authority was need to curb man's natural inclination to selfishly.

Jefferson, on the other hand, it was suggested, grew up in rural nobility with servants to take care of his needs, a life, in short, that had room for idealism and the nobility of man.

It seems to me that these two notions are heavily woven into the fabric of our nations history and political philosophy and are at work, in my opinion at least, even in this election.

So is man basically good or evil? Do we need a strong central state to protect us against the dark side of our nature or is all that a mistake and what we need is to allow our natural goodness to flower by keeping the state rather small and at bey.

 

[Fern]

I agree your take on guns has merit. I've thought similarly for a long time as I've lived in very urbam areas, and very rural areas.

Perhaps I misunderstand you, but do not think the strong central government vs weak is as you make it. To me a strong central government means weaker state/local government.

One could have strong state law help with issues in urban areas. I see no reason it be federal. And basically it isn't, criminal and civil law are generally now covered under state law not federal (UCC notwithstanding).

I'm in favor of a weak central government, leaving each state within some loose limits to experiment as it was originally intended. I say "loose limits" because slavery is, IMO, basically what killed the concept of strong state rights, let's no revisit any similar scenario and bungle it up again.

Federal law is expansive and broad by definition; a "one size fits all" solution. I don't think that's any more appropriate in many cases than having just one speed limit for all streets & roads accross the USA. Different states could have different laws, and different areas within states if they chose.

Fern

 

[Vic]

I'm a Jeffersonian. A person should always be assumed to be good first, and treated as evil only as punishment for actually committing evil. It is a balancing act though. But it does no good to society to waste our efforts punishing those who have not actually done any harm.

Oh, and I'm a city boy, so I think I just threw a wrench in your theory, Moonie.

 

[Craig234]

Where's Goldilocks in all this?

I don't tend to frame the issues the same way.

Is 'big government' the one that forced millions to end their racist laws, or the one that invaded Vietnam (at the same time, oddly enough)?

Is big government the one that protects the average American from the corporation from wrongdoing, or the one that empowers the corporation for wrongdoing?

I think it's a waste to use such framings. More important to me are the issues such as the distribution of power - i.e., the vote, despite its corruption by the domination of money in campaigns - and *good* government versus bad government. JFK had a much smaller government than Reagan - but more importantly IMO, a better one, using its resources for Americans' interests more than trying to kill enough Nicaraguans to get them to get rid of their leader or enough El Salvadorans to get them to accept theirs.

Jefferson was an advocate of the power of the public. I am too, with limitations such as wanting protections for minorities from mob mentality. Adams was ad advocate for various centralized powers. I'm opposed to the tyranny or even other lesser harms centralized powers can bring, while I want the people's government powerful enough to stand up to unelected powers in society.

It's more complicated to me than Jefferson or Adams.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Fern
I agree your take on guns has merit. I've thought similarly for a long time as I've lived in very urbam areas, and very rural areas.

Perhaps I misunderstand you, but do not think the strong central government vs weak is as you make it. To me a strong central government means weaker state/local government.

One could have strong state law help with issues in urban areas. I see no reason it be federal. And basically it isn't, criminal and civil law are generally now covered under state law not federal (UCC notwithstanding).

I'm in favor of a weak central government, leaving each state within some loose limits to experiment as it was originally intended. I say "loose limits" because slavery is, IMO, basically what killed the concept of strong state rights, let's no revisit any similar scenario and bungle it up again.

Federal law is expansive and broad by definition; a "one size fits all" solution. I don't think that's any more appropriate in many cases than having just one speed limit for all streets & roads accross the USA. Different states could have different laws, and different areas within states if they chose.

Fern

A good point. I think my interest in how experience which has a strong environmental component shapes ones world view. There does seem to be weakness in my analogy that the opposite of strong deterrent, a strong central government, equates to no strength of government elsewhere. But I think Jefferson leans that way generally.

As Vic points out, although he's not really normal or typical of anything at all in my opinion, being something of an original thinker, he does point to the difference between criminalizing behavior before there's a wrong, which is an authoritarian tendency, no?

The question I want to raise is which point of view has more merit. Does man tend toward the animal when unconstrained by force of law, or is goodness his natural state, a state that is basically harmed by an authoritarian state. I'm not sure, but I think Jefferson might argue that a strong state actually corrupts people rather than making them safer.

At any rate somebody has to deal with those who do actually violate other people's rights, I guess some kind of state authority.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Where's Goldilocks in all this?

I don't tend to frame the issues the same way.

Is 'big government' the one that forced millions to end their racist laws, or the one that invaded Vietnam (at the same time, oddly enough)?

Is big government the one that protects the average American from the corporation from wrongdoing, or the one that empowers the corporation for wrongdoing?

I think it's a waste to use such framings. More important to me are the issues such as the distribution of power - i.e., the vote, despite its corruption by the domination of money in campaigns - and *good* government versus bad government. JFK had a much smaller government than Reagan - but more importantly IMO, a better one, using its resources for Americans' interests more than trying to kill enough Nicaraguans to get them to get rid of their leader or enough El Salvadorans to get them to accept theirs.

Jefferson was an advocate of the power of the public. I am too, with limitations such as wanting protections for minorities from mob mentality. Adams was ad advocate for various centralized powers. I'm opposed to the tyranny or even other lesser harms centralized powers can bring, while I want the people's government powerful enough to stand up to unelected powers in society.

It's more complicated to me than Jefferson or Adams.

What is different in how you frame the issue? Sounds like the same subject to me.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Is 'big government' the one that forced millions to end their racist laws, or the one that invaded Vietnam (at the same time, oddly enough)?

Ah, here is where it goes all caddy wonkers in my view. It really seems to me that any time you see the "strong" central government doing something with positive implications, it seems to be a diversion from some bigger evil at hand.

I feel that individuals are good a majority of the time where organizations tend to be "evil" most of the time. All the "wonderful" social programs we have came from the good intent of individuals but tend to be corrupted by the organization.

Once you elevate that organization to a federal level where it is much further from control by the people it affects, it runs away from most everything it was ever intended to do. Therefore it is my belief that the strength should lie in local/state hands as it's much more "controllable" by those it affects.

 

[rchiu]

I don't get why ppl afraid of federal government so much. This is America with democracy. If you don't like the government and the laws, then vote those $hitty politician out and put people who do the right things in charge.

There are many problems with a weak federal government. Do you want to be some third world country that don't even have an army to deal with separatist, terrorist or foreign invasion? Do you want a weak federal government that don't have any budget to improve national infrastructure? No budget for education and research. No budget for economy stimulus package? Without a strong federal government, big state like California and New York is gonna get stronger, richer, while states like Montana is gonna get weaker and eventually the difference can cause states seeking independence and make America weaker. Is that something you people want to see?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
...
So is man basically good or evil? Do we need a strong central state to protect us against the dark side of our nature or is all that a mistake and what we need is to allow our natural goodness to flower by keeping the state rather small and at bey.

I don't grant the premise that those are the only options, or that the two questions are related. Government can and should be about more than protecting people from themselves or forcing people to be "good". I'm an idealist about human nature, and I still think the libertarian approach to government is probably not a good idea.

The problem with the question you're asking is that it assumes that the general actions taken by government are fixed and that the only choice we have is in the magnitude of government action. I think there is a third choice...not small government, or big government, but GOOD government. The "strength" is an irrelevant question, it should be determined by what we want government to accomplish, it should not be the deciding factor.

 

[BoberFett]

I live in North Minneapolis, a low income area well known for crime. I still support weak government because the abuses I could suffer at the hand of an authoritarian government out of control worry me far more than the off chance that I might get mugged or even shot. Hell, there's a bullet hole in the front of my house that I have yet to patch, but I still fear government more than thugs with guns.

The evil that an individual can commit is nothing compared to the evil a massive organization can commit. Just look at corporations, the demon of the left. Small businesses can easily be shut down by a neighborhood boycott. Massive corporations who exist only due to the power of government commit major evils daily.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: rchiu
I don't get why ppl afraid of federal government so much. This is America with democracy. If you don't like the government and the laws, then vote those $hitty politician out and put people who do the right things in charge.

Don't forget that democracy voted Bush into power.

There are many problems with a weak federal government. Do you want to be some third world country that don't even have an army to deal with separatist, terrorist or foreign invasion?

Libertarians believe in defense as a federal function. Try again.

Do you want a weak federal government that don't have any budget to improve national infrastructure?

What is national infrastructure? Roads? Why can't states maintain roads?

No budget for education and research.

Education is for the states. Why does the federal government need to do research?

No budget for economy stimulus package?

Are you serious? The economic stimulus is the feds taking less of our money. With a small federal government there would be nothing for them to not take. You are incredibly confused.

Without a strong federal government, big state like California and New York is gonna get stronger, richer, while states like Montana is gonna get weaker and eventually the difference can cause states seeking independence and make America weaker.

What the hell are you talking about?

Is that something you people want to see?

Yes. Whatever it is you might be saying, that's what I'd like to see.

 

[alchemize]

Yes.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
As Vic points out, although he's not really normal or typical of anything at all in my opinion, being something of an original thinker, he does point to the difference between criminalizing behavior before there's a wrong, which is an authoritarian tendency, no?

I'll take this as compliment. Thanks, Moonie.

And I wouldn't call that an authoritarian "tendency," but what defines authoritarianism.

The question I want to raise is which point of view has more merit. Does man tend toward the animal when unconstrained by force of law, or is goodness his natural state, a state that is basically harmed by an authoritarian state. I'm not sure, but I think Jefferson might argue that a strong state actually corrupts people rather than making them safer.

It's an age-old question, but in which I would agree with Jefferson.
And given your many discussions about how children have to be taught to hate themselves, I would think you would agree too.

At any rate somebody has to deal with those who do actually violate other people's rights, I guess some kind of state authority.

Humans are self-organizing. If we are not conscious of the authorities we create, then those authorities will act contrary to our interests (and in the long term, their own, ironically).
And once again, Jefferson was there:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

BTW, note that alter comes before abolish.

 

[sandorski]

You can not have High Density populations without some kind of Strong Central Authority. The trick is to keep that authority from becoming Totalitarian. By and large our Western "Democracies" have done a very good job maintaining a reasonable balance.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: sandorski
You can not have High Density populations without some kind of Strong Central Authority. The trick is to keep that authority from becoming Totalitarian. By and large our Western "Democracies" have done a very good job maintaining a reasonable balance.

You're right. There's nothing totalitarian about invasions of sovereign nations on non-existant evidence, or spying on people's phone calls without warrants. That's just good governance right there. :roll:

Is there any abuse you won't overlook in your quest for absolute governmental rule, sandorski?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski
You can not have High Density populations without some kind of Strong Central Authority. The trick is to keep that authority from becoming Totalitarian. By and large our Western "Democracies" have done a very good job maintaining a reasonable balance.

You're right. There's nothing totalitarian about invasions of sovereign nations on non-existant evidence, or spying on people's phone calls without warrants. That's just good governance right there. :roll:

Is there any abuse you won't overlook in your quest for absolute governmental rule, sandorski?

whoa down there.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski
You can not have High Density populations without some kind of Strong Central Authority. The trick is to keep that authority from becoming Totalitarian. By and large our Western "Democracies" have done a very good job maintaining a reasonable balance.

You're right. There's nothing totalitarian about invasions of sovereign nations on non-existant evidence, or spying on people's phone calls without warrants. That's just good governance right there. :roll:

Is there any abuse you won't overlook in your quest for absolute governmental rule, sandorski?

Looks like you just nailed the major weak spot of the left. They hate Bush and the current government, yet their answer to it is just more government. Then you have the so called party of small government that started all of this. They're all hypocrites.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
...
So is man basically good or evil? Do we need a strong central state to protect us against the dark side of our nature or is all that a mistake and what we need is to allow our natural goodness to flower by keeping the state rather small and at bey.

I don't grant the premise that those are the only options, or that the two questions are related. Government can and should be about more than protecting people from themselves or forcing people to be "good". I'm an idealist about human nature, and I still think the libertarian approach to government is probably not a good idea.

The problem with the question you're asking is that it assumes that the general actions taken by government are fixed and that the only choice we have is in the magnitude of government action. I think there is a third choice...not small government, or big government, but GOOD government. The "strength" is an irrelevant question, it should be determined by what we want government to accomplish, it should not be the deciding factor.

I think your point was alluded to by Vic, essentially, when he used the word 'balance' here:

"I'm a Jeffersonian. A person should always be assumed to be good first, and treated as evil only as punishment for actually committing evil. It is a balancing act though. But it does no good to society to waste our efforts punishing those who have not actually done any harm."

A good government, I should think, would be one that is successful at threading between the extremes, no?

I have a hard time comprehending what exactly libertarianism is so I wish I knew more about what you mean by thinking it not a good idea. I am an idealist who is suspicious, even of my optimism.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski
You can not have High Density populations without some kind of Strong Central Authority. The trick is to keep that authority from becoming Totalitarian. By and large our Western "Democracies" have done a very good job maintaining a reasonable balance.

You're right. There's nothing totalitarian about invasions of sovereign nations on non-existant evidence, or spying on people's phone calls without warrants. That's just good governance right there. :roll:

Is there any abuse you won't overlook in your quest for absolute governmental rule, sandorski?

Looks like you just nailed the major weak spot of the left. They hate Bush and the current government, yet their answer to it is just more government. Then you have the so called party of small government that started all of this. They're all hypocrites.

Nah, he just went off on some bizarre tangent.

 

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski
You can not have High Density populations without some kind of Strong Central Authority. The trick is to keep that authority from becoming Totalitarian. By and large our Western "Democracies" have done a very good job maintaining a reasonable balance.

You're right. There's nothing totalitarian about invasions of sovereign nations on non-existant evidence, or spying on people's phone calls without warrants. That's just good governance right there. :roll:

Is there any abuse you won't overlook in your quest for absolute governmental rule, sandorski?

Looks like you just nailed the major weak spot of the left. They hate Bush and the current government, yet their answer to it is just more government. Then you have the so called party of small government that started all of this. They're all hypocrites.

Folks on the left want credit for pointing out problems, but want others to bear the cost and do the work to implement their preferred solutions.

Folks on the right want credit for pointing out that the left's proposed solutions are wildly impractical, and want others to bear the cost of pretending the problem doesn't exist at all.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: sandorski
You can not have High Density populations without some kind of Strong Central Authority. The trick is to keep that authority from becoming Totalitarian. By and large our Western "Democracies" have done a very good job maintaining a reasonable balance.

I agree with Sandorski. Maintaining a reasonable balance is everything.

And, risking a slippery slope, if States can serve their populations better than the Fed how about taking that a step further by giving Local governments more control? No doubt Local governments know what's best for their interests. How about districts within that Local government? They could truly serve their population better than Federal, State, or Local.

The problem is that providing more power to lesser units creates feifdoms. While I also believe most men are inherently good, I understand that it only requires one or two that aren't to turn any system upside down.

Our problem has never been the many. It's always the few.

 

[Moonbeam]

Vic: I'll take this as compliment. Thanks, Moonie.

M: It was and you are welcome.

V: And I wouldn't call that an authoritarian "tendency," but what defines authoritarianism.

M: You are likely closer to reality there. It is odd too because one would think authoritarianism should come out as more developed expertise and experience.

V: It's an age-old question, but in which I would agree with Jefferson.
And given your many discussions about how children have to be taught to hate themselves, I would think you would agree too.

M: I do, but, to address Rainsford's point that an either or approach is the answer, I also see that once self hate is established a person can become dangerous, both to himself and others.

There are a ton of issues this raises. Is there such a thing as objectivity or wisdom based on experience? Can one person have real vision and another be a fool? How do we determine who has the more balanced, good government point of view.

Where self hate is the unconscious motive in a person's point of view he is destructive of the common good, and where there is liberal thinking and a belief in the goodness of man there is tolerance and good will for others. We can hope that self organizing societies can successfully deal with both types. But for a number of years, it seems to me, the apes have been in control.

V: Humans are self-organizing. If we are not conscious of the authorities we create, then those authorities will act contrary to our interests (and in the long term, their own, ironically).

And once again, Jefferson was there:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

M: M: A pendulum swing perhaps that awakens those asleep on the other side.


V: BTW, note that alter comes before abolish.

M: I have noticed that.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski
You can not have High Density populations without some kind of Strong Central Authority. The trick is to keep that authority from becoming Totalitarian. By and large our Western "Democracies" have done a very good job maintaining a reasonable balance.

You're right. There's nothing totalitarian about invasions of sovereign nations on non-existant evidence, or spying on people's phone calls without warrants. That's just good governance right there. :roll:

Is there any abuse you won't overlook in your quest for absolute governmental rule, sandorski?

Looks like you just nailed the major weak spot of the left. They hate Bush and the current government, yet their answer to it is just more government. Then you have the so called party of small government that started all of this. They're all hypocrites.

Folks on the left want credit for pointing out problems, but want others to bear the cost and do the work to implement their preferred solutions.

Folks on the right want credit for pointing out that the left's proposed solutions are wildly impractical, and want others to bear the cost of pretending the problem doesn't exist at all.

:laugh::thumbsup:

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski
You can not have High Density populations without some kind of Strong Central Authority. The trick is to keep that authority from becoming Totalitarian. By and large our Western "Democracies" have done a very good job maintaining a reasonable balance.

You're right. There's nothing totalitarian about invasions of sovereign nations on non-existant evidence, or spying on people's phone calls without warrants. That's just good governance right there. :roll:

Is there any abuse you won't overlook in your quest for absolute governmental rule, sandorski?

Looks like you just nailed the major weak spot of the left. They hate Bush and the current government, yet their answer to it is just more government. Then you have the so called party of small government that started all of this. They're all hypocrites.

Folks on the left want credit for pointing out problems, but want others to bear the cost and do the work to implement their preferred solutions.

Folks on the right want credit for pointing out that the left's proposed solutions are wildly impractical, and want others to bear the cost of pretending the problem doesn't exist at all.

:laugh::thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski
You can not have High Density populations without some kind of Strong Central Authority. The trick is to keep that authority from becoming Totalitarian. By and large our Western "Democracies" have done a very good job maintaining a reasonable balance.

You're right. There's nothing totalitarian about invasions of sovereign nations on non-existant evidence, or spying on people's phone calls without warrants. That's just good governance right there. :roll:

Is there any abuse you won't overlook in your quest for absolute governmental rule, sandorski?

Looks like you just nailed the major weak spot of the left. They hate Bush and the current government, yet their answer to it is just more government. Then you have the so called party of small government that started all of this. They're all hypocrites.

Nah, he just went off on some bizarre tangent.

No tangent at all, you're just being ignorant as usual. You're always appealing to the need for more and more heavy handed central government under the misguided notion that it can be controlled. It can't. You then stated that western governments have done a good job maintaining a balance. I pointed out how stupid that is. The UK is spying on their citizens flagrantly. The US starts useless wars. Germany is stepping right back into their old goose-stepping boots. There's scarce little standing between most of the west and totalitarianism these days and it's getting worse not better.

You should really learn how to make the connect between one post and another. Maybe you wouldn't be such a useless tool around here if you could actually respond with something intelligent.