Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="rickyb" data-source="post: 5344537" data-attributes="member: 56035">&quot;Among Madisonian scholars, there is a consensus that &quot;the Constitution was intrinsically an aristocratic document designed to check the democratic tendencies of the period,&quot; delivering power to a &quot;better sort&quot; of people and excluding those who were not rich, well born, or prominent from exercising political power (Lance Banning). The primary responsibility of government is &quot;to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority,&quot; Madison declared. That has been the guiding principle of the democratic system from its origins until today.In public discussion, Madison spoke of the rights of minorities in general, but it is quite clear that he had a particular minority in mind &quot;the minority of the opulent.&quot; Modern political theory stresses Madison’s belief that &quot;in a just and a free government the rights both of property and of persons ought to be effectually guarded.&quot; But in this case too it is useful to look at the doctrine more carefully. There are no rights of property, only rights to property that is, rights of persons with property. Perhaps I have a right to my car, but my car has no rights. The right to property also differs from others in that one person’s possession of property deprives another of that right if I own my car, you do not; but in a just and free society, my freedom of speech would not limit yours. The Madisonian principle, then, is that government must guard the rights of persons generally, but must provide special and additional guarantees for the rights of one class of persons, property owners.Madison foresaw that the threat of democracy was likely to become more severe over time because of the increase in &quot;the proportion of those who will labor under all the hardships of life, and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings.&quot; They might gain influence, Madison feared. He was concerned by the &quot;symptoms of a leveling spirit&quot; that had already appeared, and warned &quot;of the future danger&quot; if the right to vote would place &quot;power over property in hands without a share in it.&quot; Those &quot;without property, or the hope of acquiring it, cannot be expected to sympathize sufficiently with its rights,&quot; Madison explained. His solution was to keep political power in the hands of those who &quot;come from and represent the wealth of the nation,&quot; the &quot;more capable set of men,&quot; with the general public fragmented and disorganized…&quot;[URL unfurl=&quot;true&quot;]https://chomsky.info/profit02/[/URL]democracy is participation in power.&nbsp; why defend the alternative?this is regarding class mobility which you claim is so great in america:[URL unfurl=&quot;true&quot;]https://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobility/[/URL]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="rickyb, post: 5344537, member: 56035"] " Among Madisonian scholars, there is a consensus that "[B]the Constitution was intrinsically an aristocratic document designed to check the democratic tendencies of the perio[/B]d," delivering power to a "better sort" of people and excluding those who were not rich, well born, or prominent from exercising political power (Lance Banning). The primary responsibility of government is "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority," Madison declared. That has been the guiding principle of the democratic system from its origins until today. In public discussion, Madison spoke of the rights of minorities in general, but it is quite clear that he had a particular minority in mind "the minority of the opulent." Modern political theory stresses Madison’s belief that "in a just and a free government the rights both of property and of persons ought to be effectually guarded." But in this case too it is useful to look at the doctrine more carefully. There are no rights of property, only rights to property that is, rights of persons with property. Perhaps I have a right to my car, but my car has no rights. The right to property also differs from others in that one person’s possession of property deprives another of that right if I own my car, you do not; but in a just and free society, my freedom of speech would not limit yours. The Madisonian principle, then, is that government must guard the rights of persons generally, but must provide special and additional guarantees for the rights of one class of persons, property owners. Madison foresaw that the threat of democracy was likely to become more severe over time because of the increase in "the proportion of those who will labor under all the hardships of life, and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings." They might gain influence, Madison feared. He was concerned by the "symptoms of a leveling spirit" that had already appeared, and warned "of the future danger" if the right to vote would place "power over property in hands without a share in it." Those "without property, or the hope of acquiring it, cannot be expected to sympathize sufficiently with its rights," Madison explained. His solution was to keep political power in the hands of those who "come from and represent the wealth of the nation," the "more capable set of men," with the general public fragmented and disorganized…" [URL unfurl="true"]https://chomsky.info/profit02/[/URL] democracy is participation in power. why defend the alternative? this is regarding class mobility which you claim is so great in america: [URL unfurl="true"]https://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobility/[/URL] [/QUOTE]

Verification