Anyone ever really think about what the Founding Fathers of the United States wanted for this country?
Our founding fathers wanted to protect the rich and their property from the start. James Madison was against Democracy and suggested a Republic to cure the problem of a Democracy. He thought the problem with Democracy is that the people have too much participation. He was worried about the have-nots becoming a faction that wanted equal representation and distribution messing with the riches and property of the haves. This whole country was formed as an oligarchy disguised as a Republic promoted as a Democracy. It was always about controlling factions of the majority poor. If you have the time to read the Federalist Papers, No. 10, you will see it.
The Constitution was invented just to get the people to accept the oligarchy. These guys never intended for Americans to have much real freedom.
The Electoral College was also invented to quell Democracy.
The American Dream!
5
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
9 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.
It all boils down to whether or not you believe the document to be a "living document" or should be read literally as it was originally intended. The problem? In Madisons time we were an angrarian society, very little thought given to the future as a whole except by Hamilton (also one of the three authors of the Federalists papers). Hamilton rightly realized that by including a Bill of Right some assholes would assume that the rights listed were the only rights ever to be allowed.
clarkatticus
Level 7
Apr 6, 2018
0
That doesn't mean it wasn't set up to be an oligarchy though. It has remained as such.
An oligarchy requires a wealthy business class. John Hancock was the richest man in America at the time. Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, Randolph and Paine all died either in debt or poor. Washington grew very wealthy through prudent land acquisition and business choices. Adams, Franklin both died comfortable. There was no one to be an oligarch. The nation was 90% farmers.
@clarkatticus I see, but don't you still think they had the protection of the money elite's property as their priority. Or at least Madison did. Madison is quoted as saying something to the effect of protecting the minority of the opulent from the majority.
@clarkatticus An oligarchy is also described as being controlled by nobility, wealth, family ties, education or corporate, religious or military control. It doesn't just have to be a wealthy business class.
Perhaps you never noticed that there is a quote from every forefather to cover either side of any issue. In the end its up to us to do the right thing. We are in control.
It's probably not a good idea to consider what they wanted. We have to consider what works best. Rule of mob isn't a good idea either. It didn't work in ancient Greece. It took a vocal minority for the Nazis and Fascists to come to power.
I think we use the term, "ignorant masses" for a reason. Most people aren't qualified to make a judgement about political processes, let alone be the sole arbiters.
The constitution in my opinion came about to correct for the holes in the articles of confederation. To be a country we had to have taxes and a banking network. As a side note, we also need a way to control the boom and bust nature of the economy, and for that, you need a strong central government which no state wanted at the time.
Phyphrus
Level 5
Apr 6, 2018
0
We have Keynesianism for the boom and bust aspect of the economy. Keynes was an ultra-conservative. He hated American Keynesians. He created Keynesianism to protect capitalism, but he didn't want government intervention into the free market. Ironic.
The problem with our government is getting honest people to govern. The system is set up so honest people don't get a chance to govern. How do we fix it?
Well, yeah, but it's only possible because of the large central gov with a system for regulating currency. That's why they wanted a national bank.
@Phyphrus Yeah. I just find it ironic because Keynes was against government intervention. They can't call it a free market when there is government intervention. I think capitalism per say wants a regulated market. It's the only way for it to survive. Even when certain corporations conspire against others, it's really not a free market.
@Piece2YourPuzzle Nobody wants a free market. They want free enterprise.
I don’t take the intentions of the founding fathers as gospel. They had some great ideas and made a great bill of rights. They also wisely put in mechanisms for amendments so that the constitution can change as the times do.
indirect76
Level 7
Apr 6, 2018
0
You don't think we have had the same system since the late 1700s that favors the rich and owners? I mean just look at the wealth gap and how it is wider than ever before in our history. The overall system isn't in the Constitution or it's option to amend it. Besides, it must be amended by either 2/3 of Congress or 2/3 of the State legislatures. The gatekeepers. The Constitution is the illusion of equality of the system. It's helpful and useful in ways, but it's not a cure to what was intended to be basically an oligarchy. It was intended as something to mask the subservience of the majority poor. Ownership is what matters. The Constitution is like giving the slaves the comfort of the warmth of the house instead of sleeping outside. It makes the house slave think he or she is better and safer and a part of the "haves" in a way, in my opinion. Do you really think the rich and those that own corporations etc. are equally treated under the law or in society in general in terms of privilege than the majority lower and middle classes?
@Piece2YourPuzzle I don’t think the system inherently favors the rich. The folks with money and power just use their resources to ensure they keep it or gain more. It’s not surprising.
I fear the tyranny of a democracy. Even with a constitution, we've had to struggle through every issue from religion, sex, and race. A pure democracy would be terrible. People fear change so much that they'll do terrible things in order to keep other ideas and people from power.
And the scariest part is that they'll see themselves as the good guys the whole time...
Coalperson
Level 3
Apr 6, 2018
1
A pure democracy would probably be terrible, but these guys set up a system that disguised itself as being for the people. They just didn't mention which people or lied about which people it would protect lol
Whoa now I've got all this research to do. Good info to check.
sassygirl3869
Level 9
Apr 6, 2018
2
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.