Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: Was the Constitutional Convention about property rights?

  1. #11
    Guru Xelor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:31 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,789

    Re: Was the Constitutional Convention about property rights?

    Was the Constitutional Convention about property rights?
    Of course it was! How could one think it wasn't? The main source of dissatisfaction the revolutionary Colonists had with King George III's government was that it was depriving them of property and giving them no say in the before, during or after of doing so.
    Those who jettison the epistemological standards of science are no longer in a position to use their intellectual product to make any claims about what is true of the world or to dispute the others’ claims about what is true. - Tooby & Cosmides
    The lion does not turn around when a small dog barks. -- African Proverb

  2. #12
    Guru Xelor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:31 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,789

    Re: Was the Constitutional Convention about property rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vadinho View Post
    All I can say is that the first 100 years of our history was all about property rights. Every time a new state was formed, land speculators made fortunes. Washington, Jefferson and most of the crew had vast land holdings, immense pieces of land. Follow the money folks, follow the money.
    I think the entirety of our history has been about property and rights to and uses of it.

    While we romanticize the religious freedom seekers who settled at Plymouth, the reality is the tenets of entrepreneurship borne of East India Company colonists and likeminded business owners is wherefrom America's legacy, economic and sociopolitical sensibilities come.

    Quite simply, people came to the colonies mostly to get rich or richer than they could get in Europe. After all, it's not as though Europe's nobility boarded boats and sailed thousands of miles to the colonies. Why would they? They already enjoyed the "good life" right where they were. Unless they faced execution, incarceration or something similarly debilitating, the aristocracy had no reason to emigrate.
    Those who jettison the epistemological standards of science are no longer in a position to use their intellectual product to make any claims about what is true of the world or to dispute the others’ claims about what is true. - Tooby & Cosmides
    The lion does not turn around when a small dog barks. -- African Proverb

  3. #13
    Educator
    Vadinho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    736

    Re: Was the Constitutional Convention about property rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by Xelor View Post
    I think the entirety of our history has been about property and rights to and uses of it.

    While we romanticize the religious freedom seekers who settled at Plymouth, the reality is the tenets of entrepreneurship borne of East India Company colonists and likeminded business owners is wherefrom America's legacy, economic and sociopolitical sensibilities come.

    Quite simply, people came to the colonies mostly to get rich or richer than they could get in Europe. After all, it's not as though Europe's nobility boarded boats and sailed thousands of miles to the colonies. Why would they? They already enjoyed the "good life" right where they were. Unless they faced execution, incarceration or something similarly debilitating, the aristocracy had no reason to emigrate.
    Correctamundo. In fact, the aristocracy had very little reason to move here at all, they could make money sitting in London a lot easier then slogging it out in the colonies. GB created a new economy out of the older feudal economy in the 1700s to 1800s. It was based upon the rule of law, separation of the courts from the King, the creation of corporations and credit. Companies became imperialists by using the investments of thousands to fund ventures abroad using the GB legal and economic umbrella to expand capitalism everywhere and anywhere they wanted to go. The King was ready to enforce their efforts through force if necessary. Our founders eventually wanted to do it themselves without getting skimmed by capitalists and monarchies hence the revolution. Yes along with it were ideas created by the great thinkers of the Enlightenment and Age of Reason, these were learned men who were deep thinkers but it was really about money, property rights, taxation and power.

  4. #14
    Guru Xelor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:31 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,789

    Re: Was the Constitutional Convention about property rights?

    Those who own the country ought to govern it.
    -- William Jay, quoting his father, John Jay, Life of John Jay: with selections from his correspondence and miscellaneous papers


    Quote Originally Posted by Vadinho View Post
    Our founders eventually wanted to do it themselves without getting skimmed by capitalists
    Red:
    The Founders were capitalists, through and through.
    • Franklin --> Publishing, chandlery
    • Jefferson --> Agriculture
    • Washington --> Agriculture
    • Adams --> Law, farming and cobblery
    • Hamilton --> Writing
    • Madison --> Agriculture
    • John Jay --> Law
    • John Hancock --> Merchant

    Examine the lives of the 1st and 2nd Continental Congress, the signers of the Articles, Declaration or Constitution, the state legislators and executives. Every last one of them was a capitalist. They owned factors of production -- land, labor or capital -- and availed to profit their title thereunto.

    Distinguishing a very small few from the rest is their "Horatio Algerism." Make no mistake; however, mostly the Founders inherited wealth, status and power and had the enviable task of not losing it.


    Aside:
    One would be remiss thinking the Founders sought to form a democracy. They did not. They sought a republic, as stated in Federalist 10.

    A communication and concert result from [democracy] itself; and there is nothing to check the [impetus] to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property...Theoretic politicians, who have patronized [democracy], have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect [political] equality, [mankind would simultaneously] be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and...passions.

    It clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy...is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, -- is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments.

    Madison could not have been clearer:

    • Republic is better than democracy.
    • The "talented 10th" ought be who manage the state.

    To them injustice meant "messing" with the power (all forms of it), riches, property and means of obtaining and retaining either by those who hold all three.

    Madison was not unique in his disapprobation of the notion that the hoi polloi have saw in government.
    All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well-born, the other the mass of the people… The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct permanent share in the government…
    -- Alexander Hamilton
    Succinctly: the Founders sought to replace the monarchical aristocratic plutocracy under which they lived with a republican geniocratic plutocracy.

    I cannot count how often I see and hear folks -- here as well in the "general public" -- repeat the highly idealized Founding Fathers themes typical of texts read by, or at times to, elementary schoolers. The problem isn't that those narratives are wrong -- they're not -- it's that they're trivial, flagrantly incomplete.

    The Founders, unlike "everyone else," thrived under monarchy, the culture to which they were born, for they were, like their Continental counterparts, among the most well read, well educated, well traveled and thoughtful people in Western Civilization. The Founders (those whose names we know and those we don't) had a problem with the monarch, from across a damn ocean, claiming as his own more of their property and wealth than they cared to part with. They also weren't keen on inserting himself into, not only their economic and financial affairs, but also into their local/colonial political lives. (The rural vs. urban political divide roiling us today is substantively the same animus that was extant between the Founders and their English governors, i.e., the King and Parliament.) Were George III less avaricious, we'd be Brits.
    Those who jettison the epistemological standards of science are no longer in a position to use their intellectual product to make any claims about what is true of the world or to dispute the others’ claims about what is true. - Tooby & Cosmides
    The lion does not turn around when a small dog barks. -- African Proverb

  5. #15
    Educator
    Vadinho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    736

    Re: Was the Constitutional Convention about property rights?

    At the time, capitalism was the creation of merchants and government in Great Britain or England. The colonists continued that model here as they became more successful. In this conversation, we are both right. Remember that during the time of the colonies, everything was controlled by the King and the wealthy back in England. Yes, one could rise up and become wealthy here but you were part of a system that was not in your control nor did you or any other colonist make the majority of the money being made by the expansion of England into the Americas. While monetary interests drove them to rebellion, the founders also dreamed of a new system that did not require a King hence they looked back to Greece and Rome when it was a republic and not an empire. Your comments here are historically accurate, folks should rid themselves of the legends we created to tell stories promoting the new nation and see for themselves what truly happened. Your post is very helpful in this struggle.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •