 |
Comments |
|
 | Sunday, July 5, 2009 at 0:08:35 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: JeremyS
E-mail: jws455(at)gmail.com
I assume our Founding Fathers understood how unique and significant achievement the birth of our Nation was. Did they have an inkling how successful their new Republic would become? |
|
| Sunday, July 5, 2009 at 0:34:01 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: rrlv_frsh
When I was in college, I recall hearing in at least one of my classes that the Founders thought America would remain primarily an agrarian society, with most of the populace engaged in farming. I don't think the Founders or anyone else could have anticipated the spectacular rise in population and standard of living that the Industrial Revolution would bring. The Founders knew only that they were extolling reason as a great value, and that it was leading the world to revolutions in art and forms of government. I don't think the revolutions in science, technology and industry that were to come later could have been anticipated by anyone.
|
|
| Sunday, July 5, 2009 at 7:04:35 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
Last week, on my latest visit to the university library where I maintain borrowing privileges, I spotted "Objectively Speaking," a collection of interviews with Ayn Rand by various people, and my curiosity was tempted. One of the interviews addressed the question of the proper form for a government. Unsurprisingly, Rand went for a constitutional republic. But while she clearly discussed the disadvantages of some of the alternatives (such as majoritarian democracy), she didn't discuss the reasons for not choosing monarchy as a governmental form. I would be interested to see an explicit statement of those reasons, if one has been made. |
|
| Sunday, July 5, 2009 at 10:23:35 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: BrianS
In this week's Objectivist roundup, one of the selected blog posts was by Adam Reed. http://borntoidentify.blogspot.com/2009/06/sunk-with-tea.html
He claims that Objectivist participation in things like the Tea Parties, discussions on Fox News and PajamasTV, and at Republican Party events, are "giving victory to our enemies."
Should ARI and other Objectivists be 'participating', 'supporting', or otherwise 'collaborating' in such things? |
|
| Sunday, July 5, 2009 at 12:05:41 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: rrlv_frsh
William Stoddard writes: Ayn Rand "didn't discuss the reasons for not choosing monarchy as a governmental form. I would be interested to see an explicit statement of those reasons, if one has been made."
Refer to Ayn Rand's essay, "The Nature of Government," published as Chapter 12 in her book, _The_Virtue_of_Selfishness:__A_New_Concept_of_Egoism_. In order to fulfill the purpose of government and the three essential functions of government, a monarchy would, at minimum, need to be limited by some kind of constitution. Why would a constitutional monarchy (if such a thing could exist at all) be able to fulfill the purpose and functions of government (as analyzed by Ayn Rand) more effectively than a constitutional republic? How could the powers of a monarch be limited to the essential functions of a proper government without mechanisms that would have the effect of reducing the system to a monarchy in name and superficial form only? |
|
| Sunday, July 5, 2009 at 12:11:28 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Mike Hardy
E-mail: (my last name) (at) math.umn.edu
> When I was in college, I recall
> hearing in at least one of my
> classes that the Founders thought
> America would remain primarily an
> agrarian society, with most of
> the populace engaged in farming.
> I don't think the Founders or
> anyone else could have anticipated
> the spectacular rise in population
> and standard of living that the
> Industrial Revolution would bring.
Here's some anticipating of that sort, done by one of the Founders:
"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain. --John Adams"
(When he wrote "philosophy", he might have meant physical sciences. The term "natural philosophy" was used by Isaac Newton for that concept and continued to be used in that sense through much of the 19th century.) |
|
| Sunday, July 5, 2009 at 13:56:20 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: rrlv-frsh
"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty...." -- John Adams
Indeed, *liberty*, a political concept. The Founders knew they were extolling reason as a great value -- for learning and acquiring wide-ranging knowledge -- and that it was leading the world to revolutions in art and forms of government. The revolution in science was barely in its infancy at that time, but beginning nonetheless. The Industrial Revolution came a little later, though not much later in terms of the advance of historical eras.
If the "success" of America is measured in terms of enduring freedom, then I certainly agree that the Founders could and did anticipate America's success, i.e., political success (but surely not the massive, steady erosion of our political foundation in later centuries). They knew "eternal vigilance" would be needed for us to keep our republic. They were right.
|
|
| Sunday, July 5, 2009 at 15:24:55 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Ashley King
E-mail: atking(at)mtaonline.net
BrianS,
By all means Objectivists should go observe, or even speak at Tea Parties, at least at this point. It is an opportunity to make the strong case for a free society and the audience will be mostly receptive. I think these are so many statist policies being pushed right now that freedom-loving people want to halt that (energy rationing, socialized medicine, nationalization of industry, inflation).
JeremyS,
I recall Madison, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin all very eager to promote settlement beyond the Appalachian mountains. While Jefferson and Madison embraced an idealist agrarian society at first, at the end of their lives they were willing to embrace a more mercantile and industrial society. The market revolution was well underway by 1815 and you would have been blind not to see that as the future. Hamilton, who died in 1804, did all he could right from start to promote an economic policy meant to recreate a British-style industrial-commercial society. In Britain the industrial revolution was already roaring and folks like Hamilton saw that as the path to follow. They all had a strong sense, both Federalist and Democratic-Republican, that the country was going to grow into a great "empire" of liberty. While the founders were still alive, immigration was strong, taxes very low, standard of living rising as the sections began to trade their products with steam ships and canals, with western settlement creating new states almost every year or so. It was one of the great achievements in western civilization: the conquest of this continent. |
|
| Sunday, July 5, 2009 at 15:37:37 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: anon
The only reason I can think of as to why a Constitutional Democracy would be preferable (adequate?), as opposed to a Constitutional Monarchy would have to do with crow epistemology. One human brain simply cannot gather, retain, process, and offer responses to all of the information coming into it if it were put in charge of legislating (let alone executing) the governmental needs of millions of people. While a Monarch's philosophical principles may be correct, and his intentions pure, I just don't see how he would be able to responsibly draft and enforce every bill. Not only would he have to deal with regular issues such as appropriations and foreign affairs, as society advances economically, new and increasingly intricate legal questions arise all of the time.
I suppose a case could be made that the Monarch would have a team of specialized advisers, but even then, a question is begged: if they were to be specialized in the changing governmental needs of a particular geographical location, how would they be selected? Why should they be selected by a far away Monarch? |
|
| Sunday, July 5, 2009 at 17:08:03 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
rrlv-frsh: I think your response fails to achieve a proper negation. You ask, "Why would a constitutional monarchy (if such a thing could exist at all) be able to fulfill the purpose and functions of government (as analyzed by Ayn Rand) more effectively than a constitutional republic?" But such a claim isn't required.
If you assert that "a constitutional republic is necessary to have a free society," or "is superior," the negation is not "a constitutional monarchy is necessary/superior." The negative of "A is better than B" is not "B is better than A" but "A is not better than B." This could be met by A and B being equally good, or in this case by a constitutional monarchy being comparable to a constitutional republic. If that were the case, the choice between the two would be an *optional* one; to have a free society it would not be necessary to choose a republic OR to choose a monarchy.
So what I'm asking for is not a refutation of the claim that constitutional monarchy is better, but refutation of the claim that it can be as good, or proof that it is always worse. I was surprised that Rand didn't present one, since she is usually so thorough about covering the bases, and I wondered if an explicit argument for the flaws of constitutional monarchy has been put forth.
And it would have to be specifically *constitutional* monarchy. (Or a demonstration that, as you suggest, monarchies cannot ever be constitutional.) After all, there have been nonconstitutional republics, such as the Soviet Union! But we don't judge the merits of republics by these horrible examples. |
|
| Sunday, July 5, 2009 at 17:36:34 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: rrlv_frsh
Can someone explain how a monarchy can be limited by a constitution that the monarch somehow can't change or control at his will, and still be a true monarchy? I ask this not as some kind of attempt at polemical refutation through rhetorical questions. I am genuinely unfamiliar with how "constitutional monarchy" could even be possible (unless, as I said before, the monarchy is merely titular and the real power is vested in a parliament that is pouplarly elected, or some similar arrangement). I am seeking to understand where the real power would reside in a "constitutional monarchy."
|
|
| Sunday, July 5, 2009 at 18:47:47 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: rrlv_frsh
I did a little more checking and found an apparently helpful overview on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy
Here are some key passages:
1. "Most constitutional monarchies employ a parliamentary system in which the monarch is the ceremonial head of state and a directly- or indirectly-elected prime minister is the head of government and exercises effective political power."
2. "In present terms, the difference between a parliamentary democracy that is a constitutional monarchy, and one that is a republic, is considered more a difference of detail than of substance, particularly in the common case in which the head of state [e.g., prime minister] serves the traditional role of embodying and representing the nation."
I don't think Ayn Rand's analysis in "The Nature of Government" necessarily rules out a parliametary system as a viable implementation of the basic purpose and essential functions of government, although I would still question why royalty of any kind would be needed or essential to a proper government (as did America's Founders).
(Correction: "The Nature of Government" is Chap. 14 in VOS, not Chap. 12.)
|
|
| Sunday, July 5, 2009 at 19:13:04 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
Some time earlier, Diana posted anecdotal information regarding the apparent efficacy of Vitamin D supplementation as a defense against respiratory ailments, particularly colds and flu, which are known to be prevalent in winter months. I added an anecdote of my own regarding some kind of ailment I had, which was unusually muted.
I can now add to this that vitamin D apparently doesn't do a thing for preventing gastroenteritis ("stomach flu"). Rather, staying out of Las Vegas seems to be the ticket on that one. I've had that benighted illness only three times in my adult life, and all three times it happened while I was living in Las Vegas... and this last time, I had only been there two weeks :P |
|
| Sunday, July 5, 2009 at 19:47:15 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: Ashley King
E-mail: atking(at)mtaonline.net
rrlv_frsh,
"I am seeking to understand where the real power would reside in a "constitutional monarchy."
In Saxon England, the king was chosen by an assembly of nobles. He had to consult this assembly to make law. Custom also had a status as law.
By the time of King John, we get the Magna Charta or Great Charter. He was forced to recognize that he had surpassed his proper powers as king by collecting taxes without the consent of an assembly. Other rights, such as trial by jury and access to forest wood were reaffirmed in the Magna Charta and the Charter of the Forest (1215, 1217). The point: the king must follow the customs and traditions of the realm. We call this today the rule of law.
The trend of the toward absolute monarchy under Henry VIII and then James I and Charles I was resisted by Parliament and jurist Edward Coke. It led to events like the English Civil War in 1640s and the Glorious Revolution in 1688. This established Constitutional Monarchy: the king was the chief executive but his power was limited. Parliament could not be ignored. It had the power of the purse. The rights of the subjects could not be ignored such as the right against arbitrary arrest.
Constitutional republics are preferable since there is no reason the people should not choose their chief executive rather than relying on the hereditary principle of monarchy. In spirit, by the time of the American Revolution I would say that Holland and England were both commercial republics. Many western European states today are constitutional monarchies: real power there, as in Canada, Australia, resides with the people. Constitutional monarchy like a stepping stone toward full popular sovereignty. |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
Comments
