I forgot about the bureaucratic overhead. Good point.

That at least some element of empiricism in it. Collectivism and statism are taken for granted on faith as the a priori standard.

Its like "trying" jumping off a cliff to see if you can fly

Taxes would be higher. You forgot bureaucratic "overhead" siphoned into nothingness. Plus, most would work less with the most productive working the most less, reducing everything. Net benefit: negative.

I love the idea of every person being issued a guaranteed wage. That would mean taxes for each person would have to equal that guaranteed wage, so the net benefit would actually be zero.

We don’t run out. There are plenty of them. Some just may have to do double or triple duty based on their ability.

There is nothing in the history of the writing of the Constitution that indicates they watered it down. They were debating about the best way to limit and balance power, not the rights of the individual.

I agree. Stronger constitution would simply slow down collectivism if the people wanted it. My basic point was that the constitution was a compromise amongst the founding fathers, and therefore some of the stronger ideas had to be watered down to get it passed.

we would quickly run out of servants...

They did not exclude private property from the Constitution because of slavery. The Constitution was about the structure and procedures of the national government. Private property rights were taken for granted. In the Bil of Rights it was included to limit government action against it, but too weakly. If more had been said it would have slowed down the statists at most. The formulations in the Constitution are not the cause of the rise of collectivism and statism.

This reminds me of a thought experiment concerning socialism:
Let’s assume everyone was assigned a house provided by the state. And, each house came with two servants who will provide for all of your family’s needs.
Sound too good to be true?

My point was that private property was not guaranteed in the constitution explicitly. The issue was really avoided, from what I understand was to avoid guaranteeing the right of people to have slaves (which were considered property at the time). Anyway, look at the horrors that have come from non explicit protection of property. The liberals have eroded what little protection there was into almost no protection now. Carry a wad of cash and it can be seized by "asset forfeiture" laws unless you can PROVE it was made by approved methods. I dont own my house, as it can be seized and sold for taxes which are just assessed by the system. Its getting close to guns being outlawed and seized. Not there quite yet, but they have to be registered and a person "approved" to be able to buy them.

I do think that since the consititution was signed, the passages in it have been pretty routinely ignored in favor of collectivist ideology. Too bad it wasnt a consistently objectivist document. Might have lasted longer.

The right of private property was assumed and was listed in many other documents. It was included in the fifth amendment of the Constitution, in a way that shows it was taken for granted, but in a way that conceded too much, even though eminent domain then was no where near what it is used for now.

Property rights today are violated by government because the establishment intellectuals don't recognize it, not because the Declaration didn't include it in the preamble as a particular kind of liberty and pursuit of happiness. Look at what they are doing to the second amendment and the others that are in the Constitution.

Freedom of religious belief never meant that anything could be done in the name of religion. Polygamy violated their concept of marriage regardless of religion. Outlawing polygamy within states did not control what version of the supernatural they worshiped, and state actions were not covered by the first amendment at the time.

Treatment of Indians and Mexicans was a result of violent warfare. They were serious problems at the time. Fighting them to stop the attacks was not a violation of the Constitution.

Virginia was had one of the best state constitutions. It doesn't matter that some states were called "commonwealths". It did not mean socialism. The "needs of the many" were not provided by the few. They took care of the genuinely poor at the local level as charity.

I wish you were right. But there is no mention of property in the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (whatever that is...)". The result is that property rights were explicitly left out of our constitution, with the result that property today is just not protected now to a substantial degree.

Being married to two women was a religious custom with the mormons which hurt NO ONE. My point is that although the document said "religious liberty", it wasnt what happened pretty much right out of the gate.

The actions of the initial government violated many of the tenets of the constitution since the beginning of our country. Treatment of the Indians, Mexicans in Texas are just two examples. Running the mormons all over creation because of their polygamy is another.

Virginia was even set up as a "commonwealth" where the needs of the many were provided by the few.

The right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness were common throughout the colonies. Property was omitted most likely because it was regarded as less fundamental even though widely embraced and taken for granted. It was not because of slaves. The political compromise on slavery was in the Declaration, where Jefferson's original complaints against Britain included objection to the British introducing the slave trade, which was omitted from the Declaration.

The compromises they reached in the Constitution were over how the government was to be structured and run, not philosophy. There were not "as many different opinions on the role of government" then as now. There were no collectivists.

Freedom of religious belief applied to everyone. It never meant that citizens could do anything they wanted to in the name of religion, and the Constitution and bill of rights did not apply to the states then.

The ambiguities in the Constitution did not allow for government policy today; they were exploited along with re-interpretation in accordance with contrary philosophy of government that increasingly spread.

We got from the principles of the founding to the statism and collectivism of today because of the counter Enlightenment ideas that spread from Europe. The Constitution was not the cause; a better philosophical trend could have easily led to improvements in the Constitution through amendments.

A more comprehensive and consistent Enlightenment philosophy -- for example an explicit justification for egoism replacing the implicit egoist ethics in the right to life, liberty, property and one's own personal happiness -- would not have made much difference to the original Constitution, but it's lack made it harder to resist the counter-Enlightenment influence on ideas, which in turn led to the growth of statist government and courts 'rewriting' the Constitution through reinterpretation of what is proper.

Human collision avoidance in practice is not that great either. Plus humans actually do stupid things that cause accidents, which autonomous cars would not do. The idea that autonomous vehicles when mixed with human drivers and pedestrians can totally eliminate accidents just isn’t realustic

Points well taken. What I was getting at is that those documents were compromises in order to get enough agreement to start the country, as opposed to an intellectually consistent philosophically based set of ideas. It tapped into the intense political upset with English rule, and a desire to prevent a reoccurrence of the atrocities of government.

The language of “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” I think was a compromise to Not deal with the practice of slavery, where slaves were considered property. The phrase should have read “life, liberty, and property”.

My other point is that the actions of the people and the government were not so consistent with true freedom back then as they are inconsistent now.

Freedom of religion back then didn’t apply to Mormonism, and even now subjects Mormons to persecution for pokygamy

Not to say that the constitution was a bad thing, just that the flaws and compromises contained in it allowed for the government excesses of today.

I am thinking that there were many different opinions as to the role of government back then as there are now. I am trying to understand how we got from the lofty ideals promoted in our constitution to the current actions of government today.

You have the same false impression of the founding of the country that you did when you said this 2 1/2 years ago. Impressions from the equivalent of a school field trip are not an education in history and the reasons for it.

The Declaration was a political document listing the reasons for breaking with England, with a preamble summarizing what was already commonly understood about the rights of man, as the standard by which England's actions were rejected and explicitly showing why it was a philosophically based document. See Carl Becker's The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas.

The Declaration only talked about England for the obvious reason that England was ruling the colonies then. That does not mean that the principle of the rights of man only applied against England. It had nothing to do with British actions against Puritans who had landed here more than two centuries earlier.

The Constitution was a document specifying the functions and limits of a new national government. It was not a philosophical document because that was not its purpose, but like the Declaration, was philosophically based: It presupposed a political philosophy of individualism from the Enlightenment and was designed to protect against actions by the Federal government. Different ideas lead to different kinds of government.

The compromises in the framing of the Constitution were on matters of specifying government structure and procedures, not philosophy. It was not about freedom from England, whose rule had already been overthrown years before. Freedom from government interference in religion meant what it said, which was all religion. It did not furtively mean Mormons were excluded.

It was also not about freedom of Indian individuals versus others; it had some provisions for dealing with Indian tribes, who were still carrying on wars that were a pervasive physical threat at the time and had to be defended against. Neither the Constitution nor the new government got rid of English, French, Spanish, Mexican, Indian, or Mormon people. They did not "take over" the land to the Pacific; the jurisdiction of the American government replaced what was left of the rest by a freer system based on the rights of the individual and political freedom.

The Constitution and the new government were what they claimed to be. Today they are not because of the influence of contrary ideas, implemented by Pragmatism and Progressivism imported over centuries from Europe out of the counter Enlightenment. Those who do not understand the role of basic ideas in the course of a culture and a nation you will never understand the founding of this country and what happened to it since.

Excellent points.

https://mises.org/library/organized-c...

There may even be free downloads as in my copy Mises Institute gives permission to reprint provided full credit is given.

Thx. I will check it out. My main point was that the documents appeared to be a result of compromises similar to what we see now relating to things like Obamacare. Immigration, and government spending

Recommend you read DiLorenzo's book Organized Crime for more detail of Jefferson's thinking (and of other "founding fathers" and national "heroes".) Consider the source of the information being presented as Jefferson's thinking. Some would love to ruin Jefferson's reputation and to praise others who were statist looters. DiLorenzo documents the sources he uses in his book.

I visited the Jefferson museum in Charlottesville, and I left with the distinct impression that the declaration of independence and constitution were more of a revolt from the particular actions of England against the puritans who landed here from England. It was NOT a philosophically based document. It talked about releigion fredom, but what it meant was freedom from the kings religion, but didnt guarantee that the colonists could freely practice ANY religion (certainly not Mormonism for example), and it didnt guarantee private property.

Those documents were compromises amongst intellectually compromised individuals. Once signed, the US government simply found ways to take over additional lands until the USA spanned the atlantic and pacific oceans. In the meantime, it got rid of the English, the French, the Spanish, The mexicans, the Indians, and the Mormons in the process.

So today, we see eminent domain, political corruption, all sorts of theft through taxes, and substantially debilitating regulations- all symptoms of an intellectually compromised constitution. We arent what we claim at all.

The country has abandoned the Enlightenment ideas of reason and individualism that made the Constitution possible. The Constitution is not the starting point and not the philosophical basis of a culture.

Since our system has pretty much abandoned the constitution, and everything is up for grabs by the rule of the masses, the country is doomed to crash and all we can do is try to protect ourselves while enjoying the best life has to offer.