The View From 1776

Public Opinion: Experts vs Vox Populi

Tension between government by experts (intellectuals, bureaucrats, and independent legislators) and the voice of the people (expressed in elections and opinion polls) complicates politics in our Federal republic.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/25 at 01:12 AM
  1. "The general populace can be too easily misled by propaganda and ignorance of the subject."

    You mean, like your ignorance of evolutionary theory?
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  01/25  at  08:17 AM
  2. I think every is familiar with evolutionary theory but, it has never been prove to create new species. I has shown that some species have changed but where are the "missing links?"

    While it is true that some religious people are so against anything that challenges their belief that "no evolution" exists even within species, at the same time many in the evolutionary community can conceive of "LIfe" having a force they can't understand.

    Can you actually destroy life, or only just destroy the life form? What is the force that takes the same elements that make up the solar system and cause it to create "life?" Where did the first "cell" come from? They believe they know that much but, they still can't answer the "force" that created it from the sunlight, chemicals, water, elements, etc. and actually caused the "mix" to "live."

    Suppose each "specie" started as a separate cell that time, light, heat, etc. allowed to "evolve?" There would have certainly been "evolution" of that specie from one cell to say an elephant millions of years later but, no evolution from specie to specie.

    If "life" is the force that creates life forms, until that force is understood, then evolution, creation or anything else dealing with life will be just a "theory."

    Christians, or at least those who actually study the Bible know that the "creation" process went along "food chain" lines with simpler forms preceding more complex forms just as in "evolution" theories state occurred from simple to complex life forms. The Bible also states God is "Life" and there is no end or beginning to Life and that it is the force that also created the Universe which scientists also say had a "big bang" beginning. When you look at all the "do's and don'ts" of the Bible, they can be seen to have secular benefits either at the time they were made "laws," or even now in many different ways.

    We see the morality laws preventing the spread of disease from sodomy, adultery, beastiality, or birth defects from incest, and loss of trust in intepersonal relationship. That was especially important in a time when STD's often decimated a population and there were no cures for STD's. Thus, a person committing adultery and contracting a STD literally sentenced to death, all he spread the diseases he caught to. Other laws were to create a set of standard behavior that allowed a society to work as a team. That of course is something most corporations now do by having their "team concepts" and standardized corporate behavior, etc.

    "Life" or God as Christians, Jews, and other religions believe, is a force that affects every aspect of "living." Whether you are a tree or a person, there are "laws" that apply to having a longer life or better life. While the tree can't move and is tied to the things of its location, the laws still apply. A pine tree doesn't grow in the desert and the saguaro doesn't grow in the forest. We find that some plants actually give off chemicals that prevent the growth of some plants around them, but not all.

    Until the actual "force" that creates life is understood, this argument will never cease. Howver, we do know that a selfish society that bases its decisions on socialism is destined to fail. We know that socialism has never worked because it runs counter to human nature. It attempts to control what can't be controlled except within the person themself.

    That is why we are seeing nation after nation, for example, going now to personal accounts for social security. What is it? About 30 or so of the industrialized nations now that have gone or are going to it? Look at even nations like France that are considering cutting tax on business because they found it drives business away as soon as another nation offers lower taxes like Ireland did.

    We have witnessed over 70 years of failed government policies based on socialism and yet, some call for even more of the same failed policies. That, of course, is human nature. They don't want to admit they were wrong.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  01/25  at  08:12 PM
  3. hmmm..........the majority supported slavery. The majority supported miscegeny laws. The majority supported keeping the vote from women for the longest time. The majority supported segregated schools.

    The tyranny of the majority has a long history.

    Meet me at my place:
    Posted by James Veverka  on  01/28  at  08:04 AM
  4. The majority overthrew slavery which was legal when this nation was formed.

    The majority banned segregation in 1875 and it was the Court that kept it around for another 80 years. It was the majority that ended state religions in the states by 1833.

    It was the majority that gave woment the vote. IT was the majority that gave 18 year olds the vote. It was the majority that was given the power for change through amendments not the Courts.

    Your use of the "miscegeny laws" suggest you have a poor understanding of what a society is. It isn't a group of people, if they are free, that are bound to any one set of codes, beliefs or culture. A society can be whatever the people in it make it, if they are free. If you don't like that society, you form one of your own in another place and then that society should leave yours alone just as you leave theirs alone.

    For example, the culture of people who believe open sexual lifestyles are ok and are willing to risk their health through the spreading of disease through sexual contact with more than one partner is their right if they have created a society that grants that right. It isn't not a right in a society that believes only one partner in a lifetime provides the least risk of sexually transmitted disease. Any society has a right to ban any behavior it believes is harmful to that society. Any ban by any society, will not be "fair" to those who desire that behavior but, as long as they are free to leave that society and go to one that allows it or free to leave and create their own society, that is as "fair" as you can get when dealing with "humans" who have many frailties and weaknesses.

    For example, sodomy is one of the leading causes of colon cancer in women and it is even higher than in men who engage in a homosexual lifestyle. Thus, banning sodomy isn't some ban on anything more than a bad lifestyle choice and applys to both sexes.

    Singapore, a secular nation:
    Singapore, a country of 4 million people, bans gay sex, defining it as "an act of gross indecency" punishable by a maximum of two years in jail. There have been few prosecutions, however.

    It is difficult to prosecute, of course, because it is something that is done in private unless you are really a deviant person. But, the naiton, by making it law, does define its morality and I am sure you would agree that every society has a right to define what it believes is moral.

    If you disagree, then what minority do you want defining the morality of the nation. No nation can survive that doesn't difine it because it leads to too much division in the nation. As Washington and Jefferson said
    As explained by George Washington:

    The fundamental principle of our Constitution . . . enjoins [requires] that the will of the majority shall prevail. 7

    Thomas Jefferson agreed:

    The will of the majority [is] the natural law of every society [and] is the only sure guardian of the rights of man. Perhaps even this may sometimes err. But its errors are honest, solitary and short-lived. 8

    Does this original principle therefore mean that minorities are to be disregarded or trodden upon? Of course not. As Jefferson further explained:

    Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  01/28  at  12:41 PM
  5. By the way, to keep that quote of Washington in context, here is the full paragraph from his address in 1794
    Upon the testimony of these facts an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States notified to me that "in the counties of Washington and Allegheny, in Pennsylvania, laws of the United States were opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings or by the powers vested in the marshal of that district." On this call, momentous in the extreme, I sought and weighed what might best subdue the crisis. On the one hand the judicary was pronounced to be stripped of its capacity to enforce the laws; crimes which reached the very existence of social order were perpetrated without control; the friends of Government were insulted, abused, and overawed into silence or an apparent acquience; and to yield to the treasonable fury of so small a portion of the United States would be violate the fundemental principle of our Constitution, which enjoins that the will of the majority shall prevail.
    However you view it,
    "and to yield to the treasonable fury of so small a portion of the United States would be violate the fundemental principle of our Constitution, which enjoins that the will of the majority shall prevail," makes if very clear that rule by minority is wrong and whether "fair" or not, destroys a free society because you then have a minroity ruling the majority.

    Interestingly, socialists proclaim "radical democracy" and yet, they are the ones who wish to silence the majority by using the minority rule of the Courts unconstitutionally. For 150 years, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to State powers because they didn't want the Federal Government ruling the States and the majorities in each state that were different from each other. Only after Gitlow did we see the unconstitutional application of the Bill of Rights as more than a limit on Federal Powers.

    Also, in Jeffereson's quote we should set the context. This study of Jefferson may shed some light on why he felt as he did.
    In the cabinet Jefferson immediately collided with the brilliant Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury.

    The two could no more agree than oil and water.

    Jefferson was an intense republican-democrat, and was shocked and disgusted to find himself in an atmosphere of distrust of a republican system of government, with an unmistakable leaning toward monarchical methods. This feeling prevailed not only in society, but showed itself among the political leaders.

    Jefferson's political creed may be summed up in his own words:
    "The will of the majority is the natural law of every society and the only sure guardian of the rights of man; though this may err, yet its errors are honest, solitary and short-lived. We are safe with that, even in its deviations, for it soon returns again to the right way."

    Hamilton believed in a strong, centralized government, and on nearly every measure that came before the cabinet, these intellectual giants wrangled. Their quarrels were so sharp that Washington was often distressed. He respected both too deeply to be willing to lose either, but it required all his tact and mastering influence to hold them in check. Each found the other so intolerable, that he wished to resign that he might be freed from meeting him.

    Hamilton abhorred the French revolution, with its terrifying excesses, and Jefferson declared that no horror equalled that of France's old system of government.

    Finally Jefferson could stand it no longer and withdrew from the cabinet January 1, 1794.

    For both men, it wasn't that they thought the majority would be "fair" but rather "fairer" than centralized power. Take for examply, the inability of Catholics to hold office in New Hampshire, a state with a Protestant state religion. Until 1877 they were denied some high offices because the majority didn't want a top- down-chuch-power member in a position of authority where his church would force him to make decisions that pleased the church, but not the majority.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  01/28  at  01:11 PM
  6. Cont.
    Or, look at atheists who were banned from some access to courts because of their not being trusted since they wouldn't take an oath ot God they were telling the truth. That may not have been fair, but, it would have certainly been unfair to the majority who did believe an oath to God was "binding" on a person and to violate that oath, even if man didn't find them out, God would, and would deal with them for violating a promise to God. At least it would be unfair until the majority was willing to accept Catholics and Atheists in a new light. Look at the suspicion that still existed with Kennedy's Catholic relationship. It was a great stride forward because the majority could see that Kennedy didn't let the Church dictate what his decisions would be. Until Kennedy, many Catholics held office in states and in Congress from districts and states who saw their wasn't a threat from the Church authorities but, the nation as a whole wasn't ready until Kennedy.

    That is how a society like we created is supposed to work. It is slower than "forced fairness," true. But, in the long run, it is better for the society than say socialism with is what our nation has been on track with for over 70 years. You can see the damage it has done for while it has appeared to advance some groups, it had destroyed the nation's strength in the process. We are now facing bankruptchy with entitlement programs that grow unchecked due to mandatory spending increases based on COLA and by 2030 will create a $54 trillion unfunded liability regardless of which party is in power.
    Posted by JanPBurr  on  01/28  at  01:13 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.