|
|
| (34 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | <!--<div style="border: 1px solid #ddd;">--> | + | How do we want our government to behave and how do we want to be governed? More and more the answer to that question is becoming increasingly important to our daily happiness and well being. <!-- Should it be liberal, conservative, progressive? --> |
| − | <!-----------------------
| + | Providing you with the information needed to answer that question is the main goal of CW. Every CW topic category contributes to that answer. |
| − | <hr>We began as a nation of people determined that liberty is fundamental to life. We created something new in government - a democratic, federal, republic that had novel protections for "life, liberty, and property." Because we understood that liberty is fragile, we bet the future of our country on the strength of those protections. When asked what the Constitutional Convention had given the country, Benjamin Franklin famously answered - "A Republic, if you can keep it." We ''<u>have</u>'' kept it. And America became the most successful of countries if personal liberty, wellbeing, and prosperity are the measures.
| + | However, the question is approached directly within: <br>[[Portal:What Government do We Want|What Government do We Want]]. |
| − | * '''CW is about''' ''how that government took shape, what made it strong, and how it has evolved. (categories: [[Portal:Inalienable Rights|Inalienable Rights]] and [[Portal:Federalism and Democracy|Federalism and Democracy]])''
| + | |
| − | --------------------------->
| |
| − | <!--
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| | | | |
| − | <div style="border: 1px solid #ddd;"> | + | <!------------ |
| − | --> | + | In America's early days we were an independent lot. We believed in liberty, a right to property, and freedom from arbitrary arrest. We saw the need for government but the problem was how to use it to maintain order without destroying liberty or trampling on our 'inalienable' rights. This balance was the subject of public debate leading up to the ratification of our constitution, articulated in essays that come down to us as The Federalist Papers and The Anti-Federalist Papers. It amounted to one side saying that the existing confederation of independent states provided as much government as could exist and be compatible with liberty; and the federalists saying that the Confederation was insufficient to maintain order and provide for a nation strong enough to defend itself against external (and internal) attacks on that liberty. Both sides agreed with Thomas Paine who wrote "government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state, an intolerable one." (''Common Sense'' 1776). |
| − | <!--<span style="font-size:120%;">'''The Issues'''</span>-->
| + | -------> |
| − | In the early days of this country we were an independent lot. We believed in a short list of "inalienable" rights. We saw the need for government. The problem was how to use it to maintain order without destroying liberty. This balance was the subject of the public debate leading up to the ratification of our constitution, articulated in essays that came down to us as The Federalist Papers and The Anti-Federalist Papers. It amounted to one side saying that the existing confederation of independent states provided all the government that could exist and be compatible with liberty; and the federalists saying that it was insufficient to maintain order and provide for a nation strong enough to defend itself against external (and internal) attacks on that liberty. Both sides agreed with Thomas Paine who wrote "government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state, an intolerable one."<ref name="Common Sense"> Thomas Paine, ''Common Sense'' (1776)</ref>. | |
| | <!-----Richard Epstein describes their dilemma thus: "A government that is too strong can become tyrannical and oppress its citizens; yet a government that is too weak cannot withstand a succession of internal upheavals or external attacks . . , with catastrophic loss of liberty and destruction of property. The key challenge was to determine how best to navigate between these two perils."<ref name="Classical Liberal Constitution"> Epstein, Richard ''The Classical Liberal Consititution'' (2014) Cambridge, Massachusetts; Harvard University Press</ref> | | <!-----Richard Epstein describes their dilemma thus: "A government that is too strong can become tyrannical and oppress its citizens; yet a government that is too weak cannot withstand a succession of internal upheavals or external attacks . . , with catastrophic loss of liberty and destruction of property. The key challenge was to determine how best to navigate between these two perils."<ref name="Classical Liberal Constitution"> Epstein, Richard ''The Classical Liberal Consititution'' (2014) Cambridge, Massachusetts; Harvard University Press</ref> |
| | -----> | | -----> |
| | + | <!-------- |
| | + | In the early 20th century there was a shift toward the progressive view that saw government not as necessary evil, but as a force for good--correcting social flaws that the minimalist approach ignored. --> |
| | + | <!--- Following Epstein's analysis <ref name="Classical Liberal Constitution"> Richard Epstein ''The Classical Liberal Consititution'' (2014) Cambridge, Massachusetts; Harvard University Press</ref> ---> |
| | + | <!--- This view holds that individual rights are not 'inalienable', but are created by government; and that a benevolent and powerful state---> |
| | + | <!---, administered by impartial experts,---> |
| | + | <!---can eliminate the economic imbalances created by our rapid industrialization and advance of technology. The constitution's limits on government power were seen as barriers to a modern state to be overcome by greater power to be exercised by impartial administrative agencies that receive power from the legislature and that major issues should be settled through the action of a democratically elected legislature unfettered by the Constitution's structure, protection of property, and judicial review. |
| | | | |
| − | In the early part of the 20th century there was a reversal to the progressive view that saw government not as a necessary evil, but rather as a force for good--correcting social flaws that the minimalist approach failed to address. Following Epstein's analysis <ref name="Classical Liberal Constitution"> Richard Epstein ''The Classical Liberal Consititution'' (2014) Cambridge, Massachusetts; Harvard University Press</ref> this view holds that individual rights do not exist independently of government but are created by it; and that a benevolent state, administered by impartial experts, can eliminate the economic imbalances created by our rapid industrialization and advance of technology. Those early progressives saw the constitution's limits on state power as barriers to be overcome by a greater use of government power to be exercised by administrative agencies that receive power through legislative action and that the power to decide major issues should be subject to the people through democratic vote rather than through the Constitution's structure, protection of property, and judicial review.
| + | Which do we want? This discussion is embedded in each CW topic. [[Portal:Liberty and Constitution|Liberty and Constitution]] and [[Portal:Economic Freedom|Economic Freedom]] bear on the question more directly than the others. <br>CW is on the side of liberty protected by only as much government as is necessary. We will also present thoughtful contributions that disagree. |
| − | | + | -----------> |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | <!---------
| |
| − | At our beginning, America debated how to build a government that afforded "liberty and justice for all" and would stand the test of time. This was not simple. One of the founders' biggest issues was finding a way such that people and independent states of diverse interests could live side-by-side and thrive under a common federal government.
| |
| − | --------->
| |
| − | <br>Today's issues are no less important to the stability and longevity of our government and the harmony of our society. The details are different - but the issues are still about how a diverse people live under one government and reconcile their philosophical differences. Their importance is heightened because we now seem deeply divided. Politicians and factions play to our differences and divide us by misinforming us to get elected. It is a cynical play for political power at the expense of the health of our society. Therefore:
| |
| − | * '''CW is about'''
| |
| − | **'''''the issues that most concern Americans today'''''.
| |
| − | **(see: ''[[Portal:The Issues|The Issues]])''
| |
| − | * '''and about providing'''
| |
| − | ** ''informed citizens and a forum for objective information, better understanding, less divisiveness'', and thus,
| |
| − | **''the political momentum that is needed to govern effectively''.
| |
| − | **(see: ''[[Civicwiki:Just the Facts Maam|Just the facts]])''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | <!--</div> --> | |
| − | <!--------------------------
| |
| − | CW will be effective to the extent that people like yourself get involved.
| |
| − | <br>You can learn more about Civicwiki [[Civicwiki:About|here]].
| |
| − | ----------------------------> | |
| − | <!--
| |
| − | ===Welcome to Civicwiki===
| |
| − | (see also [[Civicwiki:Just the Facts Maam|about CW]])
| |
| − | <br>CW is a project that seeks to bring objective thought to civic issues. It is a reaction to the political process as it has evolved from our country's beginnings into what it has become today - a process filled with misinformation to serve political agendas. Too often the desire for political power trumps truth.
| |
| − | CW would prefer political advocacy that places objective information above political agenda. We have an agenda that we hope is acceptable to all - to establish an environment of anonymous civil discourse that helps CW readers become immune to misinformation and to be able to see through the fog of political rhetoric.
| |
| − | <br><br>A premise of CW is that there is a set of [[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]] that apply to us all. All of us should be equal in our enjoyment of these rights. And this set of rights should not be violated or abridged by any person or group.
| |
| − | --> | |
| | | | |
| | <references /> | | <references /> |
How do we want our government to behave and how do we want to be governed? More and more the answer to that question is becoming increasingly important to our daily happiness and well being.
Providing you with the information needed to answer that question is the main goal of CW. Every CW topic category contributes to that answer.
However, the question is approached directly within:
What Government do We Want.
