Difference between revisions of "Portal:What Government do We Want"

From Civicwiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created Portal:The Big Issues)
 
m (typo corrections)
 
(42 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
__NOTOC__
 
__NOTOC__
 
<div style="width:100%;border:1px solid #000080;">
 
<div style="width:100%;border:1px solid #000080;">
<h2 style="border-bottom:none;margin:0;background:#000080; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; text-align:center; color:#FFF;">The Big Issues</h2>
+
<h2 style="border-bottom:none;margin:0;background:#000080; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; text-align:center; color:#FFF;">How should we be governed?</h2>
 
<table width="100%" border="0" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000080;" cellpadding="0">
 
<table width="100%" border="0" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000080;" cellpadding="0">
 
<tr><td style="padding:5px;">
 
<tr><td style="padding:5px;">
American independence owes much to English Common LawThe majority of the colonists were English who would eventually insist on being treated as English subjects in that, English subjects enjoyed rights that were conferred by the English constitutionAnd the English constitution rested on Common LawFrom the beginning of the English colonies in America, there was conflict between the interest of the colonists and the interests of the English crown and the chartered companies behind the colonies. Parliament created a number of Acts that regulated and taxed colonial trade in ways that were expensive for the colonists - and, in which, the colonists had no voiceFor more than a century, these conflicts could be, and were, ignored when they interfered too greatly in the ability of the colonists to pursue their economic interests.  In the mid 18th century, a point was reached at which one or the other would have to prevail. In that time leading up to American independence, influential arguments were made by colonial lawyers, in court cases pressed by English authorities, that relied little on specific legal arguments and more on appealing to the rights conferred by English Common Law.  The colonists wanted the rights of subjects living in England.  They had little interest in independence until it appeared to be the only way to achieve them.   
+
In America's early days we were an independent lotWe believed in liberty, a right to property, and freedom from arbitrary arrestWe saw the need for government but the problem was how to use it to maintain order without destroying liberty or trampling on our 'inalienable' rightsThis 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. 
 +
[[File:If I Ran the Zoo.png|250px|thumb|<p style="text-align:center">"<big>'''If I ran the zoo.'''</big><br>I'd make a few changes.<br>That's just what I'd do."<br> Dr. Seuss|link=]]</p>
 +
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)<ref name="Common Sense">{{cite book|last=Paine|first=Thomas|title=Common Sense|date=1776|publisher=Robert Bell|location=Philadelphia}}</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 propertyThe 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>
 +
<br>This view of government is 'classic liberal'.  In this view the preservation of individual liberty is the focus.
 +
<!-----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>
 +
----->
  
This portal is the place to assign categories and pages that present and discuss the link between American independence and English rights.
+
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 (creating and enforcing regulations) 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.
 +
 
 +
Which do we want? These two views have fundamental differences that won't be reconciled in a way that is stable and lasting.    CW is on the side of liberty protected by only as much government as is necessary.  However, we will also present thoughtful contributions that disagree.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
<references />
 
</td>
 
</td>
<td>[[File:MorganWashington.jpg|250px|link=]]<br>
+
</tr>
<hr>
 
<p style="font-size:80%">Morgan's Raiders entering Washington, Ohio in August, 1863<br><b>This Civil War image is a placeholder.</b></p>
 
</td></tr>
 
 
</table>
 
</table>
 
<!--</div>-->
 
<!--</div>-->
 
<table style="width:100%; vertical-align:top; margin-top:8px;">
 
<table style="width:100%; vertical-align:top; margin-top:8px;">
 
<tr>
 
<tr>
<td width="50%" valign="top" style="padding:10px;">
+
<td width="50%" valign="top" style="padding:6px;">
<div style="width:100%;border:1px solid #000080;">
+
<div style="width:100%;border:1px solid #000080;padding:3px;">
 
<h2 style="border-bottom:none;margin-top:8px;margin:0;background:#000080; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; text-align:center; color:#FFF;">Categories and contents</h2>
 
<h2 style="border-bottom:none;margin-top:8px;margin:0;background:#000080; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; text-align:center; color:#FFF;">Categories and contents</h2>
 
Click on arrows to see subcategories and articles.<br>
 
Click on arrows to see subcategories and articles.<br>
 
Article titles are in italics.
 
Article titles are in italics.
{{#categorytree:The Big Issues|mode=pages}}
+
{{#categorytree:What Government|mode=pages}}
 
</div>
 
</div>
<div style="width:100%;border:1px solid #000080;margin-top:6px;">
+
<div style="width:100%;border:1px solid #000080;margin-top:6px;padding:3px;">
 
<h2 style="border-bottom:none;margin-top:8px;margin:0;background:#000080; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; text-align:center; color:#FFF;">Things you can do</h2>
 
<h2 style="border-bottom:none;margin-top:8px;margin:0;background:#000080; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; text-align:center; color:#FFF;">Things you can do</h2>
 +
*Write (or edit) a page about about an important issue. 
 
*Improve the introduction above (text and image).
 
*Improve the introduction above (text and image).
**Find a good image to represent the portal. 
 
*Write (or edit) a page about about [[Inalienable rights|inalienable rights]].  What are inalienable rights? Their connection to Common Law? What did the concept mean to American independence?
 
 
 
</div>
 
</div>
 
</td>
 
</td>
 
<td>&nbsp;</td>
 
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td width="50%" valign="top" style="padding:10px;">
+
<td width="50%" valign="top" style="padding:6px;">
<div style="width:100%;border:1px solid #000080;">
+
<div style="width:100%;border:1px solid #000080;padding:3px;">
<h2 style="border-bottom:none;margin-top:8px;margin:0;background:#000080; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; text-align:center; color:#FFF;">Sand Box</h2>
+
<h2 style="border-bottom:none;margin-top:8px;margin:0;background:#000080; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; text-align:center; color:#FFF;">Featured Article</h2>
*Here is a link to [[Test article 1|test article 1]]. It was created without using the Article form.
+
''Classic Liberal vs. Progressive''
*Experiment 2
+
<br>{{Featured Article|The Basic Choice: Classic Liberal vs. Progressive}}
 +
 
 
</div>
 
</div>
<div style="width:100%;border:1px solid #000080;margin-top:6px;">
+
<!---
<h2 style="border-bottom:none;margin-top:8px;margin:0;background:#000080; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; text-align:center; color:#FFF;">Articles</h2>
+
<div style="width:100%;border:1px solid #000080;margin-top:6px;padding:3px;">
 +
<h2 style="border-bottom:none;margin-top:8px;margin:0;background:#000080; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; text-align:center; color:#FFF;">Issues</h2>
 
{{#ask:[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]|format=ul}}
 
{{#ask:[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]|format=ul}}
 
</div>
 
</div>
 +
--->
 
</td>
 
</td>
 
</tr>
 
</tr>
 
</table>
 
</table>
 
</div>
 
</div>

Latest revision as of 13:15, 27 February 2017

How should we be governed?

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.

"If I ran the zoo.
I'd make a few changes.
That's just what I'd do."
Dr. Seuss

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)[1]. 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."[2]
This view of government is 'classic liberal'. In this view the preservation of individual liberty is the focus.

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. This view holds that individual rights are not 'inalienable', but are created by government; and that a benevolent and powerful state 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 (creating and enforcing regulations) 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.

Which do we want? These two views have fundamental differences that won't be reconciled in a way that is stable and lasting. CW is on the side of liberty protected by only as much government as is necessary. However, we will also present thoughtful contributions that disagree.


  1. Paine, Thomas (1776). Common Sense. Philadelphia: Robert Bell.
  2. Epstein, Richard The Classical Liberal Consititution (2014) Cambridge, Massachusetts; Harvard University Press

Categories and contents

Click on arrows to see subcategories and articles.
Article titles are in italics.

Things you can do

  • Write (or edit) a page about about an important issue.
  • Improve the introduction above (text and image).
 

Featured Article

Classic Liberal vs. Progressive
Early Americans were very like-minded in their political theory. They were mostly what CW now calls classic liberals who wanted only as much government as was needed to protect liberty, the right to property, and a very few other fundamental rights. Such rights belonged to every person by birth-right irrespective of government.

The early 20th century saw the advent of the progressive view of government as an active force for good, correcting social problems through increased government authority. They saw rights as being defined and granted by government.(Full article...)