- The citizens of the US Colonies had decided not to rebel against England.
- The citizens of the USA had decided to accept slavery and not fought the civil war.
- The citizens of the USA had not given women the right to vote.
- The citizens of the USA had decided to enforce prohibition instead of repealing it.
- The citizens of the USA had not become involved in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Middle East, etc.
- The citizens of the USA had left the plight of the poor, weak and needy to the private charities and work houses.
- The citizens of the USA had banned Unions.
- The citizens of the USA had not made Public Education mandatory.
- The citizens of the USA had converted the country to a full fledged Socialism or Communism.
- The citizens of the USA had chosen to not support the progressive tax system.
- The citizens of the USA had not chosen to set and enforce pollution limits.
Overall this self governing thing has worked out pretty well it seems. Or maybe you would have preferred a "Benevolent Dictatorship" that hopefully shared your beliefs? Or my co-workers in China seem to like their efficient Government, just think of a Fall with NO political attack ads...
20 comments:
The first thing that comes to my mind related to your topic is SCOTUS and the citizens united decision. I think of it as accelerating the end of democracy and its complete replacement with plutocracy. This decision can also be given much credit/blame for the campaign ads that we will be inundated with.
Technically that was the Supreme Court saying that the "citizens" had exceeded their Constitutional bounds. Remember, we must draw within the lines. (Wiki CU vs FEC
Now doesn't anyone have some more key turning point where you think the nation made the right or wrong choice? If it had gone the other way, would things have been better or worse?
On days when I am most frustrated with the GOP I think the north and south parting ways during civil war times might not have been such a bad thing.
North USA, of my imagination, is a social democracy with universal health care, paid sick leave, paid vacations, parental leave, high minimum wage, nearly free college etc. Like Canada but better. South USA is more like high poverty Mexico.
In general, I think most of the changes you mentioned are a matter of timing. Slavery might have ended in 1900 rather than 1862. Women's voting rights won in in 1950 rather than 1920. Had Germany been unsuccessfully opposed in its take over of Europe in WWII, independence of various regions/countries would be regained over time.
I believe the quote Obama sometimes uses about the arc of the universe bends towards justice. It is attributed to MLK, but really originates from a Unitarian minister.
It's hard to know when America started failing. That's something future historians will ponder. My own opinion is that at the heart of our failure is the rejection of the constitution, and the legitimacy of the government it created.
--Hiram
I am not about to second-guess every turning point of our brief but weighty American history. A quick glance at your list, however, leads me to believe that these decisions can be perceived as right or wrong simply by the measure of whether they maintain individual freedom or, conversely, grant more power to government. In some cases that measurement can only be made in hindsight, such as making public education mandatory and then requiring it to be provided by government employees, in government buildings, to government-determined curricula, and controlled by powerful political unions. Universal public education should have provided more freedom to the general public to better their economic lot, but the public school system as currently operated actually works counter to that freedom.
J. Ewing
I always wonder where this notion that the public has a monopoly on public education comes from. One would think that there are no schools except public schools and that no one had a choice other than go to them.
--Hiram
Let's see... Required by law to send kids to "school." Unable to afford private, parochial or homeschooling. Result, people FORCED to send kids to public school. Simple as that.
J. Ewing
"Unable to afford private, parochial or homeschooling."
The notion that we have a right to what we can't afford is an interesting one. I would extend it to health care, certainly. And I am willing to pay for schools that parents could not otherwise afford for their children. But I am just not quite willing to pay for any school a parent chooses. Really, how many school systems should I be expected to pay for?
--Hiram
Why are you paying for a "school system" at all? If you pay taxes to send a kid to school, and let the parents choose the school, the "system" in which that school operates is not your concern.
You are correct that we have no "right" to that which we cannot afford. However, when government COMPELS you to buy something, then they are morally obligated to provide it "free" if you cannot afford it, like an attorney. Take away the coercion in education and some kids get no education at all. Take away the choice and some kids get an education almost as bad as no education at all. A voucher solves both problems, and is the choice most supportive of individual freedom, which is my point.
J. EWing
"can be perceived as right or wrong simply by the measure of whether they maintain individual freedom or, conversely, grant more power to government"
Now isn't that a bit simplistic?
So if someone desires the freedom to pour waste into the river... This is a good thing?
So if someone decides that slave labor is good for their bottom line... This is a good thing?
It is a good thing you were not the slave or the person living down stream...
In in perfect world where people would not sacrifice others for their profit or convenience, your ideas may work. Until then there is regulation and government...
You are not applying the concept clearly, and increasing personal freedom CAN come with increased (but restrained) government regulation.
Slavery is a bad example, because somebody's freedom is completely lost. Early slavers got around that problem by refusing to recognize the humanity of their slaves.
Dumping waste into a river is a much better example, because my freedom to dump the waste reduces the freedom of many other (unknown) people to drink the water. Government regulation, properly constructed, decreases my freedom slightly in exchange for increasing -- restoring-- the freedom of others.
Would you be happier if I had said "grant /unreasonable/ power to the government"? Seems to me that is perfectly in line with the phrase "governments are instituted among men" [to secure their freedoms] from the Declaration. It SHOULD be a simple answer, as most fundamental principles are. Try it on a few of your questions before discarding the theory. Please.
J. Ewing
Humor me by applying this to one of the examples. I want to see how you apply it.
Presumably someone's failure to get health insurance reduces my freedom to the extent I have to pay for his health care.
Presumably someone's freedom to educate one's children privately reduces my freedom to the extent I am asked to pay for it. As the poet observed, no man is an island. Lots of decisions affect others and have an impact on the rights of others.
Bear in mind however that our lives are full of tradeoffs between freedom and security. Certainly many contracts are like that. One agrees to give up one's freedom, to make a commitment to do a job, in exchange for the security of a pay check.
--Hiram
John, I would be happy to apply the theory for you, but first permit me to back up just a bit. As I read the original question it was whether or not each of these turning points of US history turned us in a "good" or "bad" direction, as a nation. Reading literally, however, it appears you are only encouraging mental meandering as to the "impact" of a different decision – sort of a "time travelers repair manual" as to which events to alter and which to allow to stand. What I proposed was a general rule for how best to make each of those decisions, that is, that each of them should have been made in the direction of maintaining or increasing [aggregate] individual freedom.
What I now see is that what I have proposed is not only a guide for how those decisions should be made, but in fact a metric to know whether the actual decisions were good ones or bad ones. In other words, the guideline and the metric are one and the same. For example:
– The Revolution created more freedom for the Colonies. Good.
– The abolition of slavery created more freedom for the slaves. Good. That it would have happened within another generation or so without the Civil War is unfortunate and whether the horrendous loss of life in that war was "worth it" can be debated, while the subsequent loss of states' rights in favor of the federal government was a negative on the scales. Perhaps this is one of many of those decisions that "the citizens" might have made far better than did our leaders.
– If the "poor, weak and needy" had been left to private charity and to their own devices, freedom would have been vastly enhanced over the situation we have today, both for the recipients of government largess and for those robbed of their well-earned pay so that it can be squandered in the "War on Poverty." If the Civil War was a terrible waste of human life ("19th century weaponry applied to 18th century tactics"), how much more so has the War on Poverty been.
– Some are even more of a "mixed bag," such as when "the citizens of the USA… set and enforce pollution limits." First off, the citizens do not set them or enforce them, the government does. This means less individual liberty. The only question is whether or not the honest cost/benefit of these limits is positive. If the overall citizenry is made healthier and happier, and thus more free to pursue their own happiness, than are the few polluters made unhappy, we have a positive case for surrendering individual freedom to gain an increased aggregate freedom, managed by the consent of the governed. We are so far from that situation now it would appear that "we" were wrong in "our" decision.
does this help?
J. Ewing
"First off, the citizens do not set them or enforce them, the government does. This means less individual liberty." You keep implying that we live in a country with a Dictator who is in charge. Which of course is not the case...
The citizens elect their representatives for the Government, and they are free to replace them. Thus the citizens have been apparently supporting these regulations, otherwise they would have elected folks that were pro-freedom. (and maybe pro-pollution)
As for the other examples, I would say that the Revolutionary war has a lot in common with today's challenges. I mean the poor American's felt that the King and court were taking advantage of them and keeping too much of the gains. Therefore the American's rebelled and took the property they felt entitled to.
Now, some of the lower and middle income folks think that the rich are excessively taking advantage of them and keeping too much of the gains. Thus they will vote for folks that will redistribute some of what they consider excessive gains. Kind of why Unions appeal to many people.
Good thing we can vote this out instead of shoot it out!!! God bless America!!!
So, every two years we get to elect a "representative" between the two choices offered to us by the ruling class. These representatives than make thousands and thousands of votes, some of which greatly affect us, and some of which, at the very least, we may object to strenuously. In the best cases this is so awful that, two years later, we boot the rascal out. But the laws stand. Now, how does this process lead to more freedom, when government arrogates all the power unto itself, unchecked?
J. Ewing
I did not say it is the perfect system... However often the laws are revised or undone as the population's interest change.
On No Taxes No Vote!!! I just posed a very contentious hypothesis that the Amendments of the 1900's are the cause of our slide toward Socialism. (for better or worse) It may explain a lot...
Even the Political ruling class has to listen to the voters, or they will lose their clout. Adding women, slaves, others definitely had to change the political landscape.
"Even the Political ruling class has to listen to the voters, or they will lose their clout."
No, they don't. Obamacare passed over a storm of protest, it is grossly unpopular in every poll, yet Democrats still control the US Senate, and most of the Democrats in the House were returned to their seats, though they all voted for it. In most years, well over 90% of incumbents win re-election. Last year it was about 85% and called a "wipeout."
Our representative government has become so big that it is a force of its own, a will of its own.
J. Ewing
I think our Liberal friends would likely see that differently. They would likely say that the Republicans fought pointlessly against a storm of support for national healthcare.
This poll apparently gives a mixed mesaage. ABC Healthcare
Therefore the Democratic Senators listened to their constituents and stayed in office. Things are working per the Founding Father's plan.
I disagree. I think politicians, liberals in particular, have patented the ability to hoodwink vast portions of the public. Polls ask things like "would you like free healthcare" and people of course agree in vast numbers. When faced with the very real and high costs of "free" healthcare, like unavailability, low quality, and HIGHER prices, they run screaming in the other direction, but by then it is too late. Politicians, rather than taking the fall, either disavow all knowledge of what they voted for (actually a fairly honest defense), or change the subject to the next big "freebie." Either way, they can still use vast war chests to demonize opponents and keep their name in the big lights, and it works.
By ANY proper measure of having our representatives "represent" what we want, every Democrat should have lost the last election based on Obamacare alone, but they didn't. That's the problem. Take another: the Hennepin County commissioners are all back in office after jamming a new ball park tax down people's throats. What's the problem?
J. Ewing
Post a Comment