I have.
Or rather, I have heard that the fear that an empowered majority would use that power to take some of what “rightfully belonged” to the wealthy was the basis of the “tyranny of the majority” argument. I googled ’ +“tyranny of the majority” +“property rights” ’ and got 417 hits.
In any case, it is an unimportant digression. How do you feel about the working definition? Once we agree on that then we can continue. I intend to argue that tyranny does exist in the US, and always has.
This argument is a bit premature, since we aren’t this far into the debate ( and probably never will be ).
Yes and no. I do want to get rid of the Bill of Rights. Not because I have a problem with it, but because it is part of a system which I feel we should dump. If, and only if, that occurs would the bill of rights go. A suitable replacement would need to be enacted.
My goal here is to have a serious discussion on the merits of our system.
Gotta cite?
I am unaware that “common sense” is not subject to criticism. My understanding is that we are here to fight ignorance. Just because “everyone knows this is so” doesn’t make it so. My “common sense” tells me that in this forum unsupported assertions tend to get attacked.
So you are admitting that your assertion was false?
Gotta cite?
Even if this unsupported assertion is true, it doesn’t omit the possibility of a government that is even more friendly, toothless, and accountable. “Best” does not mean “perfect”.
What is silly is posting an opinion on something that doesn’t exist.
In this thread, I haven’t argued that the Senate is tyranny.
I agree.
Some inequality is unavoidable. The question is not “is there inequality?” but rather “is this inequality justified”. You feel the inequality in our system is and I think it is not.
Not exactly. Luckily, that is not my goal.
Again I read over the thread and I don’t find myself arguing this.
I recommend typing “Fallacy: Appeal to Popularity” into a decent search engine.
Nope. Our system doesn’t run on majority rule, remember? Our system stays that way because an empowered minority is happy with the status quo. And thanks to their convienent bogeyman of “tyranny of the majority” it would take a supermajority of regular people to change the status quo. That supermajority doesn’t yet exist but someday it might.
I started this thread to discuss “original intent” and am now arguing that the system doesn’t work. I am at a loss as to how to respond to your comments.
Sua:
I have considered the tyrants in modern America, remember?
I’m not so sure that their descendants have anything to complain about. Fresia gives the stat that in 1770 Boston, the top 1% had 44% of the wealth. I don’t know what the current national figure is, but unless it is much lower then the elite haven’t had to bend much.
2sense,
Sooner or later, we’re going to have to start using the word “socialist.” Either you or your views on this matter fit this description. If not, then, as a last recourse, I could stomach “radical egalitarian.” Either way it’s cool, but this is a pretty confused debate at the moment, and it could only help to define our positions as clearly as possible. Think about it and let me know.
I’m still not certian what your beef is with the Constitution. Does it have anything to do with the manner of its founding? If so, that strikes me as wholly irrelevant. The Constitution is not today what it was 200 years ago. It says different things and is interpreted in different ways. You can’t honestly demand an instrument of government that has at its inception some perfect little story or some unifying acquiescence of the population (a la Hobbes’ state of nature tales).
Is your problem with the document that it fails to redress the inequal distribution of wealth in the country? In the first place, a redistribution of wealth under our current Constitution is more realistic than a replacement of said document followed by a Marxist seizure of power. What could you possibly want to change that would be easier to accomplish by abolishing the Constitution than by working within it? If you’ve got the supermajority you’d need to dump it, you would in all likelihood have the political clout necessary to revise it as you see fit (or change the tax rate, whatever). Article V, man: live it, love it.
As for the Senate: whatever it was at its inception, it is currently a force for egalitarianism. It helps, by its very nature, to counter a tyranny of geography. Only a die-hard Bolshevik would want the urbanites to rule at the utter expense of our agricultural engineers. Hey, wait a minute. . .
Well, you’re gonna have to deal with it eventually. It is painfully obvious that most of the people here view the “tyranny of the majority” to be a real and viable threat to liberty and happiness, while you view it to be elitist propoganda. This is the crux of the whole debate – you can’t just ignore it because you’ve had this argument before.
No, this is incorrect. When we speak of the fallacy of arguing from authority, we are not referring to questions of fact. I can say that I give credence to Weinberg’s account of WW2 because his research is thorough and his methodology careful and precise. I can say that Kant is an authority on what Kant meant by “categorical imperative” for obvious reasons. I (you) cannot say that the Constitution must be flawed because those who supported it were horrible people. Do you see the difference?
All we do is lie to children. Have you ever watched the Disney Channel? The Family Channel? The programming is made up entirely simple morality tales; there are good characters and there are evil characters. Real life does not ever work this way. The assumption, right or wrong, is that children simply cannot handle gray areas of morality. Their brief instruction of history is taught in the same manner at first. I don’t know about you, but that did change in my experience. High school and college courses dealing with the subject examined the motivations and history of the Constitution quite honestly. Anyone with a half-way decent education has been given some fact-based history of our nation’s founding and has drawn their conclusions accordingly.
2sense, I never said that legislative bicameralism was an accident. I said that the nonproportional representativeness of the Senate was the result of a political compromise. Kindly argue with the points I actually make, and not with those I did not.
A clarification of my last post.
I said that I was arguing that our system doesn’t work. That is an exaggeration. Our government does work. As Lemur866 points out, there are plenty of worse places to live. What I would actually argue is that our system could be better.
I got a late start last night; apparently I should have quit before I got groggy.
**VarlosZ **:
I’m not so sure that labelling a person’s position is always necessary or even helpful in debate. I have seen threads where posters labelled themselves libertarians and then were castigated for refusing to defend libertarian positions that they didn’t believe in. A label can illuminate but in debate the generalization can also obscure.
As for me, it is my understanding that I can not be accurately described as a socialist because, in general, I favor neither the elimination of private property nor public control of the production and distribution of goods. I consider myself a liberal democratic centrist. I am liberal as opposed to conservative. I am democratic in that I feel that people should have more of a say in government. I am a centrist because I favor strengthening the authority of the central government at the expense of the regional governments. I wouldn’t have a big problem with “radical egalitarian”.
It has been shown in this thread that attacking the system based on its founding is doomed to failure. I accept that. I will continue to attack the tyrants not for this reason but to counter the “common sense” concept that they should be admired.
I don’t like the disparity of wealth in the US but I see it as more of a symptom rather than the disease. I have no desire to redistribute wealth. What I would like to see happen is for the distribution system itself to be more equitable. The rich can keep their property if they wish, as long as they are capable of working hard enough and smart enough to do so.
I disagree that amending the Constitution would be easier than discarding it. In theory, at least. Our political system is founded on the principle that the people have the right to amend or abolish their government. Using the terminology from Lincoln’s First Inaugural, I think it would be easier to use our revolutionary right rather than our constitutional right to do so. Our revolutionary right would only require a simple majority rather than the constitutionally mandated supermajority. Also, simply amending would do nothing to defray the mindless devotion to the Constitution. The concept that the document is Holy Writ inhibits the rational discussion of our government.
The Senate is not egalitarian. The egalitarian ideal is that all people are equal not that all geography or property is equal. Your “tyranny of geography” argument presumes that certain people will vote in certain ways. I feel it is bad form to enshrine this prejudice in government. A government shouldn’t decide in advance how people are likely to vote. The purpose of voting is to allow people to speak for themselves.
I am not ignoring the “tyranny of the majority” argument. I am offering to debate it. I just don’t see the value of doing so without first agreeing with someone on what it exactly we are debating. That is why I submitted a working definition. Does it works for you?
On the “Appeal to Authority” question, I’m not certain why you think my explanation was incorrect. I didn’t refer to “questions of fact”. I was stating that citing someone else’s opinion is not fallacious as long as it is an expert opinion. I do understand that ad hominem attacks on the supporters of the Constitution does not discredit it.
I disagree. I recommend James W Loewen’s Lies My Teacher Told Me.
I am now prepared to reassert my description of the establishment of the Constitution. Since I intend to post this more than once ( assuming it holds up ) I went back and restated the arguments, and annotated them. Sorry if it is a bit Gibbonesque.
The wealthy Tyrants, abetted by physical violence, illegally usurped authority through secrecy and fraud.
The wealthy Tyrants[sup]1[/sup]:
The Framers were members of the elite landed class.[sup]2[/sup] I have listed members I feel were influential during the convention and afterwards to show their privileged social position. If someone wishes to inquire about an unnamed Framer, I will do my best to post their particulars.
Ben Franklin, among other things, was a land speculator and had accumulated a considerable fortune.
Elbridge Gerry was a “merchant with a considerable estate” who had graduated from Harvard.
Alexander Hamilton was a lawyer who married into wealth.[sup]3[/sup]
Rufus King was born to wealth and married more.
James Madison was born into a landed family and once owned 116 slaves.
Robert Morris was born into a landed family.
Charles C. Pinckney was a slaveowner and large landowner.
Edmund Randolph owned 7,000 acres of land and almost 200 slaves.
John Rutledge owned five plantations.
George Washington may have been the richest man in America.
abetted by physical violence:
There is no way of knowing if any of the Tyrants were directly responsible for the actions of the mob in Philadelphia which, upon hearing of the Congressional call for conventions, tore legislators from their homes, dragged them to the Assembly and forcibly held them there so that the Assembly would have the necessary quorum to call for a constitutional convention.[sup]4[/sup] But there is no doubt that this action abetted the ratification in Pennsylvania. An “instant” call for a convention in the Quaker State, where considerable opposition might be expected, kept momentum on the side of the Tyrants.
illegally usurped authority:
The convention that produced the Constitution had been empowered to recommend changes to the Articles of Confederation. It had no authority to discard them and produce an entirely new system. Furthermore, the proposed system for ratification called for the approval of only nine states[sup]5[/sup] instead of the unanimous approval mandated by the Articles of Confederation.[sup]6[/sup]
** secrecy **:
Earlier, Tom objected to my use of this term but I feel it is justified. He argued that the Framers were not bound to secrecy and that those opposed to the new system disagreed publicly. I have seen no examples of public opposition during the convention but since Tom is the most reliable source I can image, I believe they exist. However, those who didn’t support the endeavor naturally would be less concerned with keeping the matter private and the term “tyrants” does not refer to them. I submit that the Tyrants themselves were bound to secrecy. On the third day of the convention the following rules were passed:
fraud:
The attempt to keep secret the knowledge that they were usurping authority during the convention was itself deceitful. The tyrants went further. They and their “federalist”[sup]8[/sup] supporters struck quickly to keep opponents off balance. The Constitution was signed on September 17th and was delivered to Congress on September 25th. It was rammed through the single chamber in less than four days. Four days in a government that used direction, that is- the delegates were expected to consult with the State legislatures and follow their lead. It would have taken more than four days for some delegates to travel back and forth! Afterwards, Richard Henry Lee complained that the call for ratifying conventions in the states was proclaimed “Resolved unanimously” when there had been opposition ( however hasty ) in Congress.[sup]9[/sup] That call for conventions was itself illegal. Amendments were to be approved by the state legislatures directly.
The instance of mob rule in Philadelphia has already been noted. The convention those Assemblymen unwillingly called for first met on November 20th[sup]10[/sup], less than 2 months later. “Anti-Federalists” complained that those men had been "dragged to their seats and kept there against their wills, and so early a day was set for the election of delegates that many a voter did not know of it until it was passed…Of the seventy thousand freemen entitled to vote but thirteen thousand voted.”[sup]11[/sup]
Most of the previous 2 paragraphs are taken from the third chapter of Jerry Fresia’s book. You can check out more maneuvers on the part of the “Federalists” there. It has been argued that both sides engaged in shenanigans. The information in the National Archive does support this. But it seems to me that the Tyrants struck first, hardest, and lowest.
–
Notes:
1 - Here I am using the term “tyrant” to refer to definition 1B from Merriam-Webster: “a usurper of sovereignty”.
Whether or not the other definitions fit I will leave to the reader.
2 - Unless otherwise noted, this info is from Charles Beard ( An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States ) via Jerry Fresia ( Toward an American RevolutionChapter One )
3 - The American Revolution Homepage
“Hamilton’s personal life and social position in the new nation took a decisive turn in December 1780, when he married Elizabeth Schuyler, daughter of the wealthy and influential General Philip Schuyler. This connection placed Hamilton in the center of New York society.”
5 - Article seven of the US Constitution
“The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.”
6 - Article thirteen of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union
“Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.”
8 - The present government under the Articles of Confederation was more of a federation than that outlined in the proposed Constitution. Yet those who supported the old over the new were inaccurately termed “Anti-Federalists”. The term “anti” is itself negative. It implies that a group is not for something but rather against something. Witness the semantic positioning of Pro-Choice vs Pro-Life.
( I also learned of this distinction from Fresia. )
9 - I don’t know what went down in Congress. A question of the magnitude of a new constitution would require a unanimous vote. A state could have more than one delegate but voting was by state with each state having one. My guess is that there was dissension in Congress but not enough in one state to overturn its vote. Pretty much all of my understanding of the Articles is due to Garry Wills’ A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government
11 - The Constitution Society, which hosts the previous cite, also hosts an “Anti-Federalist” Minority Dissent. In just the place where this quote would fit there is this note “[After explaining the events leading to the ratifying convention, the minority delegates determined to explain themselves to their constituents.]” Coincidence?
2sense,
I’d like to commend you on a well thought out, researched, and documented post; your effort is commendable.
Now I’d like to ask you why you went to all that trouble. No one here has contested the assertion that the method by which our Constitution was adopted was, at the least, a bit shady. Though some of us do differ about the degree to which the framers were . . . malignant, shall we say, we (i.e. everyone but you) have asserted that the degree doesn’t matter. Bad actions at the inception of the document in no way reflect upon its worth as an instrument of government or its legitimacy in the present day.
Do you just want to argue about how morally questionable the framers’ actions were, or do you want to also debate the resultant legitimacy (or lack thereof) of their Constitution, as well as the functional worth of said document? Either one is fine.
(Humming) Hi-Ho, Hi-Ho, It’s off to class we go. . .
Ben Franklin, among other things, was a land speculator and had accumulated a considerable fortune.
That rat bastard! How dare he be a successful businessman! And since he discovered electricity too, I think you should boycott. Maybe start by turning off your computer.
Elbridge Gerry was a “merchant with a considerable estate” who had graduated from Harvard.
F-ing elitist scumbag. Who does he think he is, getting an education?
Alexander Hamilton was a lawyer who married into wealth.
Oh my god! Who let a lawyer help draft a constitution! I say we put Aaron Burr on the next dollar coin. And Hamilton doesn’t even have the excuse of having been born into wealth–he had to go out and exploit the proletariat on his own!
Rufus King was born to wealth and married more.
What complete trash. Why, I bet there were thousands of poverty-stricken women he passed up to marry that rich woman!
James Madison was born into a landed family and once owned 116 slaves.
So how can anybody possibly take anything he said seriously?
Robert Morris was born into a landed family.
And how the hell did all these guys work it out so they could be born to families with land anyway?
Charles C. Pinckney was a slaveowner and large landowner.
If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a million times: never trust a fat guy who owns land.
Edmund Randolph owned 7,000 acres of land and almost 200 slaves.
Fortunately, I have my calculator handy. That’s 0.0286 slaves per acre, at a time when the average anti-federalist slaveholder had only 0.0262 slaves per acre.
John Rutledge owned five plantations.
You forgot to mention that he covered up evidence linking tobacco to lung cancer.
George Washington may have been the richest man in America.
And the Continental Congress gave him command of the Army during the Revolution? Why, I’m surprised he didn’t just hand all the soldiers over to King George at the first opportunity! But I guess winning the war was just part of a cunning, long-term plan to piss on the plebes. :rolleyes:
2sense, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: SFW? If you’ve invented a time machine, feel free to set the controls for 1789 and kick some federalist ass. If not, what the heck do you hope to accomplish, especially since (as VarlosZ points out) everyone here already agrees that the Original Dads were rich, elitist, slaveholding SOB’s? The forum is called “Great Debates,” not “Interesting Things I Read Online and Felt That I Must Summarize.”
Thanks for the compliment.
I put some time into it. As I said, I didn’t do so for just this one post. I plan to post this elsewhere, after I remove the thread specific comments ( and maybe add a little to the “fraud”. )
It has been concluded that there is no legitimate authority to fall back on so I don’t see the point of arguing that the Constitution is a bastard. I am interested in arguing the merits of our governmental system. I have argued about the “Tyranny of the Majority” before but never conclusively. I think I can do better now. I have been waiting for someone to take up this debate by agreeing to a definition of “tyranny”. Or to simply address my argument with something other than an explanation or a strawman.
Just my 2sense
Check out my picture.
[sub]2sense’s likeness created by Highlander and Melin’s talented son, Quizle, and kindly hosted by the PurpleCrackWhore.[/sub]
Nailing down a definition of tyranny might not be possible, but I don’t think it is entirely essential. More on that in a sec.
If pressed, I would define tyranny as “the undue appropriation of rights to the detriment of those who have been divested of said rights.”
Problem: What is an “undue” appropriation of rights? Are there not some instances in which one’s rights can legitimately be usurped (imprisonment for murder, comes to mind)? Can simple expediency be a sufficiently legitimizing force? Who decides? Where is the line drawn?
These are subjective matters, open to interpretation. This fact lends credence to Aristotle’s assertion that a “tyranny” is merely what one calls a government that one finds disagreeable. Even if we posit a hard and fast definition for tyranny, and even if we conclude to the U.S. Constitution to be an according-to-Hoyle tyranny, we could still decide that we don’t have a problem with it (i.e. we don’t find this tyranny to be particularly distasteful). Yours is therefore a delicate task. Anyway, on to the debate. . .
Dig it.
I assume you’re stating a causal link, here: “Because the Senate is not elected in proportion to the population, the Constitution denies all citizens an equal say in their government.”
(1) You assume that directly proportional representation (a) is possible and (b) would give all citizens an equal say in government. First, in a country of 265 million people, there s no feasible way to give everyone the same amount of say in the legislature (take the insane gerrymandering of House districts, for example). Still, you can get reasonably close to equal representation, and this is a minor quibble. More importantly, however, is the fact that direct representation would be de facto majority rule, which would lend itself to inherently unequal say in government matters. A minority of people live a rural lifestyle, and they have interests which are fundamentally different from those of the urban/suburban majority on certain issues (historically, tariffs come to mind, but there are several). There would be no way to prevent them from getting the short end of the stick in perpetuity under direct representation. The Senate acts as a check on the political supremacy of certain locales, and thus contributes to the political equality of the populace.
(2) For the Senate to fit my definition of “tyrannical,” the Senate would have to be detrimental to the U.S. population. I (along with many others) happen to think that a bicameral legislature (or, at least, the bicameral legislature in question) is a good thing . . . and that’s a whole new debate.
I find your definition acceptable. "the undue appropriation of rights to the detriment of those who have been divested of said rights."
I agree that there are times when rights need to be restricted ( I don’t like “usurped” here because the right isn’t eliminated so much as defined. ) In the hoary old chestnut about crying “Fire!” in a theater, the right of free speech is restricted. This is justified by the need for safety. I agree that these matters are open to interpretation. In our debate we will judge the justifications for ourselves. I’m sure we will disagree on some. It’s the same in the real world, people disagree. I submit that everyone must decide for themselves where the line should be drawn. Everyone’s opinion is equally valid.
Here we get into expediency. Sometimes it doesn’t matter if everyone goes their own way. But obviously, if everyone just drew the line for themselves in all situations then it would be anarchy. So if the line is needed then an agreement must be reached. And that agreement must be authoritative, that is- it must be backed by force. That is the function of government in a society, to draw lines and enforce them. Since everyone is entitled to an opinion and all are equally valid, the best manner for drawing the lines is to get everyone to agree to a solution. Unfortunately, it is rarely possible to get unanimity. In that case, I submit that the equitable manner for drawing the line is to draw it where the most people think it should be drawn.
Yes, I am talking about direct majority rule. That is the most equitable manner of government. But would this government work for America? I say no. I hope we can agree that a direct democracy isn’t expedient so lets consider majority rule under a representative government. Would it work? I believe that it can. You disagree.
I agree that there are cultural differences in different parts of the nation but I don’t agree that this leads to an unequal voice. If everyone’s opinion is equal then everyone has the same say. The opinion itself can only be less equal if there are less people saying it.
Should the majority give way to the minority?
I don’t agree that rural citizens are doomed to being perpetually marginalized. They would actually have more political power as individuals than ever before. The path to forming majorities is compromise. The political clout of rural citizens would not be ignored. That clout would be necessary to create majorities on issues without a rural/suburban bias.
As for the Senate, I agree that completely proportional representation isn’t feasible. No matter what there would be inequity. Since I see no need for bicameralism, I say just chuck it all together. I assume your disagreement here will follow much the same reasoning as your objection to my statements above.
Just my 2sense We are pious toward our history in order to be cynical toward our government - Garry Wills
