----- Original Message -----
From: Jay Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>We are not ****** common heard animals with some
>higher evolved race of scientists, Jay, wake up from
>this irrational nightmare of yours.
Our Founding Fathers crafted American government to defend against
"irrational" movements like Communism.
America’s government was designed to be corrupt because the moneyed class
was thought to be more rational (calculating) than either elected officials
or the general public! Free trade and free commerce was conceived as a
means to keep governments and men "self-interested" (rational). Capital
would flow towards governments and men who embraced Machiavellian
"self-interest" (rational, calculating) and away from those who were
"passionate" (irrational).
NEW MEANS OF CONTROL HAD TO BE FOUND
A feeling arose in the Renaissance – and crystallized by the seventeenth
century – that moralizing and preaching religious doctrine could no longer
be trusted to restrain the destructive passions of men. [6] A new means of
control had to be found.
The most obvious solution was repression and coercion. Repression had been
the choice of St. Augustine as early as the fifth century and of Calvin in
the sixteenth century. But the repressive solution was beset by a seemingly
insurmountable problem: quis custodies ipsos custodes (who shall watch the
watchers)? Suppose the sovereign turned out to be excessively lenient,
cruel, or had some other failing? What then?
Bernard Mandeville (1670?-1733) rejected repression and suggested that a
society based on the deadliest of the seven deadly sins [7] – "avarice" –
would create common Machiavellian interests and suppress irrational
passions. Mandeville’s ideal society was one where the unwitting cooperation
of individuals, each working for his or her own interest would result in the
greatest benefit to society at large. Mandeville anticipated laissez-faire
economic theory, which promoted self-interest, competition, and little
government interference in the workings of the economy.
PSEUDO DEMOCRACY
"Democracy" is defined as "government by the people". But our Founding
Fathers never intended for "the people" to govern themselves – governance
was reserved for the moneyed class. Two political theorists had great
influence on the framers and creation of the Constitution. John Locke
(1632-1704) made the greatest impact through his Second Treatise of
Government. Locke pioneered the ideas of natural rights and private
property, as well as the concept of "separation of powers" to keep any one
segment of government from gaining too much power. The French writer Baron
de Montesquieu (1689-1755), the second major intellectual influence on the
Constitution, further developed the concept of a separation of powers and
taught that "invisible wealth which could be sent everywhere" would force
governments to govern with greater "wisdom". In other words, here we find
the political argument for free trade:
… and through this means commerce could elude violence, and maintain
itself everywhere; for the richest trader had only invisible wealth
which could be sent everywhere without leaving any trace … In this
manner we owe.., to the avarice of rulers the establishment of a
contrivance which somehow lifts commerce right out of their grip.
Since that time, the rulers have been compelled to govern with
greater wisdom than they themselves might have intended; for, owing
to these events, the great and sudden arbitrary actions of the
sovereign (les grands coups d'autorité) have been proven to be
ineffective and ... only good government brings prosperity [to the
prince]. [8]
Adam Smith (1723-1790), like so many others in his time, believed that free
trade and commerce led to good government and peace. In his Wealth of
Nations, Smith established powerful economic arguments for laissez-faire,
but the attentive reader can find the hidden political arguments here as
well:
… commerce and manufactures gradually introduced order and good
government, and with them, the liberty and security of individuals,
among the inhabitants of the country, who had before lived in almost
in a continual state of war with their neighbors, and of servile
dependency upon their superiors. [9]
James Madison (1751-1836) – "the father of the U.S. Constitution" [10] – was
born into a community of self-made Lockean Virginians to whom property
rights were both natural and civil. Madison studied Smith carefully, hoping
to discover "the true principles of political economy [which] are everywhere
needed … more so in our young country than in some old ones." [11]
Madison’s primary political concern centered on the maintenance of social
stability by the political and social control of competing factions; control
by government itself was a secondary consideration. The framers crafted an
elaborate political system:
a.. Where "first object of government" (highest priority) was "the
faculties" of acquiring property. [12]
b.. Where the struggle of classes and passions (e.g., religious
conflict) was replaced with the struggle of interests in the economic
sphere.
c.. Where the political system was extremely resistant to change.
d.. Where political power was reserved for a white male minority while
projecting the illusion of self-government to the majority. Madison
scholar Richard K. Matthews explains:
By consciously denying virtually all but a handful of citizens any
role in a governmental structure that, by design, was to be run by
an elite of superior ability (who nonetheless would have to check
and balance each other), Madison left [economic struggle] as the
prime avenue for humanity to search for meaning. [13]
Madison even went so far as to boast that "the true distinction" between
ancient regimes and the proposed experiment in government "lies in the total
exclusion of the people in their collective capacity." [14] Matthews
continues:
These passages all too neatly anticipate Madison’s conception of
citizenship: do not give "the people" any power when they are
assembled; allow some of the white males, acting in isolation, the
fleeting participation of voting for their representatives and
restrict the right for as long as politically possible to one branch
of the legislature. Beyond this minimalist approach to politics, ask
little else of the people, except under extraordinary conditions.
[15]
That’s the theory, here is how it works:
In 1884, one of the wealthiest men of his time, Henry B. Payne,
wanted to become the next United States senator from Ohio. Payne's
son Oliver, the treasurer of Standard Oil, did his best to help.
Just before the election for Ohio’s seat, son Oliver "sat at a desk
in a Columbus hotel with a stack of bills in front of him, paying
for the votes of the state legislators," who then elected U.S.
senators. [16]
Sound familliar? There is a GOOD REASON America is politically
corrupt. See the rest of the story at www.dieoff.com/page168.htm
Jay -- www.dieoff.com
-------------------------------------
[1] http://dieoff.com/page24.htm
[2] p. 8, Herbert I. Schiller, CULTURE INC; Oxford, 1989;
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195067835
The rest are at www.dieoff.com/page168.htm
