• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Our Founding Fathers' Ideas

What should be done with the Founders' ideas?


  • Total voters
    58

Josie

*probably reading smut*
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
57,295
Reaction score
31,719
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I saw someone on here the other day say that the Founders are dead so who cares what they thought.

What are your opinions on the Founders' ideas and what we should be doing with them (if anything at all)?
 
I saw someone on here the other day say that the Founders are dead so who cares what they thought.

What are your opinions on the Founders' ideas and what we should be doing with them (if anything at all)?

The legal documents that they wrote (i.e. the constitution, bill of rights, declaration of independence, etc.) provide a framework for our government, but beyond that their opinions/thoughts/etc. are meaningless to the world of today. Once they no longer held official government positions (or at the very least once they were dead), their opinions on how the constitution/etc. should be interpreted ceased to be relevant.
 
That might've been me, except that I said they were misogynistic slave-owners (ie, products of their time) so who cares what they thought.
Which was a rhetorical question, by the way, because I know who cares: lots of people.
But I don't.
The constitution is of no more interest or relevance to me than the bible.
Ancient documents written by savages, who wouldn't have considered me- or the black family next door- human, or deserving of the same rights they so generously afforded themselves.
 
I saw someone on here the other day say that the Founders are dead so who cares what they thought.

I said that yesterday :mrgreen:

However my opinion on the matter is just that. They are dead and they had ideas that were good and appropriate for the society they found themselves in. Today things a different and that means we should have ideas that are appropriate for today. However, they did get many things right, in my view, so in reference to this poll, I think I will land on the idea that we need to build off what they did for two reasons.

1. Some aspects of human nature do not change regardless of technology and the constitution does a fairly good job in recognizing that, but their theories are not complete, and since we know a lot more about psychology and brain mechanics these days, I would like to see some of the assumptions about human nature that are placed in the constitution updated to reflect our present level of knowledge about humanity and what that means for our necessary rights.

2. You cannot simply transform the constitution without massive legal, governmental, and other authority problems. So for the sake of a peaceful social order, it would be better to expand and update.
 
Last edited:
That might've been me, except that I said they were misogynistic slave-owners (ie, products of their time) so who cares what they thought.
Which was a rhetorical question, by the way, because I know who cares: lots of people.
But I don't.
The constitution is of no more interest or relevance to me than the bible.
Ancient documents written by savages, who wouldn't have considered me- or the black family next door- human, or deserving of the same rights they so generously afforded themselves.

Yea, despite the fact that many of the Founders were the first abolitionists, most notably Benjamin Franklin, but don't let that get in the way of your revisionist history.

As for my part, I've yet to come across a more brilliant group of political philosophers and legal minds; anyone who says their opinions are worthless is worthless themselves.

If it weren't for those racist misogynists, you'd probably still be living under a dictatorship instead of a Constitutional Republic that places individual liberty above all else.
 
I said that yesterday :mrgreen:

However my opinion on the matter is just that. They are dead and they had ideas that were good and appropriate for the society they found themselves in. Today things a different and that means we should have ideas that are appropriate for today. However, they did get many things right, in my view, so in reference to this poll, I think I will land on the idea that we need to build off what they did for two reasons.

1. Some aspects of human nature do not change regardless of technology and the constitution does a fairly good job in recognizing that, but their theories are not complete, and since we know a lot more about psychology and brain mechanics these days, I would like to see some of the assumptions about human nature that are placed in the constitution updated to our present level of knowledge about humanity and what that means for our necessary rights.

2. You cannot simply transform the constitution without massive legal, governmental, and other authority problems. So for the sake of a peaceful social order, it would be better to expand and update.

A lame attempt to sweep a complex political and ethical philosophy under the rug with soundbites and empty platitudes.

Sorry, but it's going to take more than two paragraphs on an internet forum to adequately address the entirety of the Founders' theories and philosophies.
 
A lame attempt to sweep a complex political and ethical philosophy under the rug with soundbites and empty platitudes.

Sorry, but it's going to take more than two paragraphs on an internet forum to adequately address the entirety of the Founders' theories and philosophies.

I tend to post summaries of my thoughts due to the medium and my own laziness. If you have a concern or question about my thoughts, feel free to ask and I will be happy to have a discussion and expand on it. Just try to be specific since this tends to be a deep subject.
 
I tend to post summaries of my thoughts due to the medium and my own laziness. If you have a concern or question about my thoughts, feel free to ask and I will be happy to have a discussion and expand on it. Just try to be specific since this tends to be a deep subject.

You said, "Their theories are incomplete."

1. Which theories are you talking about, specifically? Could you cite them?

2. Why are they incomplete?

You also bring up our advanced knowledge of neuroscience, as if this renders their incites into basic human nature obsolete. Why would an increased understanding of our neural makeup render their incites into basic human nature obsolete?

You see, I have a problem with people who assume increased technology automatically translates into increased intelligence or perceptiveness. Humans are pretty simple creatures at the end of the day. We like to marvel at our own so-called knowledge, but we're really just a bunch of intelligent primates; fundamentally, we're no different than the first humans.
 
The founding fathers to a certain extent are worms in horseradish (the world is horseradish).

The founding fathers to another extent manifested Enlightenment philosophy into a government.

The founding fathers to a final extent are portrayed as men of their time (with much props to the ladies in their lives) who created a strong and stable system of government. One based on the idea of middle-class rule.

I think we should leave it as that and not interpret the founding father's ideology and philosophy to be more correct than ideologies and philosophies of today's fathers.
 
The founding fathers to a certain extent are worms in horseradish (the world is horseradish).

The founding fathers to another extent manifested Enlightenment philosophy into a government.

The founding fathers to a final extent are portrayed as men of their time (with much props to the ladies in their lives) who created a strong and stable system of government. One based on the idea of middle-class rule.

I think we should leave it as that and not interpret the founding father's ideology and philosophy to be more correct than ideologies and philosophies of today's fathers.

There are only so many ways to look at human nature; there are even less ways to form a government around those perceptions.

People don't realize that "new" philosophies and ideologies don't really exist anymore. Somebody has already thought of it, and probably put it into better words.

FUNDAMENTALLY, humans haven't changed one bit. We're still a bunch of fickle, self-centered animals who will only refrain from butchering one another if there's enough resources to go around, although that is no guarantee...
 
The legal documents that they wrote (i.e. the constitution, bill of rights, declaration of independence, etc.) provide a framework for our government, but beyond that their opinions/thoughts/etc. are meaningless to the world of today. Once they no longer held official government positions (or at the very least once they were dead), their opinions on how the constitution/etc. should be interpreted ceased to be relevant.

So if I sign a contract for a loan then the banker who signed dies, I shouldn't have to pay the bank?
 
You said, "Their theories are incomplete."

1. Which theories are you talking about, specifically? Could you cite them?

2. Why are they incomplete?

You also bring up our advanced knowledge of neuroscience, as if this renders their incites into basic human nature obsolete. Why would an increased understanding of our neural makeup render their incites into basic human nature obsolete?

Ok. The good old natural law discussion that I seem to have over and over (and over and over and over and over and over, its getting a bit tiring really, but I will go through it again)

Natural law as usually stated: Man without the influence of society seeks to own himself (life), his surroundings (property), and exercise his will (liberty, pursuit of happiness). Ok. I will focus on one of the aspects of the problems I have with this theory since the others have not been brought up.

Will (liberty).

1. Our will is not completely free. We know this. For example, if this was not true, we would not have disciplines like behavioral psychology. A market expression of this discipline would be advertising. It is pretty easy to influence human behavior to get what you want and it is easy to be influenced. Because of this flaw in our brains, our will becomes less free. Also we have to contend with our animal instincts for things like hunger, need for socialization, etc.

Because of this problem, we can easily be at the mercy of sophisticated and immoral people. Natural law does not formally recognize this issue and I cannot find where it was even considered back in the 1700s since it seems to be a relatively recent phenomenon (propaganda being around 100 years old).

2. Discontent. People tend to be happier when they are around others who have similar economic means as them. Poor people are happiest when they are around other poor people. Tribal societies have been shown to be less happy as they find out that there are other societies with far greater amounts of technology and wealth. This discontent can harm the social fabric and create unrest. Now we can argue all day about the morality of this phenomenon, but the fact is that it happens and it will continue to happen. But it was not something that was understood very well in the late 1700s. Natural law does not account for this because of its strong stance towards property.

You see, I have a problem with people who assume increased technology automatically translates into increased intelligence or perceptiveness. Humans are pretty simple creatures at the end of the day. We like to marvel at our own so-called knowledge, but we're really just a bunch of intelligent primates; fundamentally, we're no different than the first humans.

I agree, we have not evolved that much from the first humans but we understand ourselves a lot better.
 
So if I sign a contract for a loan then the banker who signed dies, I shouldn't have to pay the bank?

No, but if there were some ambiguity in the contract, then it would be up to a judge today to rule on it, the opinion of the man who drafted the contract would be irrelevant, just as the opinions of the founding fathers on how the documents they wrote should be interpreted are irrelevant.

I'm not saying we should ignore the constitution, I'm saying that when it comes to interpreting it, the opinions of people alive today matter and the opinions of people who died 200 years ago don't.
 
No, but if there were some ambiguity in the contract, then it would be up to a judge today to rule on it, the opinion of the man who drafted the contract would be irrelevant, just as the opinions of the founding fathers on how the documents they wrote should be interpreted are irrelevant.

I'm not saying we should ignore the constitution, I'm saying that when it comes to interpreting it, the opinions of people alive today matter and the opinions of people who died 200 years ago don't.
Actually, if the dead man's opinions were written down, the judge should find much interest in them to decide on some perceived ambiguity.

What is ambiguous in the Constitution? It is clear and well-written.
 
Ok. The good old natural law discussion that I seem to have over and over (and over and over and over and over and over, its getting a bit tiring really, but I will go through it again)

Natural law as usually stated: Man without the influence of society seeks to own himself (life), his surroundings (property), and exercise his will (liberty, pursuit of happiness). Ok. I will focus on one of the aspects of the problems I have with this theory since the others have not been brought up.

Will (liberty).

1. Our will is not completely free. We know this. For example, if this was not true, we would not have disciplines like behavioral psychology. A market expression of this discipline would be advertising. It is pretty easy to influence human behavior to get what you want and it is easy to be influenced. Because of this flaw in our brains, our will becomes less free. Also we have to contend with our animal instincts for things like hunger, need for socialization, etc.

Because of this problem, we can easily be at the mercy of sophisticated and immoral people. Natural law does not formally recognize this issue and I cannot find where it was even considered back in the 1700s since it seems to be a relatively recent phenomenon (propaganda being around 100 years old).

I'm not sure where you're getting this. Of course the Founders understood that people were subject to the influence of others; again, this is just basic human psychology, something they accounted for in their writings. For instance, Thomas Jefferson said:

Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.

As you can plainly see, Thomas Jefferson understood quite well that people are subject to the ill influence of sophisticated and immoral people. This is just one example of literally thousands that I could show you, demonstrating the Founder' ability to perceive exactly what you say they cannot.

Perhaps you should, I dunno, sit down and read them at length, instead of trying to encapsulate the culmination of hundreds of years of political and ethical philosophy into these convenient soundbites. I'm not trying to be rude, but you don't seem to understand their "theories" very well.

Also, where in the world did you get the idea that "propaganda" (which is nothing more than the deliberate 'propagation' of information or ideology) is only a 100 years old!? For as long as ideas have existed, humans have sought to propagate them; this is certainly not a recent phenomenon.

2. Discontent. People tend to be happier when they are around others who have similar economic means as them. Poor people are happiest when they are around other poor people. Tribal societies have been shown to be less happy as they find out that there are other societies with far greater amounts of technology and wealth. This discontent can harm the social fabric and create unrest. Now we can argue all day about the morality of this phenomenon, but the fact is that it happens and it will continue to happen. But it was not something that was understood very well in the late 1700s. Natural law does not account for this because of its strong stance towards property.

Oh, you're railing against private property now. I can see where this is going...

I agree, we have not evolved that much from the first humans but we understand ourselves a lot better.

We understand the mechanisms better, but we certainly don't understand "ourselves" any better than the Founders or even the ancient Chinese did.
 
No, but if there were some ambiguity in the contract, then it would be up to a judge today to rule on it, the opinion of the man who drafted the contract would be irrelevant, just as the opinions of the founding fathers on how the documents they wrote should be interpreted are irrelevant.

I'm not saying we should ignore the constitution, I'm saying that when it comes to interpreting it, the opinions of people alive today matter and the opinions of people who died 200 years ago don't.

This is the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

You think the people who ACTUALLY WROTE the legal document in question should be disregarded when trying to interpret its meaning? Do you have any idea how absurd that sounds?

I suppose we should just throw our past into the dustbin, eh? Look towards the glorious future of "progress" and "change", right?

You liberals, man. You really creep me out sometimes...
 
I'm not sure where you're getting this. Of course the Founders understood that people were subject to the influence of others; again, this is just basic human psychology, something they accounted for in their writings. For instance, Thomas Jefferson said:

Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.

As you can plainly see, Thomas Jefferson understood quite well that people are subject to the ill influence of sophisticated and immoral people. This is just one example of literally thousands that I could show you, demonstrating the Founder' ability to perceive exactly what you say they cannot.

Perhaps you should, I dunno, sit down and read them at length, instead of trying to encapsulate the culmination of hundreds of years of political and ethical philosophy into these convenient soundbites. I'm not trying to be rude, but you don't seem to understand their "theories" very well.

Also, where in the world did you get the idea that "propaganda" (which is nothing more than the deliberate 'propagation' of information or ideology) is only a 100 years old!? For as long as ideas have existed, humans have sought to propagate them; this is certainly not a recent phenomenon.

I am sorry, but the mechanisms for propaganda are by far more sophisticated than a mere newspaper from the 1700s. :lol:

Today we have advertisers who are hooking people to MRI machines to study their effectiveness and while industries that are dedicated to deception, not some editor of some broad sheet. It is a huge difference.

Sure, there was some problem back than. But it is nothing like it is today.

Oh, you're railing against private property now. I can see where this is going...

What do you foresee?

We understand the mechanisms better, but we certainly don't understand "ourselves" any better than the Founders or even the ancient Chinese did.

I disagree. We are our mechanisms. The more we understand how we work, the more can undermine ourselves.
 
I am sorry, but the mechanisms for propaganda are by far more sophisticated than a mere newspaper from the 1700s. :lol:

But that's not what you said. You said "propaganda" was only 100 years old. Obviously, you have no clue what you're talking about, as it has existed for as long as ideas themselves.

Furthermore, you ignored the fact that your premise was totally wrong. The Founders obviously DID understand that people were subject to the influence of sophisticated and immoral people.

It's plainly obvious that you haven't read nearly enough of their writings to presume to know whether or not their "theories" are "incomplete".

Today we have advertisers who are hooking people to MRI machines to study their effectiveness and while industries that are dedicated to deception, not some editor of some broad sheet. It is a huge difference.

Funny, because advertisements have little to no effect on me; in fact, I absolutely hate most commercials and advertisements. Why don't these amazing techniques have any effect on me?

Sure, there was some problem back than. But it is nothing like it is today.

Again, you are resorting to ridiculously over-simplified platitudes to make your case. Comparing the relative effectiveness of "propaganda" from two different time periods is going to require a lot more leg work than two measly sentences.

What do you foresee?

A bunch of socialist BS. Talk about outdated...

I disagree. We are our mechanisms. The more we understand how we work, the more can undermine ourselves.

Are you honestly trying to say that Buddha or Socrates or Benjamin Franklin didn't understand themselves as well as you do? HA!
 
You think the people who ACTUALLY WROTE the legal document in question should be disregarded when trying to interpret its meaning?

Yes, I do. If they wanted it to be interpreted in a particular way, they should have written the document so that it could be interpreted in ONLY that way.

Do you have any idea how absurd that sounds?

Doesn't sound at all absurd to me. Certainly no more so than the idea that the opinions of men who've been dead for 200 years should count for more in how we run our country than the opinions of people alive today who actually have to live here.

I suppose we should just throw our past into the dustbin, eh? Look towards the glorious future of "progress" and "change", right?

I didn't say that.

You liberals, man. You really creep me out sometimes...

Your views creep me out just as much.
 
But that's not what you said. You said "propaganda" was only 100 years old. Obviously, you have no clue what you're talking about, as it has existed for as long as ideas themselves.

Furthermore, you ignored the fact that your premise was totally wrong. The Founders obviously DID understand that people were subject to the influence of sophisticated and immoral people.

It's plainly obvious that you haven't read nearly enough of their writings to presume to know whether or not their "theories" are "incomplete".

Yes and I stand by that. Propaganda as a political tool is about 100 years old I think. This does not mean some editor of some newspaper didn't tailor articles to their view on things. Those are two completely different animals. Jefferson was addressing one, but not the other.

One is an applied discipline while the other is just editing or writing with a viewpoint.

Funny, because advertisements have little to no effect on me; in fact, I absolutely hate most commercials and advertisements. Why don't these amazing techniques have any effect on me?

If you believe that than I doubt you understand the nature of advertising. I very much doubt that it has not affected your prejudices one way or another.

Again, you are resorting to ridiculously over-simplified platitudes to make your case. Comparing the relative effectiveness of "propaganda" from two different time periods is going to require a lot more leg work than two measly sentences.

Dude, seriously, I am not going to write a 50 page master's thesis in a forum. I believe this website is best utilized with short writings and I will continue to use it that way. I do not care if you do not think I am giving this subject matter the respect it deserves because I am giving it the respect I think it deserves and I am doing the writing.

A bunch of socialist BS. Talk about outdated...

I am not a socialist. I think the market economy is a very useful thing for society.

Are you honestly trying to say that Buddha or Socrates or Benjamin Franklin didn't understand themselves as well as you do? HA!

No I am not. I am saying that science trumps philosophy.
 
Yes, I do. If they wanted it to be interpreted in a particular way, they should have written the document so that it could be interpreted in ONLY that way.

The majority of the Constitution WAS written so as to be interpreted in a specific and easily defined manner, yet we still have intellectually dishonest liberals and progressives who think black is white and up is down; just look at their creative view of the Second Amendment, for starters.

Doesn't sound at all absurd to me. Certainly no more so than the idea that the opinions of men who've been dead for 200 years should count for more in how we run our country than the opinions of people alive today who actually have to live here.

This country was FOUNDED BY THEM. They FOUGHT AND DIED so that you could freely malign them from the comfort of your private property. Their opinions are not more important, but they are certainly still relevant.

You're just a typical liberal ingrate.

I didn't say that.

That's precisely what you're saying. If you think we should totally disregard the views of our Founders when interpreting the document THEY WROTE then you're throwing that part of our history into the dustbin.

Your views creep me out just as much.

What's creepy about maximizing individual liberty!? Is there something wrong with wanting to be left alone by intrusive government and liberal busy-bodies?

How Orwellian of you...
 
Actually, if the dead man's opinions were written down, the judge should find much interest in them to decide on some perceived ambiguity.

What is ambiguous in the Constitution? It is clear and well-written.

Some examples of ambiguity.

Article I section 8, the infamous "general welfare" clause.

The difference in wording between Article I section 1 and Article II section 1, and the fact that 'executive power' in article II section 1 is not defined.

Article II section 4, which states that the president should be impeached for treason, bribery, and certain other 'high crimes and misdemeanors', but neither defines 'high crimes and misdemeanors' nor offers any suggestions as to exactly how the chief executive should be removed from office.

Article III section 3 which defines treason partly as 'giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the united states', but does not specify what exactly construes 'giving aid and comfort'.

Heck, even minor things such as the use of 'from time to time' when requiring things like state of the union addresses and publishing the journal of congressional proceedings.

There are tons of things in the constitution that are ambiguous and open to interpretation.
 
Yes and I stand by that. Propaganda as a political tool is about 100 years old I think.

You are absolutely one-percent wrong.

This does not mean some editor of some newspaper didn't tailor articles to their view on things. Those are two completely different animals. Jefferson was addressing one, but not the other.

And what are you basing this on, exactly? Your extensive knowledge of editing techniques during post-Revolutionary America? You've already demonstrated your ignorance of basic political history (propaganda is only 100 years old) as well as a limited understanding of the Founders' writings. Why should I take your assessments seriously when they're just ill-conceived and largely unsubstantiated?

One is an applied discipline while the other is just editing or writing with a viewpoint.

You really think modern marketing is more effective at swaying people than the political rhetoric of the Founders or Karl Marx? Who would YOU be more swayed by? Socrates or the Progressive Lady?

Last time I checked, Americans weren't overthrowing the government in the name of Burger King or Walmart...

If you believe that than I doubt you understand the nature of advertising. I very much doubt that it has not affected your prejudices one way or another.

You act like the advertisers have some psychological stranglehold over me; I can assure you that they don't.

Dude, seriously, I am not going to write a 50 page master's thesis in a forum. I believe this website is best utilized with short writings and I will continue to use it that way. I do not care if you do not think I am giving this subject matter the respect it deserves because I am giving it the respect I think it deserves and I am doing the writing.

I never asked you to write a 50 page thesis, but if you're going to comment on matters of great complexity, don't expect me to sit here and nod my head like a moron just because you typed out a few sentences.

I am not a socialist. I think the market economy is a very useful thing for society.

Well, you obviously have some issue with private property. Feel free to elaborate on it.

No I am not. I am saying that science trumps philosophy.

Science doesn't trump philosophy when the topic IS philosophy.

And despite not having access to MRIs and modern technology, Socrates and Buddha still had a profound understanding of human nature and personal fulfillment. I doubt very much that any modern person could match the depth of their wisdom and understanding simply because they had access to scientific literature.
 
You are absolutely one-percent wrong.



And what are you basing this on, exactly? Your extensive knowledge of editing techniques during post-Revolutionary America? You've already demonstrated your ignorance of basic political history (propaganda is only 100 years old) as well as a limited understanding of the Founders' writings. Why should I take your assessments seriously when they're just ill-conceived and largely unsubstantiated?



You really think modern marketing is more effective at swaying people than the political rhetoric of the Founders or Karl Marx? Who would YOU be more swayed by? Socrates or the Progressive Lady?

Last time I checked, Americans weren't overthrowing the government in the name of Burger King or Walmart...



You act like the advertisers have some psychological stranglehold over me; I can assure you that they don't.



I never asked you to write a 50 page thesis, but if you're going to comment on matters of great complexity, don't expect me to sit here and nod my head like a moron just because you typed out a few sentences.



Well, you obviously have some issue with private property. Feel free to elaborate on it.



Science doesn't trump philosophy when the topic IS philosophy.

And despite not having access to MRIs and modern technology, Socrates and Buddha still had a profound understanding of human nature and personal fulfillment. I doubt very much that any modern person could match the depth of their wisdom and understanding simply because they had access to scientific literature.

Wish I could continue the conversation but it looks like I have some family obligations and I will probably forget most of this by the time I get back. So I will concede the point to you by nature of forfeit.

I had to do it to LaMidRighter too, but I thought this stupid thing would start an hour ago, but anyway, have fun.

:2wave:
 
Wish I could continue the conversation but it looks like I have some family obligations and I will probably forget most of this by the time I get back. So I will concede the point to you by nature of forfeit.

I had to do it to LaMidRighter too, but I thought this stupid thing would start an hour ago, but anyway, have fun.

:2wave:

Have a nice day!
 
Back
Top Bottom