http://civicwiki.org/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=JeffCivicwiki - User contributions [en]2026-05-07T10:51:56ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.28.0http://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User:BcatOne&diff=2404User:BcatOne2015-10-19T21:27:11Z<p>Jeff: Created page with "Hello"</p>
<hr />
<div>Hello</div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BcatOne&diff=2403User talk:BcatOne2015-10-19T21:26:23Z<p>Jeff: Created page with "To leave a message for BcatOne, please click on the tab 'Add topic'. Please give your new topic a name in the template that appears. If your comment is about a topic already..."</p>
<hr />
<div>To leave a message for BcatOne, please click on the tab 'Add topic'. Please give your new topic a name in the template that appears. If your comment is about a topic already created, simply edit that topic leaving your comment at the bottom of the comments/answers already there.</div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeff&diff=2402User talk:Jeff2015-10-19T21:25:32Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div>To leave me a message, please click on the tab 'Add topic'. Please give your new topic a name in the template that appears. If your comment is about a topic already created, simply edit that topic leaving your comment at the bottom of the comments/answers already there.</div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeff&diff=2401User talk:Jeff2015-10-19T21:25:09Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div>To leave me a message, please click on the tab 'Add topic'. Please give your new topic a name in the template that appears. If your comment is about a topic already created, simply edit that topic leaving your comment at the bottom of the comments/answers already there.<br />
<br>Thanks, Jeff</div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=2400Talk:Main Page2015-10-19T19:39:37Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div>Discussion page for 'Main page'<br />
<br />
To add a comment or question, click on 'Add topic' above.</div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=2399Talk:Main Page2015-10-19T19:39:11Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div>Discussion page for 'Main page'<br />
To add a comment or question, click on 'Add topic' above.</div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=2398Talk:Main Page2015-10-19T19:38:24Z<p>Jeff: Created page with "Discussion page for 'Main page'"</p>
<hr />
<div>Discussion page for 'Main page'</div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jeff&diff=2397User:Jeff2015-10-19T19:00:11Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div>Hi. <br />
<!-- I am one of the bureaucrats for Civicwiki. If you have a question or comment about Civicwiki please start a comment on my [[User talk:Jeff|talk page]]. --></div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Civicwiki:Mission&diff=2396Civicwiki:Mission2015-09-29T19:29:18Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div>The government of the United States of America has been stable and continuous for almost 230 years. As a constitutional republic of 230 years it is old by historical standards. No other modern government has existed that long or produced such dramatic success for its citizens, and for that matter, for the world. Our founders would be surprised that their work has lasted so long. <br />
<br />
For all the brilliant intellect invested in our founding, the longevity of the United States would depend less on the work of our founders than on the character of Americans - something the founders understood well. The Declaration of Independence is a powerful statement and The Constitution is a careful and wise guide to legitimate and stable government. But only the values, beliefs, and character of Americans can give them value. If Americans fall too far away from their principles, The Declaration and Constitution will cease to matter. But what are these principles that were written down so long ago? Should they still matter? Hasn't society changed? The longevity of our government removes today’s youth 8 or 9 generations from its origins. We are prosperous and comfortable. Like a fish unaware of salt water, our long-running success has become an uninteresting condition of life.<br />
<!-----<br />
The longevity of our government removes today’s youth 8 or 9 generations from its origins. Not surprisingly, fewer of us today understand or have a sense of our political heritage or the source or our success. We are prosperous and comfortable. Like a fish unaware of salt water, our long-running success has become an uninteresting condition of life. But our continued success is never guaranteed. We are increasingly out of touch with the ideas and human spirit on which that success was built. They must be understood and refreshed if we are to stay ahead of the historical odds. <br />
-----> <br />
<br />
==The Mission==<br />
''CW's original mission was to provide a forum for fact-based civil discourse, free of demagoguery.'' <br>And by doing so, to equip voters to make better informed choices.<br />
CW was and still is a reaction to the political process as it has become today - filled with unsupported assertion, fact presented out of context, one-sided half-truths, fabrication presented as fact, and rhetoric calculated to elicit an emotional reaction, all to serve political agendas at the expense of truth and the general welfare. <br>See [[Civicwiki:Just the Facts Maam|about Civicwiki]].<br />
<br />
''CW's mission also includes an examination of the ideas and heritage behind American success.''<br />
<br />
<!--If we are to navigate through the fog of political marketing, we must have a reliable compass.--><br />
<!--To further support the CW mission of informed political choices, CW discusses the nature of economic freedom, wealth and poverty and how they should be addressed by government. <br />
Wealth and poverty are topics that have become high profile political issues over the last 50 years. Much of government policy that has been developed since the mid '60s is aimed directly at poverty and indirectly at wealth, with profound effect. Nonetheless, we are increasingly out of touch with the source of wealth and well being - (and by that we mean the wealth and well being of all of us - not some legendary few) and so it is slipping away for many Americans.--> <br />
<!--<br>We need to refresh our understanding of the source of wealth and the causes of poverty.--><br />
CW pursues this mission by presenting the story of America in several parts <br />
:1. Inalienable rights.<br />
:2. Our debt to the recognition of rights and the development of liberty in England<br />
:: and then in the English colonies in America<br />
<!--historical influences that set the stage for an independent America. Including:<br />
::-- The concepts of rights and freedom developed in England and exported to the colonies.<br />
::-- The development of colonies in America.--><br />
:3. The ideas, debates, and founding documents that resulted in the United States. <!--Including: <br />
::-- The principles presented in the Declaration of Independence<br />
::-- The principles behind the Articles of Confederation<br />
::-- Principles contained in The Constitution of the United States::: and the debate over ratification as recorded in ''The Federalist Papers'' and the Anti-Federalist Papers.--><br />
:4. Economic freedom's role and importance. <!--Including:<br />
::-- The nature of wealth and poverty,--> and <br />
:5. How do we want our government to behave and the big issues that are important to us today. <br />
<br />
The best tutorial for how the story is organized is to click on and read the introductory pages for each article category listed on the left sidebar or the upper right of the main page.<br />
<br />
At the beginning, a relatively few CW pages are written; most are blank. We must depend on our readers to help us write the pages and maintain content quality. So, CW needs the help of writers and editors. Perhaps you would like to participate.<br />
<br />
<!--<br />
America’s longevity owes much to a group of very smart people who, about 235 years ago, were genuinely interested in solving the problem of a stable and just federal government. They seemed to have no self-serving political agendas beyond forming a government that used lessons of English history and built on the thought of the liberal thinkers of the 18th century. They wanted a government that would surpass any previous example in its ability to establish and protect freedom of the individual. They were well educated in the history of previous efforts and in the philosophy of rights and politics; and believed in a basic set of unalienable rights afforded to every person. They understood the need for a social and political society in which individual rights and security were guaranteed. They were determined that the people be ultimately in charge rather than a powerful few. But they also understood that society was a collection of individuals and groups of diverse, and sometimes competing, interests - that would have to live peaceably together. They were remarkable in their understanding of the problems to be solved if such a society were to be stable. From these understandings, they developed a constitution that defined how such a stable and just government would work and sought to foresee the ways in which people (none of us are angels) could pollute the water. The Constitution of the United States is a document of eternal truths expressed in unique government constructs. It is remarkable in its wisdom and foresight.<br />
:Civicwiki seeks to refresh that understanding and the ideas behind America's durable nation by telling the stories of both early and modern America, the events and philosophies that shaped our society, our civic structure, and how those things made us successful as a nation and how our society and government are shaping it today.<br />
--><br />
<!--<br />
# "The ideas" are the concepts that unified Americans leading up to independence, and the concepts that were the subjects of the constitutional debates, and were then encoded into our constitution. They are primarily about the rights of people and the duties of government – what they are and what they aren’t. They are also about the implications of those rights – the rule of law, our country's center piece, being an example.<br />
# Historical influences summarizes the interesting and relevant elements of American history as it was shaped by events and the ideas that guided America's development.<br />
# America's wealth seeks to explain how wealth is created, the paths out of povery, how this has worked in America, and the influence of government policy.<br />
# "The issues" tackles those things that are of primary concern to Americans today. This part of the story can be thought of as the bottom line. The parts that precede it are good and interesting background. But we have to apply what those stories teach us to the issues if the information is to serve a useful purpose. <br />
--> <br />
<br />
<!--<br />
===Main Topics===<br />
CW articles will be cataloged under a set of main topics<br />
:CW’s 1st main topic is [[Portal:Inalienable Rights|Inalienable Rights]]. It is the part of story of "the ideas".<br />
::America was founded on a principle of rights – the fundamental few rights of people that became central to declaring independence as well as to our constitution. These rights apply to everyone and no one person’s enjoyment of them may be violated by any person or group even if such a group constitutes a majority. They are unalienable – therefore they outrank even the democratic process. To understand this is the beginning of understanding the rule of law on which the stability of our country depends.<br />
:CW’s 2nd main topic is [[Portal:America's Heritage|America's Heritage]]. These are the stories of historical influence.<br />
::CW’s mission is not to act as historian, but it seems necessary to understanding America’s success to scan history for the interesting events and beliefs that shaped the attitudes and actions of Americans, starting with the first colonies and proceeding ultimately to the present.<br />
:CW’s 3rd main topic is [[Portal:American Independence|American Independence]]. This belongs to both "the ideas" and to historical influences. <br />
::It is a piece of American history starting in 1763 and ending with the signing of the Declaration of Independence.<br />
:CW’s 4th main topic is [[Portal:Federalism and Democracy|Federalism and Democracy]]. This also belongs to the ideas behind America. <br />
::It is about the constitution and the ideas that surfaced in the debate leading up to its ratification.<br />
:CW’s 5th main topic is [[Portal:America's Wealth|America's Wealth]]. <br />
::Wealth and poverty are easy to misunderstand. CW would like to make them commonly understood.<br />
:CW’s 6th main topic is [[Portal:The Issues|“The Issues”]]. <br />
::This is where we get to the heart of the matter. Let’s have a fact based (and unemotional) discussion about the issues that matter to us and that seem to divide America. Let’s ignore the political marketing, turn off the politicians and commentators and their agendas and talk to one another.<br />
<br />
A few of the ideas presented on this site are original. In all cases, we have relied heavily on history and the writings of other, more insightful minds.<br />
--><br />
<!--<br />
==A personal statement about the mission==<br />
The sponsors of Civicwiki have assumed this mission out of our love of a few things.<br />
:We love the idea and the beauty of those simple few [[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]. We can debate the existence of other rights, but life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are fundamental. They can be explained, but not denied. They are a product of nature - or if you prefer, a gift from God. Without them, we are to be ruled by whomever possesses the might to bend us to their will. <br />
:We love the idea of living in a country where these rights are guaranteed, and where that ideal is more closely approximated than anywhere else.<br />
:We were fortunate to have been born in America. We hold the immigrants who chose to come to America out of that same kind of love in high regard.<br />
Because of our love of the freedom and protection we enjoy in America, we feel driven to do what we can to preserve them. We hope that this does not strike anyone as old fashioned. If it ever becomes out of date, then freedom becomes out of date. We do not think that will happen because the human desire for freedom is eternal.--><br />
<!--We do, however, understand that governments that protect freedom are a small part of the history of civilization, and we sense that an increasing number of Americans take our success for granted.--></div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:What_Government_do_We_Want&diff=2395Portal:What Government do We Want2015-09-29T19:26:00Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
<div style="width:100%;border:1px solid #000080;"><br />
<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><br />
<table width="100%" border="0" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000080;" cellpadding="0"><br />
<tr><td style="padding:5px;"><br />
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. <br />
[[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>from ''If I Ran the Zoo'' by Dr. Seuss|link=]]</p><br />
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). <br />
<br>We'll call this view of government 'classic liberal'. <br />
<!-----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><br />
-----><br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
Which do we want? These two views have fundamental differences that wont 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. We will also present thoughtful contributions that disagree.<br />
<br />
<br />
<references /><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<!--</div>--><br />
<table style="width:100%; vertical-align:top; margin-top:8px;"><br />
<tr><br />
<td width="50%" valign="top" style="padding:6px;"><br />
<div style="width:100%;border:1px solid #000080;padding:3px;"><br />
<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><br />
Click on arrows to see subcategories and articles.<br><br />
Article titles are in italics.<br />
{{#categorytree:What Government|mode=pages}}<br />
</div><br />
<div style="width:100%;border:1px solid #000080;margin-top:6px;padding:3px;"><br />
<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><br />
*Write (or edit) a page about about an important issue. <br />
*Improve the introduction above (text and image).<br />
</div><br />
</td><br />
<td>&nbsp;</td><br />
<td width="50%" valign="top" style="padding:6px;"><br />
<div style="width:100%;border:1px solid #000080;padding:3px;"><br />
<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><br />
''Classic Liberal vs. Progressive''<br />
<br>{{Featured Article|The Basic Choice: Classic Liberal vs. Progressive}}<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<!---<br />
<div style="width:100%;border:1px solid #000080;margin-top:6px;padding:3px;"><br />
<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><br />
{{#ask:[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]|format=ul}}<br />
</div><br />
---><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
</div></div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=File:CWlogoBPI_(180x180).png&diff=2394File:CWlogoBPI (180x180).png2015-09-28T21:52:32Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=2393Main Page2015-09-28T21:08:14Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
<table style="width:100%; background:#f9f9f9; margin:1.2em 0 6px 0; border:1px solid #ddd;" id="mp-topbanner"><br />
<tr><br />
<td style="width:44%; color:#000;"><br />
<table style="width:200px; border:none; background:none;"><br />
<tr><br />
<td style="width:200px; text-align:center; white-space:nowrap; color:#000;"><br />
<div style="font-size:162%; border:none; margin:0; padding:.1em; color:#000;">Civicwiki</div><br />
<!--<div style="font-size:85%;" id="articlecount">Featuring [[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}]] articles.</div>--><br />
<div style="font-size:85%;" id="articlecount"> <br />
'''Building Political Integrity''' <br>[[Civicwiki:About|Your thoughtful contributions are invited]].<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
</td><br />
<td style="width:18%; font-size:110%;"><br />
<ul><br />
<li>[[Portal:Inalienable Rights|Inalienable Rights]]</li><br />
<li>[[Portal:America's Heritage|America's Heritage]]</li><br />
<li>[[Portal:American Independence|Independence]]</li><br />
</ul><br />
</td><br />
<td style="width:30%; font-size:110%;"><br />
<ul><br />
<li>[[Portal:Liberty and Constitution|Liberty and Constitution]]</li><br />
<li>[[Portal:Economic Freedom|EconomicFreedom]]</li><br />
<li>[[Portal:What Government do We Want|What Government do We Want]]</li><br />
<!--<li>[[TBD 2]]</li><br />
<li>[[TBD 3]]</li>--><br />
</ul><br />
</td><br />
<br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<!------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<br />
<br />
<table style="width: 100%; margin:4px 0 0 0; background:none; border-spacing: 0px;" id="mp-upper"><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<!---------------------------------------------------------><br />
<br />
<td style="width:50%; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; padding:2px 5px 2px; background:#f5fffa; vertical-align:top; color:#000;" class="MainPageBG"><br />
<div style="width:100%; vertical-align:top; background:#f5fffa;" id="mp-right"><br />
<h2 style="margin:3px; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:center; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;" id="mp-otd-h2"><span id="On_this_day..." class="mw-headline">What government do we want?</span></h2><br />
{{Civicwiki:What government}}<br />
</div><br />
<div style="width:100%; background:#f5fffa;"><br />
<br />
<h2 style="margin:8px 0 0 0; background:#cef2e0; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;" id="mp-tfa-h2"><span id="From_today.27s_featured_article" class="mw-headline">Featured article</span></h2><br />
''Inalienable Rights''<br />
<br>{{Featured Article|Inalienable Rights}}<br />
</div> <br />
<br />
<div style="width:100%; background:#f5fffa;"><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
</td><br />
<br />
<td style="border:1px solid transparent;"></td><br />
<br />
<!---------------------------------------><br />
<td style="width:50%; border:1px solid #cef2e0; padding:2px 5px 2px; background:#f5fffa; vertical-align:top; color:#000;" class="MainPageBG"><br />
<br />
<div style="width:100%; vertical-align:top; background:#f5fffa;" id="mp-left"><br />
<br />
<h2 style="margin:3px; background:#cef2e0; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:center; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;" id="mp-dyk-h2"><span id="Did_you_know..." class="mw-headline">The constitution of America</span></h2><br />
</div><br />
<div style="color:#000; padding:0px 5px 2px;"><br />
{{Civicwiki:RandDintro}}<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
</td><br />
<br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
<!----------------------------<br />
<br />
<table style="width: 100%; margin:4px 0 0 0; background:none; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; border-spacing: 0px;" id="mp-lower"><br />
<tr><br />
<td style="width:100%; padding:2px 5px 2px; background:#f5fffa; vertical-align:top; color:#000;" class="MainPageBG"><br />
<br />
<h2 style="margin:3px; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:center; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;" id="mp-dyk-h2"><span id="Did_you_know..." class="mw-headline">The Issues</span></h2><br />
<div style="margin:3px; background:#f9f9f9; font-size:100%; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;" id="mp-dyk-h2"> 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 />
<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:<br />
* '''CW is about''' <br />
**'''''the issues that most concern Americans today'''''.<br />
**(see:''[[:Category:The Issues|The Issues]])''<br />
* '''and about providing''' <br />
** ''informed citizens and a forum for objective information, better understanding, less divisiveness'', and thus, <br />
**''the political momentum that is needed to govern effectively''. <br />
**(see: ''[[Civicwiki:Just the Facts Maam|Just the facts]])''<br />
<br />
</div><br />
--------------------><br />
<br />
<!-----------------<br />
<h2 style="margin:3px; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;" id="mp-tfa-h2"><span id="From_today.27s_featured_article" class="mw-headline">Issues</span></h2> <br />
{{#ask:[[Category:The Issues]]|format=ul}}<br />
<hr><br />
[[Portal talk:The Issues|Add yours to the list.]]<br />
-----------------><br />
<!-------------------<br />
<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
-------------------><br />
<table style="width: 100%; margin:4px 0 0 0; background:none; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; border-spacing: 0px;" id="mp-lower"><br />
<tr><br />
<td style="width:100%; padding:2px 5px 2px; background:#f5fffa; vertical-align:top; color:#000;" class="MainPageBG"><br />
<br />
<div style="font-size:90%; text-align:center"> ''CW seeks objective discussion of civic issues. It is in response to the political process as it has become today - a process of partial or distorted information and rhetoric calculated to elicit an emotional reaction, all to serve political agendas. CW prefers political advocacy that places objective truth above agenda. It's a tall order that will require the participation of an expanding group of contributors.''<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<h2 style="margin:3px; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:center; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;" id="mp-dyk-h2"><span id="Did_you_know..." class="mw-headline">How to Contribute and Why</span></h2><br />
<h2 style="margin:3px; background:#f9f9f9; font-size:100%; text-align:center; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;" id="mp-dyk-h2"><br />
<div><br />
This is a wiki (just like Wikipedia), so it's easy to contribute your knowledge and insights.<br />
<Br>The pages of Civicwiki are currently only sparsely populated. Anyone with interest can become a contributor, but . . .<br />
<br>'''''We need a few people''''' <br />
<br>who wish to help further [[Civicwiki:Mission|CW's mission]] as a major contributor, applying their writing skills to a topic that interests them. <br />
<br>Please browse the site and read [[Civicwiki:Just the Facts Maam|about CW]].<br />
<br />
</div></h2><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
<table style="width:100%; background:#f9f9f9; margin:1.2em 0 6px 0;"><br />
<tr><br />
<td style="width:25%; font-size:100%;"><br />
<ul><br />
<li>[[Civicwiki:Register|Register to contribute]]</li><br />
<li>[[Help:Tutorial/Create an article|Add an Article]]</li><br />
</ul><br />
</td><br />
<td style="width:25%; font-size:100%;"><br />
<ul><br />
<li>[[Help:Tutorial/Edit an article|Edit an article]]</li><br />
<li>TBD</li><br />
</ul><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
<br />
<!-----------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<table style="width: 100%; margin:4px 0 0 0; background:none; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; border-spacing: 0px;" id="mp-lower"><br />
<tr><br />
<td style="width:100%; padding:2px 5px 2px; background:#f5fffa; vertical-align:top; color:#000;" class="MainPageBG"><br />
<br />
<h2 style="margin:3px; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;" id="mp-dyk-h2"><span id="Did_you_know..." class="mw-headline">How to Contribute to CW</span></h2><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
<table style="width:100%; background:#f9f9f9; margin:1.2em 0 6px 0;"><br />
<tr><br />
<td style="width:25%; font-size:110%;"><br />
<ul><br />
<li>[[Civicwiki:Register|Register to contribute]]</li><br />
<li>[[Help:Tutorial/Create an article|Add an Article]]</li><br />
</ul><br />
</td><br />
<td style="width:25%; font-size:95%;"><br />
<ul><br />
<li>[[Help:Tutorial/Edit an article|Edit an article]]</li><br />
<li>[[TBD 2]]</li><br />
</ul><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
-----------------------------------------------></div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=File:CWlogo-BPI.png&diff=2392File:CWlogo-BPI.png2015-09-28T19:28:56Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=2391Main Page2015-09-28T14:28:54Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
<table style="width:100%; background:#f9f9f9; margin:1.2em 0 6px 0; border:1px solid #ddd;" id="mp-topbanner"><br />
<tr><br />
<td style="width:44%; color:#000;"><br />
<table style="width:200px; border:none; background:none;"><br />
<tr><br />
<td style="width:200px; text-align:center; white-space:nowrap; color:#000;"><br />
<div style="font-size:162%; border:none; margin:0; padding:.1em; color:#000;"><!--Welcome to -->Civicwiki</div><br />
<!--<div style="font-size:85%;" id="articlecount">Featuring [[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}]] articles.</div>--><br />
<div style="font-size:85%;" id="articlecount"> <br />
'''Building Political Integrity''' <br>[[Civicwiki:About|Your thoughtful contributions are invited]].<br />
</div><br />
<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
</td><br />
<td style="width:18%; font-size:110%;"><br />
<ul><br />
<li>[[Portal:Inalienable Rights|Inalienable Rights]]</li><br />
<li>[[Portal:America's Heritage|America's Heritage]]</li><br />
<li>[[Portal:American Independence|Independence]]</li><br />
</ul><br />
</td><br />
<td style="width:30%; font-size:110%;"><br />
<ul><br />
<li>[[Portal:Liberty and Constitution|Liberty and Constitution]]</li><br />
<li>[[Portal:Economic Freedom|EconomicFreedom]]</li><br />
<li>[[Portal:What Government do We Want|What Government do We Want]]</li><br />
<!--<li>[[TBD 2]]</li><br />
<li>[[TBD 3]]</li>--><br />
</ul><br />
</td><br />
<br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<!------------------------------------------------------------------><br />
<br />
<br />
<table style="width: 100%; margin:4px 0 0 0; background:none; border-spacing: 0px;" id="mp-upper"><br />
<br />
<tr><br />
<!---------------------------------------------------------><br />
<br />
<td style="width:50%; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; padding:2px 5px 2px; background:#f5fffa; vertical-align:top; color:#000;" class="MainPageBG"><br />
<div style="width:100%; vertical-align:top; background:#f5fffa;" id="mp-right"><br />
<h2 style="margin:3px; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:center; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;" id="mp-otd-h2"><span id="On_this_day..." class="mw-headline">What government do we want?</span></h2><br />
{{Civicwiki:What government}}<br />
</div><br />
<div style="width:100%; background:#f5fffa;"><br />
<br />
<h2 style="margin:8px 0 0 0; background:#cef2e0; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;" id="mp-tfa-h2"><span id="From_today.27s_featured_article" class="mw-headline">Featured article</span></h2><br />
''Inalienable Rights''<br />
<br>{{Featured Article|Inalienable Rights}}<br />
</div> <br />
<br />
<div style="width:100%; background:#f5fffa;"><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
</td><br />
<br />
<td style="border:1px solid transparent;"></td><br />
<br />
<!---------------------------------------><br />
<td style="width:50%; border:1px solid #cef2e0; padding:2px 5px 2px; background:#f5fffa; vertical-align:top; color:#000;" class="MainPageBG"><br />
<br />
<div style="width:100%; vertical-align:top; background:#f5fffa;" id="mp-left"><br />
<br />
<h2 style="margin:3px; background:#cef2e0; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3bfb1; text-align:center; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;" id="mp-dyk-h2"><span id="Did_you_know..." class="mw-headline">The constitution of America</span></h2><br />
</div><br />
<div style="color:#000; padding:0px 5px 2px;"><br />
{{Civicwiki:RandDintro}}<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<br />
</td><br />
<br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
<!----------------------------<br />
<br />
<table style="width: 100%; margin:4px 0 0 0; background:none; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; border-spacing: 0px;" id="mp-lower"><br />
<tr><br />
<td style="width:100%; padding:2px 5px 2px; background:#f5fffa; vertical-align:top; color:#000;" class="MainPageBG"><br />
<br />
<h2 style="margin:3px; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:center; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;" id="mp-dyk-h2"><span id="Did_you_know..." class="mw-headline">The Issues</span></h2><br />
<div style="margin:3px; background:#f9f9f9; font-size:100%; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;" id="mp-dyk-h2"> 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 />
<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:<br />
* '''CW is about''' <br />
**'''''the issues that most concern Americans today'''''.<br />
**(see:''[[:Category:The Issues|The Issues]])''<br />
* '''and about providing''' <br />
** ''informed citizens and a forum for objective information, better understanding, less divisiveness'', and thus, <br />
**''the political momentum that is needed to govern effectively''. <br />
**(see: ''[[Civicwiki:Just the Facts Maam|Just the facts]])''<br />
<br />
</div><br />
--------------------><br />
<br />
<!-----------------<br />
<h2 style="margin:3px; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;" id="mp-tfa-h2"><span id="From_today.27s_featured_article" class="mw-headline">Issues</span></h2> <br />
{{#ask:[[Category:The Issues]]|format=ul}}<br />
<hr><br />
[[Portal talk:The Issues|Add yours to the list.]]<br />
-----------------><br />
<!-------------------<br />
<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
-------------------><br />
<table style="width: 100%; margin:4px 0 0 0; background:none; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; border-spacing: 0px;" id="mp-lower"><br />
<tr><br />
<td style="width:100%; padding:2px 5px 2px; background:#f5fffa; vertical-align:top; color:#000;" class="MainPageBG"><br />
<br />
<div style="font-size:90%; text-align:center"> ''CW seeks objective discussion of civic issues. It is in response to the political process as it has become today - a process of partial or distorted information and rhetoric calculated to elicit an emotional reaction, all to serve political agendas. CW prefers political advocacy that places objective truth above agenda. It's a tall order that will require the participation of an expanding group of contributors.''<br />
</div><br />
<br />
<h2 style="margin:3px; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:center; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;" id="mp-dyk-h2"><span id="Did_you_know..." class="mw-headline">How to Contribute and Why</span></h2><br />
<h2 style="margin:3px; background:#f9f9f9; font-size:100%; text-align:center; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;" id="mp-dyk-h2"><br />
<div><br />
This is a wiki (just like Wikipedia), so it's easy to contribute your knowledge and insights.<br />
<Br>The pages of Civicwiki are currently only sparsely populated. Anyone with interest can become a contributor, but . . .<br />
<br>'''''We need a few people''''' <br />
<br>who wish to help further [[Civicwiki:Mission|CW's mission]] as a major contributor, applying their writing skills to a topic that interests them. <br />
<br>Please browse the site and read [[Civicwiki:Just the Facts Maam|about CW]].<br />
<br />
</div></h2><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
<table style="width:100%; background:#f9f9f9; margin:1.2em 0 6px 0;"><br />
<tr><br />
<td style="width:25%; font-size:100%;"><br />
<ul><br />
<li>[[Civicwiki:Register|Register to contribute]]</li><br />
<li>[[Help:Tutorial/Create an article|Add an Article]]</li><br />
</ul><br />
</td><br />
<td style="width:25%; font-size:100%;"><br />
<ul><br />
<li>[[Help:Tutorial/Edit an article|Edit an article]]</li><br />
<li>TBD</li><br />
</ul><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
<br />
<!-----------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<table style="width: 100%; margin:4px 0 0 0; background:none; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; border-spacing: 0px;" id="mp-lower"><br />
<tr><br />
<td style="width:100%; padding:2px 5px 2px; background:#f5fffa; vertical-align:top; color:#000;" class="MainPageBG"><br />
<br />
<h2 style="margin:3px; background:#cedff2; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #a3b0bf; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em;" id="mp-dyk-h2"><span id="Did_you_know..." class="mw-headline">How to Contribute to CW</span></h2><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td><br />
<table style="width:100%; background:#f9f9f9; margin:1.2em 0 6px 0;"><br />
<tr><br />
<td style="width:25%; font-size:110%;"><br />
<ul><br />
<li>[[Civicwiki:Register|Register to contribute]]</li><br />
<li>[[Help:Tutorial/Create an article|Add an Article]]</li><br />
</ul><br />
</td><br />
<td style="width:25%; font-size:95%;"><br />
<ul><br />
<li>[[Help:Tutorial/Edit an article|Edit an article]]</li><br />
<li>[[TBD 2]]</li><br />
</ul><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
-----------------------------------------------></div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Politicizing_Metrics_101&diff=2390Politicizing Metrics 1012015-09-24T18:07:45Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Article<br />
|HasSummary=Metrics are a set of measurements that quantify results. Good management requires good decisions and good decisions must be based on good metrics.<br />
|HasAuthor=Tharrisn<br />
|HasArticleDate=2014/05/23<br />
}}<br />
{{SectionDefault<br />
|HasArticleText===What Are Metrics==<br />
<br />
Metrics are a set of measurements that quantify results. Good management requires good decisions and good decisions must be based on good metrics.<br />
<br />
* The starting point for understanding government is understanding the fundamentals of the role of metrics in organizational management, thus providing insight into the role that it plays in governing.<br />
* Start with the most straightforward case – commercial corporations<br />
** Investors provide their money in order to get a return on investment. The fundamental metric is ROI. It’s a very precise metric – accurate and understood by all. If it begins to underperform, managers lose their jobs. With no improvement. The CEOs lose their jobs. If no improvement after that the board of directors is voted out by the stockholders – they lose their jobs. If that doesn’t result in improvement. The corporation goes into bankruptcy and everyone’s job is at risk. So basically everyone’s livelihood is linked to an exact mathematical metric. The management process at the lower levels uses lots of secondary metrics that are indicators of how things are going and managers frequently use those metrics to promote their self-interests, but to the extent that their behavior damages ROI, they’re in trouble.<br />
<br />
==Historical Insights Into Politicizing Metrics==<br />
<br />
There is no ROI-equivalent fundamental management metric for government. But it has a huge array of secondary metrics. In the political side of government – as opposed to civil service – one’s livelihood is dependent upon getting votes, so the secondary metrics that exists are manipulated and selected to optimize getting elected. This is nothing new, it’s been going on for at least 2500 years. Here are some concise quotes by highly respected people that make the point:<br />
<br />
:“We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.” –[http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/aesop109735.html Aesop/about 600 BC]<br />
<br />
:“Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you!” –[http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/19444-just-because-you-do-not-take-an-interest-in-politics Pericles (430 B.C.)]<br />
<br />
:“In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to another.” –[http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/v/voltaire124855.html Voltaire (1764)]<br />
<br />
:“In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress.” –[http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/30219.html John Adams/about 1800]<br />
<br />
:“Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.” –[http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/92088-government-is-the-great-fiction-through-which-everybody-endeavors-to Frederic Bastiat, French economist/1801-1850]<br />
<br />
:“No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.” –[http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/92346-no-man-s-life-liberty-or-property-are-safe-while-the Mark Twain (1866)]<br />
<br />
:“A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.” –[http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/georgebern128084.html George Bernard Shaw/early 1900s]<br />
<br />
==Current Insight Into Politicizing Metrics==<br />
<br />
The most obvious example of manipulating the data to your political advantage is the unemployment rate. If your party is in power, you use the lower U3 rate as the metric. If your party is not in power use the higher U6 unemployment rate. U-3 is the official unemployment rate, which is the proportion of the civilian labor force that is unemployed but actively seeking employment. U-6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate), but also counts “marginally attached workers” and those working part-time for economic reasons. Their recent history can be seen here:<br />
<br />
::[http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate.jsp U-3 Rate]<br />
<br />
::[http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp U-6 Rate]<br />
<br />
==The Big Problem==<br />
<br />
You can count on every candidate for office to optimize his or her use of the government’s huge supply of metrics and dollars to get elected. Here are a few of the many ways that it is done:<br />
<br />
'''Giving away government money to gain political support'''<br />
<br />
'''By Presidential decree'''<br />
<br />
“The Administration has decreed that hundreds of billions of dollars in healthcare subsidies will be paid out in states that embrace ObamaCare–with no questions asked about eligibility.” Source–[http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/07/10/forget-the-rule-of-law-president-obama-presumes-to-rule-by-royal-decree/ Read More…]<br />
<br />
'''By Legislative action '''<br />
<br />
'''Loopholes'''<br />
<br />
A loophole is an ambiguity in a law which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent of the law. Loopholes are searched for and used strategically by legislators to benefit their political supporters. Source–[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loophole Read More…]<br />
<br />
'''Earmarks'''<br />
<br />
“An earmark is a legislative provision that directs approved funds to be spent on specific projects, or that directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees. Typically, a legislator seeks to insert earmarks that direct a specified amount of money to a particular organization or project in their home state or district.” Source–[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earmark_(politics) Read More…]<br />
<br />
Since there is no fundamental metric for government effectiveness, nor for the performance of individual politicians, politicians are free to manipulate the system and the information. And the sad truth is, they do so for their own benefit to the great detriment of the people. This means doing what your big contributors want done. This is not a new thing – what’s new is the amount of dollars involved, and it has become a huge problem.<br />
<br />
==How Much Money is Involved?==<br />
<br />
'''On the Legislative side'''<br />
<br />
Sen. Tom Coburn’s 2013 waste book indicates that there was nearly $30 billion in questionable and lower-priority spending through legislative action. Source–[http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ContentRecord_id=e7359436-1572-414e-8acc-0222cad1c7d5 Read More…]<br />
<br />
'''On the Presidential side'''<br />
<br />
President Obama is demonstrating how he can advance his agenda without legislation. Here’s a recent quote:<br />
<br />
:“We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone. And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward…” Source–[http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/01/14/obama-on-executive-actions-ive-got-a-pen-and-ive-got-a-phone/ Read More…]<br />
<br />
He used his pen and phone to make over 20 changes to Obama care without congressional approval. Source–[http://www.galen.org/newsletters/changes-to-obamacare-so-far/ Read More…]<br />
<br />
The additional cost for these changes is unknown, but overall, the cost of ObamaCare to the American people over the next 10 years will not be less than $1 TRILLION, as Obama promised in his nationally televised speech to the nation. Instead, the real cost of ObamaCare to the Federal Treasury is $2.4 TRILLION, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.<br />
<br />
Source–[https://www.committeeforjustice.org/content/25-violations-law-president-obama-and-his-administration Read More…]<br />
<br />
==Campaign Financing==<br />
<br />
The 2012 presidential election was the most expensive in history. (Updated: Dec. 7, 2012.)Democrats & Barack Obama raised $1.20 billionRepublicans & Mitt Romney raised $1.18 billion<br />
<br />
The [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/campaign-finance/ top contributor] gave $30 million and 10 others gave 3 million or more each.<br />
<br />
According to CRP’s new analysis of Federal Election Commission data, this past election will likely cost $6 billion.<br />
<br />
“In the new campaign finance landscape, post-Citizens United, we’re seeing historic spending levels spurred by outside groups dominated by a small number of individuals and organizations making exceptional contributions,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics.<br />
<br />
House and Senate candidates combined will spend about $1.82 billion.<br />
<br />
What remains unknown — and may never fully be accounted for — is how much money secretive “shadow money” organizations spent, with some investing massive sums on ads, but also on unreported and purportedly “non-political” activities, as the election neared. It may take years to determine how much they spent. Furthermore, it likely will never be known who provided the vast majority of this money, which includes at least $203 million in the last two months. Source–[https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/10/2012-election-spending-will-reach-6/ Read More…]<br />
<br />
==Bottom Line==<br />
<br />
So, with only faulty metrics and the media filled with political misinformation, what can be done to make the future better? Thankfully, the power is still in the hands of the people – if we can just get the political momentum to change things. And how do we do that, by developing a good understanding of the issues most important to our future and of the options being considered for each. Make sure your vote reflects an informed decision on your part. Better to not vote than to vote in a way that would threaten your future, and that of our country.<br />
}}<br />
{{Citations}}</div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Politicizing_Metrics_101&diff=2389Politicizing Metrics 1012015-09-24T17:50:44Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Article<br />
|HasCategory=The Issues<br />
|HasSummary=Metrics are a set of measurements that quantify results. Good management requires good decisions and good decisions must be based on good metrics.<br />
|HasAuthor=Tharrisn<br />
|HasArticleDate=2014/05/23<br />
}}<br />
{{SectionDefault<br />
|HasArticleText===What Are Metrics==<br />
<br />
Metrics are a set of measurements that quantify results. Good management requires good decisions and good decisions must be based on good metrics.<br />
<br />
* The starting point for understanding government is understanding the fundamentals of the role of metrics in organizational management, thus providing insight into the role that it plays in governing.<br />
* Start with the most straightforward case – commercial corporations<br />
** Investors provide their money in order to get a return on investment. The fundamental metric is ROI. It’s a very precise metric – accurate and understood by all. If it begins to underperform, managers lose their jobs. With no improvement. The CEOs lose their jobs. If no improvement after that the board of directors is voted out by the stockholders – they lose their jobs. If that doesn’t result in improvement. The corporation goes into bankruptcy and everyone’s job is at risk. So basically everyone’s livelihood is linked to an exact mathematical metric. The management process at the lower levels uses lots of secondary metrics that are indicators of how things are going and managers frequently use those metrics to promote their self-interests, but to the extent that their behavior damages ROI, they’re in trouble.<br />
<br />
==Historical Insights Into Politicizing Metrics==<br />
<br />
There is no ROI-equivalent fundamental management metric for government. But it has a huge array of secondary metrics. In the political side of government – as opposed to civil service – one’s livelihood is dependent upon getting votes, so the secondary metrics that exists are manipulated and selected to optimize getting elected. This is nothing new, it’s been going on for at least 2500 years. Here are some concise quotes by highly respected people that make the point:<br />
<br />
:“We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.” –[http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/aesop109735.html Aesop/about 600 BC]<br />
<br />
:“Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you!” –[http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/19444-just-because-you-do-not-take-an-interest-in-politics Pericles (430 B.C.)]<br />
<br />
:“In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to another.” –[http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/v/voltaire124855.html Voltaire (1764)]<br />
<br />
:“In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress.” –[http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/30219.html John Adams/about 1800]<br />
<br />
:“Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.” –[http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/92088-government-is-the-great-fiction-through-which-everybody-endeavors-to Frederic Bastiat, French economist/1801-1850]<br />
<br />
:“No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.” –[http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/92346-no-man-s-life-liberty-or-property-are-safe-while-the Mark Twain (1866)]<br />
<br />
:“A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.” –[http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/georgebern128084.html George Bernard Shaw/early 1900s]<br />
<br />
==Current Insight Into Politicizing Metrics==<br />
<br />
The most obvious example of manipulating the data to your political advantage is the unemployment rate. If your party is in power, you use the lower U3 rate as the metric. If your party is not in power use the higher U6 unemployment rate. U-3 is the official unemployment rate, which is the proportion of the civilian labor force that is unemployed but actively seeking employment. U-6 unemployment rate counts not only people without work seeking full-time employment (the more familiar U-3 rate), but also counts “marginally attached workers” and those working part-time for economic reasons. Their recent history can be seen here:<br />
<br />
::[http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate.jsp U-3 Rate]<br />
<br />
::[http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp U-6 Rate]<br />
<br />
==The Big Problem==<br />
<br />
You can count on every candidate for office to optimize his or her use of the government’s huge supply of metrics and dollars to get elected. Here are a few of the many ways that it is done:<br />
<br />
'''Giving away government money to gain political support'''<br />
<br />
'''By Presidential decree'''<br />
<br />
“The Administration has decreed that hundreds of billions of dollars in healthcare subsidies will be paid out in states that embrace ObamaCare–with no questions asked about eligibility.” Source–[http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/07/10/forget-the-rule-of-law-president-obama-presumes-to-rule-by-royal-decree/ Read More…]<br />
<br />
'''By Legislative action '''<br />
<br />
'''Loopholes'''<br />
<br />
A loophole is an ambiguity in a law which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent of the law. Loopholes are searched for and used strategically by legislators to benefit their political supporters. Source–[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loophole Read More…]<br />
<br />
'''Earmarks'''<br />
<br />
“An earmark is a legislative provision that directs approved funds to be spent on specific projects, or that directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees. Typically, a legislator seeks to insert earmarks that direct a specified amount of money to a particular organization or project in their home state or district.” Source–[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earmark_(politics) Read More…]<br />
<br />
Since there is no fundamental metric for government effectiveness, nor for the performance of individual politicians, politicians are free to manipulate the system and the information. And the sad truth is, they do so for their own benefit to the great detriment of the people. This means doing what your big contributors want done. This is not a new thing – what’s new is the amount of dollars involved, and it has become a huge problem.<br />
<br />
==How Much Money is Involved?==<br />
<br />
'''On the Legislative side'''<br />
<br />
Sen. Tom Coburn’s 2013 waste book indicates that there was nearly $30 billion in questionable and lower-priority spending through legislative action. Source–[http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ContentRecord_id=e7359436-1572-414e-8acc-0222cad1c7d5 Read More…]<br />
<br />
'''On the Presidential side'''<br />
<br />
President Obama is demonstrating how he can advance his agenda without legislation. Here’s a recent quote:<br />
<br />
:“We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone. And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward…” Source–[http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/01/14/obama-on-executive-actions-ive-got-a-pen-and-ive-got-a-phone/ Read More…]<br />
<br />
He used his pen and phone to make over 20 changes to Obama care without congressional approval. Source–[http://www.galen.org/newsletters/changes-to-obamacare-so-far/ Read More…]<br />
<br />
The additional cost for these changes is unknown, but overall, the cost of ObamaCare to the American people over the next 10 years will not be less than $1 TRILLION, as Obama promised in his nationally televised speech to the nation. Instead, the real cost of ObamaCare to the Federal Treasury is $2.4 TRILLION, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.<br />
<br />
Source–[https://www.committeeforjustice.org/content/25-violations-law-president-obama-and-his-administration Read More…]<br />
<br />
==Campaign Financing==<br />
<br />
The 2012 presidential election was the most expensive in history. (Updated: Dec. 7, 2012.)Democrats & Barack Obama raised $1.20 billionRepublicans & Mitt Romney raised $1.18 billion<br />
<br />
The [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/campaign-finance/ top contributor] gave $30 million and 10 others gave 3 million or more each.<br />
<br />
According to CRP’s new analysis of Federal Election Commission data, this past election will likely cost $6 billion.<br />
<br />
“In the new campaign finance landscape, post-Citizens United, we’re seeing historic spending levels spurred by outside groups dominated by a small number of individuals and organizations making exceptional contributions,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics.<br />
<br />
House and Senate candidates combined will spend about $1.82 billion.<br />
<br />
What remains unknown — and may never fully be accounted for — is how much money secretive “shadow money” organizations spent, with some investing massive sums on ads, but also on unreported and purportedly “non-political” activities, as the election neared. It may take years to determine how much they spent. Furthermore, it likely will never be known who provided the vast majority of this money, which includes at least $203 million in the last two months. Source–[https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/10/2012-election-spending-will-reach-6/ Read More…]<br />
<br />
==Bottom Line==<br />
<br />
So, with only faulty metrics and the media filled with political misinformation, what can be done to make the future better? Thankfully, the power is still in the hands of the people – if we can just get the political momentum to change things. And how do we do that, by developing a good understanding of the issues most important to our future and of the options being considered for each. Make sure your vote reflects an informed decision on your part. Better to not vote than to vote in a way that would threaten your future, and that of our country.<br />
}}<br />
{{Citations}}</div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=The_Basic_Choice:_Classic_Liberal_vs._Progressive&diff=2388The Basic Choice: Classic Liberal vs. Progressive2015-09-14T22:59:36Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Article<br />
|HasCategory=What Government<br />
|HasSummary=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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
|HasAuthor=Jeff<br />
|HasArticleDate=2015/08/31<br />
}}<br />
{{SectionDefault<br />
|HasArticleText=--Incomplete Draft--<br />
<br />
With over 300 million people in America, we have the entire spectrum of political view. CW attempts to make the discussion more compact by viewing our choice as between "classic liberal" and "progressive". We prefer not to use "conservative" and "liberal" because the meanings of those terms have been distorted over the last 80 or 90 years and have become rather vague. We must qualify the liberalism of which we write as 'classic' since the term 'liberal' was coopted by progressives 80 years ago. Our meaning adheres to its usage throughout American history until about 1930. It is interesting to note that F. A. Hayek, Nobel Laureate and well known liberal in the classic sense put an essay at the end of his influential work ''The Consitution of Liberty''<ref name="CofL">Hayek, F A; ''The Constitution of Liberty''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press; (1960)</ref> titled <u>Why I Am Not a Conservative</u>. It is a good illustration of how today's political labels have been misused and drifted away from their traditional meanings. In fact, many--maybe most--modern conservatives are classic liberals in that they identify with the intent of the constitution as it was written. (Of course, that begs the question "what was the intent of the constitution as it was written"? and we will get to that in other articles. When we do, we won't improve on Richard Epstein's book<ref name="CLC">Epstein, Richard A; ''The Classical Liberal Constitution''; Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press (2014)</ref> though we will be more brief.) <br />
<br />
Modern 'liberals' don't care for modern 'conservatives' and vice versa even though they may not know what those terms mean with any precision. There are more points on the spectrum to the left, right, and in the middle. There are the more ideologically pure libertarians and socialists at opposite ends; and the less ideological and seemingly less constant centrists that seem to pick and choose their positions based on what feels right. Libertarians and modern conservatives will identify more closely with classic liberalism, and modern liberals and socialists with progressivism though there are probably important differences. We are not going to sort all that out in this article. CW wishes to present clear choices that can be described with some precision; and the large majority of Americans fit either 'classic liberal' or 'progressive' well enough for our purposes.<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''The Classic Liberal'''==<br />
------------incomplete draft-------------<br />
We use the term 'classic liberal' to refer to what it meant to hold the prevalent political perspective that existed at the time our Constitution was ratified up to the advent of the progressives in the early part of the 20th century. When America achieved independence we suddenly had to look within ourselves for governance and for constitutional appeal. The transition was made somewhat easy in that we had over 100 years of colonial governance under our belt and we continued to rely on English Common Law as our fundamental law. And we kept our English liberal political theory, a belief that "in a state of nature" that individuals are completely free and enjoy a set of inalienable natural rights--the most fundamental of which are liberty and property; but also that life within a society requires something more in order that those rights might be protected from internal and external threat--a social contract is necessary. Therefore, government is necessary to protect those natural rights. In this view government is a necessary evil. That only as much government as is required to provide those protections should be tolerated.<br />
<br />
====The State of Nature and the Social Contract====<br />
Edward Channing writes<ref name="Channing3">Channing, Edward; ''A History of The United States, Volume III, The American Revolution''; New York; The MacMillan Company (1920) <br>(The monumental 6 volume set won the 1926 Pulitzer Prize for history)</ref> (Chapter XIV) about the political views of the people in the 13 colonies prior to forming The United States. Each colony considered itself a separate entity. A Virginian was first Virginian and then English. When they gained independence they viewed themselves as completely free and sovereign with no outside control. They viewed themselves as in "in a state of nature." but also as in a "society" that must somehow coordinate to protect their natural rights.<br />
<br />
In that classic liberal theory 'natural' man is born with a fundamental set of [[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]. But in a state of nature, those rights are always at risk from antisocial forces; and, if society has not coordinated a solution, "natural man" must look to his own personal defense. They needed something better than that--a social contract enforced by a government. <br />
<br />
The Declaration of Independence, after establishing that we are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", makes a strong statement about the consent of the governed: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". However, the founders did not envision that each person among us gets to opt in or out of the government--deciding whether or not to pay taxes or respect the property rights of others for example. Is it possible that we could have a stable society in which consent must be obtained from every person? The classic liberal answer is that, in a state of nature, liberty and property rights are always at risk of internal and external threats. The need to defend against dangerous human tendencies remain even after civil society is formed. There are always power hungry or antisocial people who won't be nice. A reliance on purely voluntary cooperation may work in Galt's Gulch where there are a small number of self reliant and like minded people. In a larger society, such an absence of government would create a power vacuum that will be filled by an undesirable despotism. To protect our natural rights and preempt being ruled by an adversarial force, each of the 13 American colonies entered into a social contract by forming a state government. <br />
:An important point: perhaps because the consent of every member of society to a government is unattainable, and certainly because we all (including the dissenters) possess the 'unalienable' rights, it is doubly important that the ability of "factions" (a person or group) to violate those rights be put as far out of reach as possible. The protection of rights must be enshrined in law that outranks even a majority.<br />
<br />
The state governments that each colony formed were a way to domesticate coercive force for their benefit and protection. (It is interesting that such was the motivation for the [[American Freedom's Feudal Beginning|feudal system]] in England 800 years earlier.) Each colony formed a government based on a set of rules that they called constitutions. The colonies associated themselves together to assert their rights during the independence movement and afterward to create a nation with standing among their peers. Their legal obligations, however were first to their state governments. An interesting observation is that there was unity of political thought among the 13 colonies in that they each formed a state government that was republican in its structure and that none adopted the monarchical institutions of England--this even though their political theory was grounded in English tradition and common law. <br />
<br />
Richard Epstein points out in the preface of his recent book<ref name="CLC" /> that what he calls "classical liberal theory" rested on the concepts of private property and limited government. That it did not espouse an idea of total freedom of the individual to do <u>whatever</u> he wished. That it believed that every government action should improve the overall welfare of every member of society. And that meant the protection of liberty and property and little else. "State coercion for one's own good is not some code word for misguided paternalism. Nor is it a contradiction in terms. Rather, it is the minimum condition for the public provision of certain collective goods." (page 20)<ref name="CLC" /> The classic liberal reason for government is then, to protect our fundamental rights against threats. <br />
<br />
====The Problem of Factions====<br />
"Factions" were one of the major threats recognized during the constitutional debates. Self-interested action is a cornerstone of American success. (And it often has altruistic origins as George Gilder pointed out in ''Wealth and Poverty''.) But self-interested activity can become self-serving in a way that undermines the public welfare by manipulating the rules of politics--rules that can never be perfected--to create political favor that is far beyond protection of classic liberal rights. This happens when factions lobby and politic for a larger piece of the pie through special treatment (always at the expense of the non-protected group), which leaves less for everyone else, which eventually makes the whole pie smaller. And it feeds on itself. More factions are formed, either to protect themselves or to mimic other faction success. They learn how political manipulation works. James Madison's writing in ''The Federalist Paper No. 10'' expresses the concern:<br />
:By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority or the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, ''adverse to the rights of other citizens'', or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. (italics added)<br />
A thing to note is that they saw faction as a threat even if it enjoys a majority. That is the reason that they gave the social contract a preeminent position by writing it down in the constitution. They were staking a large part of the protection of rights on [[Portal:Liberty and Constitution|''rule of law'']] vs. what they saw as the potential for 'tyranny of the majority'.<br />
<br />
The constitutional debate between the federalists and the anti-federalists was about whether it was more effective to deal with the threats to liberty and property at the state or the federal level. It was a family quarrel with both sides having the same goal. The federalists believed that the larger the governed population, the harder it would be to form effective factions--that there would be more people opposed to them (''Federalist No. 51''). The anti-federalists believed that factions could be better resisted at a more local level. As it turns out they were both wrong. Factions come in all shapes and sizes and adapt themselves to every opportunity and around every fault line(race, sex, religion, political niche, social cause, industry, or region), and almost any issue. And noncompeting factions strengthen and embolden each other by agreeing to vote for each other's cause. So the constraints must be robust and durable in both state and federal constitutions. The structure put into the Constitution of the U.S. was the best attempt at the time, but has been loosing its effectiveness over time. But we can at least understand its intent as best we can.<br />
<br />
The federalists carried the debate limiting federal government power and by providing a set of checks and balances and a separation of powers that were written into the constitution.<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''The Progressive'''==<br />
------------incomplete draft-------------<br />
Progressives view government as a positive force for good rather than a necessary evil. They see rights as created by government and as going far beyond the few "[[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]". They view an expanded and more authoritarian government as the tool needed to correct a number of social ills that the minimalist approach of classic liberalism ignores.<br />
<br />
Classic liberalism was the political foundation in U.S. politics for 150 years. The progressive challenge started in the 1930s. It was based on two premises:<br />
#democracy and the administrative state should take precedence over constitutional protections of property and contract. <br />
#markets and the economy should be regulated by the state.<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText=Walter Lippman <ref name="TGS">Lippman, Walter; ''The Good Society''; Boston; Little Brown and Company (1937)</ref>, and F. A. Hayek<ref name="Serfdom">Hayek, F A; ''The Road to Serfdom''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press (2007)(by the Estate of F. A. Hayek. Original 1944)</ref><br />
}}<br />
{{Citations}}<br />
<references /></div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=The_Basic_Choice:_Classic_Liberal_vs._Progressive&diff=2387The Basic Choice: Classic Liberal vs. Progressive2015-09-14T22:27:30Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Article<br />
|HasCategory=What Government<br />
|HasSummary=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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
|HasAuthor=Jeff<br />
|HasArticleDate=2015/08/31<br />
}}<br />
{{SectionDefault<br />
|HasArticleText=--Incomplete Draft--<br />
<br />
With over 300 million people in America, we have the entire spectrum of political view. CW attempts to make the discussion more compact by viewing our choice as between "classic liberal" and "progressive". We prefer not to use "conservative" and "liberal" because the meanings of those terms have been distorted over the last 80 or 90 years and have become rather vague. We must qualify the liberalism of which we write as 'classic' since the term 'liberal' was coopted by progressives 80 years ago. Our meaning adheres to its usage throughout American history until about 1930. It is interesting to note that F. A. Hayek, Nobel Laureate and well known liberal in the classic sense put an essay at the end of his influential work ''The Consitution of Liberty''<ref name="CofL">Hayek, F A; ''The Constitution of Liberty''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press; (1960)</ref> titled <u>Why I Am Not a Conservative</u>. It is a good illustration of how today's political labels have been misused and drifted away from their traditional meanings. In fact, many--maybe most--modern conservatives are classic liberals in that they identify with the intent of the constitution as it was written. (Of course, that begs the question "what was the intent of the constitution as it was written"? and we will get to that in other articles. When we do, we won't improve on Richard Epstein's book<ref name="CLC">Epstein, Richard A; ''The Classical Liberal Constitution''; Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press (2014)</ref> though we will be more brief.) <br />
<br />
Modern 'liberals' don't care for modern 'conservatives' and vice versa even though they may not know what those terms mean with any precision. There are more points on the spectrum to the left, right, and in the middle. There are the more ideologically pure libertarians and socialists at opposite ends; and the less ideological and seemingly less constant centrists that seem to pick and choose their positions based on what feels right. Libertarians and modern conservatives will identify more closely with classic liberalism, and modern liberals and socialists with progressivism though there are probably important differences. We are not going to sort all that out in this article. CW wishes to present clear choices that can be described with some precision; and the large majority of Americans fit either 'classic liberal' or 'progressive' well enough for our purposes.<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''The Classic Liberal'''==<br />
------------incomplete draft-------------<br />
We use the term 'classic liberal' to refer to what it meant to hold the prevalent political perspective that existed at the time our Constitution was ratified up to the advent of the progressives in the early part of the 20th century. When America achieved independence we suddenly had to look within ourselves for governance and for constitutional appeal. The transition was made somewhat easy in that we had over 100 years of colonial governance under our belt and we continued to rely on English Common Law as our fundamental law. And we kept our English liberal political theory, a belief that "in a state of nature" that individuals are completely free and enjoy a set of inalienable natural rights--the most fundamental of which are liberty and property; but also that life within a society requires something more in order that those rights might be protected from internal and external threat--a social contract is necessary. Therefore, government is necessary to protect those natural rights. In this view government is a necessary evil. That only as much government as is required to provide those protections should be tolerated.<br />
<br />
====The State of Nature and the Social Contract====<br />
Edward Channing writes<ref name="Channing3">Channing, Edward; ''A History of The United States, Volume III, The American Revolution''; New York; The MacMillan Company (1920) <br>(The monumental 6 volume set won the 1926 Pulitzer Prize for history)</ref> (Chapter XIV) about the political views of the people in the 13 colonies prior to forming The United States. Each colony considered itself a separate entity. A Virginian was first Virginian and then English. When they gained independence they viewed themselves as completely free and sovereign with no outside control. They viewed themselves as in "in a state of nature." but also as in a "society" that must somehow coordinate to protect their natural rights.<br />
<br />
In that classic liberal theory 'natural' man is born with a fundamental set of [[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]. But in a state of nature, those rights are always at risk from antisocial forces; and, if society has not coordinated a solution, "natural man" must look to his own personal defense. They needed something better than that--a social contract enforced by a government. <br />
<br />
The Declaration of Independence, after establishing that we are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", makes a strong statement about the consent of the governed: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". However, the founders did not envision that each person among us gets to opt in or out of the government--deciding whether or not to pay taxes or respect the property rights of others for example. Is it possible that we could have a stable society in which consent must be obtained from every person? The classic liberal answer is that, in a state of nature, liberty and property rights are always at risk of internal and external threats. The need to defend against dangerous human tendencies remain even after civil society is formed. There are always power hungry or antisocial people who won't be nice. A reliance on purely voluntary cooperation may work in Galt's Gulch where there are a small number of self reliant and like minded people. In a larger society, such an absence of government would create a power vacuum that will be filled by an undesirable despotism. To protect our natural rights and preempt being ruled by an adversarial force, each of the 13 American colonies entered into a social contract by forming a state government. <br />
:An important point: perhaps because the consent of every member of society to a government is unattainable, and certainly because we all (including the dissenters) possess the 'unalienable' rights, it is doubly important that the ability of "factions" (a person or group) to violate those rights be put as far out of reach as possible. The protection of rights must be enshrined in law that outranks even a majority.<br />
<br />
The state governments that each colony formed were a way to domesticate coercive force for their benefit and protection. (It is interesting that such was the motivation for the [[American Freedom's Feudal Beginning|feudal system]] in England 800 years earlier.) Each colony formed a government based on a set of rules that they called constitutions. The colonies associated themselves together to assert their rights during the independence movement and afterward to create a nation with standing among their peers. Their legal obligations, however were first to their state governments. An interesting observation is that there was unity of political thought among the 13 colonies in that they each formed a state government that was republican in its structure and that none adopted the monarchical institutions of England--this even though their political theory was grounded in English tradition and common law. <br />
<br />
Richard Epstein points out in the preface of his recent book<ref name="CLC" /> that what he calls "classical liberal theory" rested on the concepts of private property and limited government. That it did not espouse an idea of total freedom of the individual to do <u>whatever</u> he wished. That it believed that every government action should improve the overall welfare of every member of society. And that meant the protection of liberty and property and little else. "State coercion for one's own good is not some code word for misguided paternalism. Nor is it a contradiction in terms. Rather, it is the minimum condition for the public provision of certain collective goods." (page 20)<ref name="CLC" /> The classic liberal reason for government is then, to protect our fundamental rights against threats. <br />
<br />
====The Problem of Factions====<br />
"Factions" were one of the major threats recognized during the constitutional debates. Self-interested action is a cornerstone of American success. (And it often has altruistic origins as George Gilder pointed out in ''Wealth and Poverty''.) But self-interested activity can become self-serving in a way that undermines the public welfare by manipulating the rules of politics--rules that can never be perfected--to create political favor that is far beyond protection of classic liberal rights. This happens when factions lobby and politic for a larger piece of the pie through special treatment (always at the expense of the non-protected group), which leaves less for everyone else, which eventually makes the whole pie smaller. And it feeds on itself. More factions are formed, either to protect themselves or to mimic other faction success. They learn how political manipulation works. James Madison's writing in ''The Federalist Paper No. 10'' expresses the concern:<br />
:By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority or the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, ''adverse to the rights of other citizens'', or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. (italics added)<br />
A thing to note is that they saw faction as a threat even if it enjoys a majority. That is the reason that they gave the social contract a preeminent position by writing it down in the constitution. They were staking a large part of the protection of rights on [[Portal:Liberty and Constitution|''rule of law'']] vs. what they saw as the potential for 'tyranny of the majority'.<br />
<br />
The constitutional debate between the federalists and the anti-federalists was about whether it was more effective to deal with the threats to liberty and property at the state or the federal level. It was a family quarrel with both sides having the same goal. The federalists believed that the larger the governed population, the harder it would be to form effective factions--that there would be more people opposed to them (''Federalist No. 51''). The anti-federalists believed that factions could be better resisted at a more local level. As it turns out they were both wrong. Factions come in all shapes and sizes and adapt themselves to every opportunity and around every fault line(race, sex, religion, political niche, social cause, industry, or region), and almost any issue. And noncompeting factions strengthen and embolden each other by agreeing to vote for each other's cause. So the constraints must be robust and durable in both state and federal constitutions. The structure put into the Constitution of the U.S. was the best attempt at the time, but has been loosing its effectiveness over time. But we can at least understand its intent as best we can.<br />
<br />
The federalists carried the debate limiting federal government power and by providing a set of checks and balances and a separation of powers that were written into the constitution.<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''The Progressive'''==<br />
------------incomplete draft-------------<br />
Progressives view government as a positive force for good rather than a necessary evil. They see rights as created by government and as going far beyond the few "[[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]". They view an expanded and more authoritarian government as the tool needed to correct a number of social ills that the minimalist approach of classic liberalism ignores.<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText=Walter Lippman <ref name="TGS">Lippman, Walter; ''The Good Society''; Boston; Little Brown and Company (1937)</ref>, and F. A. Hayek<ref name="Serfdom">Hayek, F A; ''The Road to Serfdom''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press (2007)(by the Estate of F. A. Hayek. Original 1944)</ref><br />
}}<br />
{{Citations}}<br />
<references /></div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=The_Basic_Choice:_Classic_Liberal_vs._Progressive&diff=2386The Basic Choice: Classic Liberal vs. Progressive2015-09-14T22:17:49Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Article<br />
|HasCategory=What Government<br />
|HasSummary=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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
|HasAuthor=Jeff<br />
|HasArticleDate=2015/08/31<br />
}}<br />
{{SectionDefault<br />
|HasArticleText=--Incomplete Draft--<br />
<br />
With over 300 million people in America, we have the entire spectrum of political view. CW attempts to make the discussion more compact by viewing our choice as between "classic liberal" and "progressive". We prefer not to use "conservative" and "liberal" because the meanings of those terms have been distorted over the last 80 or 90 years and have become rather vague. We must qualify the liberalism of which we write as 'classic' since the term 'liberal' was coopted by progressives 80 years ago. Our meaning adheres to its usage throughout American history until about 1930. It is interesting to note that F. A. Hayek, Nobel Laureate and well known liberal in the classic sense put an essay at the end of his influential work ''The Consitution of Liberty''<ref name="CofL">Hayek, F A; ''The Constitution of Liberty''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press; (1960)</ref> titled <u>Why I Am Not a Conservative</u>. It is a good illustration of how today's political labels have been misused and drifted away from their traditional meanings. In fact, many--maybe most--modern conservatives are classic liberals in that they identify with the intent of the constitution as it was written. (Of course, that begs the question "what was the intent of the constitution as it was written"? and we will get to that in other articles. When we do, we won't improve on Richard Epstein's book<ref name="CLC">Epstein, Richard A; ''The Classical Liberal Constitution''; Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press (2014)</ref> though we will be more brief.) <br />
<br />
Modern 'liberals' don't care for modern 'conservatives' and vice versa even though they may not know what those terms mean with any precision. There are more points on the spectrum to the left, right, and in the middle. There are the more ideologically pure libertarians and socialists at opposite ends; and the less ideological and seemingly less constant centrists that seem to pick and choose their positions based on what feels right. Libertarians and modern conservatives will identify more closely with classic liberalism, and modern liberals and socialists with progressivism though there are probably important differences. We are not going to sort all that out in this article. CW wishes to present clear choices that can be described with some precision; and the large majority of Americans fit either 'classic liberal' or 'progressive' well enough for our purposes.<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''The Classic Liberal'''==<br />
------------incomplete draft-------------<br />
We use the term 'classic liberal' to refer to what it meant to hold the prevalent political perspective that existed at the time our Constitution was ratified up to the advent of the progressives in the early part of the 20th century. When America achieved independence we suddenly had to look within ourselves for governance and for constitutional appeal. The transition was made somewhat easy in that we had over 100 years of colonial governance under our belt and we continued to rely on English Common Law as our fundamental law. And we kept our English liberal political theory, a belief that "in a state of nature" that individuals are completely free and enjoy a set of inalienable natural rights--the most fundamental of which are liberty and property; but also that life within a society requires something more in order that those rights might be protected from internal and external threat--a social contract is necessary. Therefore, government is necessary to protect those natural rights. In this view government is a necessary evil. That only as much government as is required to provide those protections should be tolerated.<br />
<br />
====The State of Nature and the Social Contract====<br />
Edward Channing writes<ref name="Channing3">Channing, Edward; ''A History of The United States, Volume III, The American Revolution''; New York; The MacMillan Company (1920) <br>(The monumental 6 volume set won the 1926 Pulitzer Prize for history)</ref> (Chapter XIV) about the political views of the people in the 13 colonies prior to forming The United States. Each colony considered itself a separate entity. A Virginian was first Virginian and then English. When they gained independence they viewed themselves as completely free and sovereign with no outside control. They viewed themselves as in "in a state of nature." but also as in a "society" that must somehow coordinate to protect their natural rights.<br />
<br />
In that classic liberal theory 'natural' man is born with a fundamental set of [[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]. But in a state of nature, those rights are always at risk from antisocial forces; and, if society has not coordinated a solution, "natural man" must look to his own personal defense. They needed something better than that--a social contract enforced by a government. <br />
<br />
The Declaration of Independence, after establishing that we are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", makes a strong statement about the consent of the governed: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". However, the founders did not envision that each person among us gets to opt in or out of the government--deciding whether or not to pay taxes or respect the property rights of others for example. Is it possible that we could have a stable society in which consent must be obtained from every person? The classic liberal answer is that, in a state of nature, liberty and property rights are always at risk of internal and external threats. The need to defend against dangerous human tendencies remain even after civil society is formed. There are always power hungry or antisocial people who won't be nice. A reliance on purely voluntary cooperation may work in Galt's Gulch where there are a small number of self reliant and like minded people. In a larger society, such an absence of government would create a power vacuum that will be filled by an undesirable despotism. To protect our natural rights and preempt being ruled by an adversarial force, each of the 13 American colonies entered into a social contract by forming a state government. <br />
:An important point: perhaps because the consent of every member of society to a government is unattainable, and certainly because we all (including the dissenters) possess the 'unalienable' rights, it is doubly important that the ability of "factions" (a person or group) to violate those rights be put as far out of reach as possible. The protection of rights must be enshrined in law that outranks even a majority.<br />
<br />
The state governments that each colony formed were a way to domesticate coercive force for their benefit and protection. (It is interesting that such was the motivation for the [[American Freedom's Feudal Beginning|feudal system]] in England 800 years earlier.) Each colony formed a government based on a set of rules that they called constitutions. The colonies associated themselves together to assert their rights during the independence movement and afterward to create a nation with standing among their peers. Their legal obligations, however were first to their state governments. An interesting observation is that there was unity of political thought among the 13 colonies in that they each formed a state government that was republican in its structure and that none adopted the monarchical institutions of England--this even though their political theory was grounded in English tradition and common law. <br />
<br />
Richard Epstein points out in the preface of his recent book<ref name="CLC" /> that what he calls "classical liberal theory" rested on the concepts of private property and limited government. That it did not espouse an idea of total freedom of the individual to do <u>whatever</u> he wished. That it believed that every government action should improve the overall welfare of every member of society. And that meant the protection of liberty and property and little else. "State coercion for one's own good is not some code word for misguided paternalism. Nor is it a contradiction in terms. Rather, it is the minimum condition for the public provision of certain collective goods." (page 20)<ref name="CLC" /> The classic liberal reason for government is then, to protect our fundamental rights against threats. <br />
<br />
====The Problem of Factions====<br />
"Factions" were one of the major threats recognized during the constitutional debates. Self-interested action is a cornerstone of American success. (And it often has altruistic origins as George Gilder pointed out in ''Wealth and Poverty''.) But self-interested activity can become self-serving in a way that undermines the public welfare by manipulating the rules of politics--rules that can never be perfected--to create political favor that is far beyond protection of classic liberal rights. This happens when factions lobby and politic for a larger piece of the pie through special treatment (always at the expense of the non-protected group), which leaves less for everyone else, which eventually makes the whole pie smaller. And it feeds on itself. More factions are formed, either to protect themselves or to mimic other faction success. They learn how political manipulation works. James Madison's writing in ''The Federalist Paper No. 10'' expresses the concern:<br />
:By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority or the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, ''adverse to the rights of other citizens'', or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. (italics added)<br />
A thing to note is that they saw faction as a threat even if it enjoys a majority. That is the reason that they gave the social contract a preeminent position by writing it down in the constitution. They were staking a large part of the protection of rights on [[Portal:Liberty and Constitution|''rule of law'']] vs. what they saw as the potential for 'tyranny of the majority'.<br />
<br />
The constitutional debate between the federalists and the anti-federalists was about whether it was more effective to deal with the threats to liberty and property at the state or the federal level. It was a family quarrel with both sides having the same goal. The federalists believed that the larger the governed population, the harder it would be to form effective factions--that there would be more people opposed to them (''Federalist No. 51''). The anti-federalists believed that factions could be better resisted at a more local level. As it turns out they were both wrong. Factions come in all shapes and sizes and adapt themselves to every opportunity and around every fault line(race, sex, religion, political niche, social cause, industry, or region), and almost any issue. And noncompeting factions strengthen and embolden each other by agreeing to vote for each other's cause. So the constraints must be robust and durable in both state and federal constitutions. The structure put into the Constitution of the U.S. was the best attempt at the time, but has been loosing its effectiveness over time. But we can at least understand its intent as best we can.<br />
<br />
The federalists carried the debate by providing a set of checks and balances and a separation of powers that were written into the constitution.<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''The Progressive'''==<br />
------------incomplete draft-------------<br />
Progressives view government as a positive force for good rather than a necessary evil. They see rights as created by government and as going far beyond the few "[[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]". They view an expanded and more authoritarian government as the tool needed to correct a number of social ills that the minimalist approach of classic liberalism ignores.<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText=Walter Lippman <ref name="TGS">Lippman, Walter; ''The Good Society''; Boston; Little Brown and Company (1937)</ref>, and F. A. Hayek<ref name="Serfdom">Hayek, F A; ''The Road to Serfdom''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press (2007)(by the Estate of F. A. Hayek. Original 1944)</ref><br />
}}<br />
{{Citations}}<br />
<references /></div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=The_Basic_Choice:_Classic_Liberal_vs._Progressive&diff=2385The Basic Choice: Classic Liberal vs. Progressive2015-09-14T21:54:06Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Article<br />
|HasCategory=What Government<br />
|HasSummary=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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
|HasAuthor=Jeff<br />
|HasArticleDate=2015/08/31<br />
}}<br />
{{SectionDefault<br />
|HasArticleText=--Incomplete Draft--<br />
<br />
With over 300 million people in America, we have the entire spectrum of political view. CW attempts to make the discussion more compact by viewing our choice as between "classic liberal" and "progressive". We prefer not to use "conservative" and "liberal" because the meanings of those terms have been distorted over the last 80 or 90 years and have become rather vague. We must qualify the liberalism of which we write as 'classic' since the term 'liberal' was coopted by progressives 80 years ago. Our meaning adheres to its usage throughout American history until about 1930. It is interesting to note that F. A. Hayek, Nobel Laureate and well known liberal in the classic sense put an essay at the end of his influential work ''The Consitution of Liberty''<ref name="CofL">Hayek, F A; ''The Constitution of Liberty''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press; (1960)</ref> titled <u>Why I Am Not a Conservative</u>. It is a good illustration of how today's political labels have been misused and drifted away from their traditional meanings. In fact, many--maybe most--modern conservatives are classic liberals in that they identify with the intent of the constitution as it was written. (Of course, that begs the question "what was the intent of the constitution as it was written"? and we will get to that in other articles. When we do, we won't improve on Richard Epstein's book<ref name="CLC">Epstein, Richard A; ''The Classical Liberal Constitution''; Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press (2014)</ref> though we will be more brief.) <br />
<br />
Modern 'liberals' don't care for modern 'conservatives' and vice versa even though they may not know what those terms mean with any precision. There are more points on the spectrum to the left, right, and in the middle. There are the more ideologically pure libertarians and socialists at opposite ends; and the less ideological and seemingly less constant centrists that seem to pick and choose their positions based on what feels right. Libertarians and modern conservatives will identify more closely with classic liberalism, and modern liberals and socialists with progressivism though there are probably important differences. We are not going to sort all that out in this article. CW wishes to present clear choices that can be described with some precision; and the large majority of Americans fit either 'classic liberal' or 'progressive' well enough for our purposes.<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''The Classic Liberal'''==<br />
------------incomplete draft-------------<br />
We use the term 'classic liberal' to refer to what it meant to hold the prevalent political perspective that existed at the time our Constitution was ratified up to the advent of the progressives in the early part of the 20th century. When America achieved independence we suddenly had to look within ourselves for governance and for constitutional appeal. The transition was made somewhat easy in that we had over 100 years of colonial governance under our belt and we continued to rely on English Common Law as our fundamental law. And we kept our English liberal political theory, a belief that "in a state of nature" that individuals are completely free and enjoy a set of inalienable natural rights--the most fundamental of which are liberty and property; but also that life within a society requires something more in order that those rights might be protected from internal and external threat--a social contract is necessary. Therefore, government is necessary to protect those natural rights. In this view government is a necessary evil. That only as much government as is required to provide those protections should be tolerated.<br />
<br />
====The State of Nature and the Social Contract====<br />
Edward Channing writes<ref name="Channing3">Channing, Edward; ''A History of The United States, Volume III, The American Revolution''; New York; The MacMillan Company (1920) <br>(The monumental 6 volume set won the 1926 Pulitzer Prize for history)</ref> (Chapter XIV) about the political views of the people in the 13 colonies prior to forming The United States. Each colony considered itself a separate entity. A Virginian was first Virginian and then English. When they gained independence they viewed themselves as completely free and sovereign with no outside control. They viewed themselves as in "in a state of nature." but also as in a "society" that must somehow coordinate to protect their natural rights.<br />
<br />
In that classic liberal theory 'natural' man is born with a fundamental set of [[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]. But in a state of nature, those rights are always at risk from antisocial forces; and, if society has not coordinated a solution, "natural man" must look to his own personal defense. They needed something better than that--a social contract enforced by a government. <br />
<br />
The Declaration of Independence, after establishing that we are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", makes a strong statement about the consent of the governed: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". However, the founders did not envision that each person among us gets to opt in or out of the government--deciding whether or not to pay taxes or respect the property rights of others for example. Is it possible that we could have a stable society in which consent must be obtained from every person? The classic liberal answer is that, in a state of nature, liberty and property rights are always at risk of internal and external threats. The need to defend against dangerous human tendencies remain even after civil society is formed. There are always power hungry or antisocial people who won't be nice. A reliance on purely voluntary cooperation may work in Galt's Gulch where there are a small number of self reliant and like minded people. In a larger society, such an absence of government would create a power vacuum that will be filled by an undesirable despotism. To protect our natural rights and preempt being ruled by an adversarial force, each of the 13 American colonies entered into a social contract by forming a state government. <br />
:An important point: perhaps because the consent of every member of society to a government is unattainable, and certainly because we all (including the dissenters) possess the 'unalienable' rights, it is doubly important that the ability of "factions" (a person or group) to violate those rights be put as far out of reach as possible. The protection of rights must be enshrined in law that outranks even a majority.<br />
<br />
The state governments that each colony formed were a way to domesticate coercive force for their benefit and protection. (It is interesting that such was the motivation for the [[American Freedom's Feudal Beginning|feudal system]] in England 800 years earlier.) Each colony formed a government based on a set of rules that they called constitutions. The colonies associated themselves together to assert their rights during the independence movement and afterward to create a nation with standing among their peers. Their legal obligations, however were first to their state governments. An interesting observation is that there was unity of political thought among the 13 colonies in that they each formed a state government that was republican in its structure and that none adopted the monarchical institutions of England--this even though their political theory was grounded in English tradition and common law. <br />
<br />
Richard Epstein points out in the preface of his recent book<ref name="CLC" /> that what he calls "classical liberal theory" rested on the concepts of private property and limited government. That it did not espouse an idea of total freedom of the individual to do <u>whatever</u> he wished. That it believed that every government action should improve the overall welfare of every member of society. And that meant the protection of liberty and property and little else. "State coercion for one's own good is not some code word for misguided paternalism. Nor is it a contradiction in terms. Rather, it is the minimum condition for the public provision of certain collective goods." (page 20)<ref name="CLC" /> The classic liberal reason for government is then, to protect our fundamental rights against threats. <br />
<br />
====The Problem of Factions====<br />
"Factions" were one of the major threats recognized during the constitutional debates. Self-interested action is a cornerstone of American success. (And it often has altruistic origins as George Gilder pointed out in ''Wealth and Poverty''.) But self-interested activity can become self-serving in a way that undermines the public welfare by manipulating the rules of politics--rules that can never be perfected--to create political favor that is far beyond protection of classic liberal rights. This happens when factions lobby and politic for a larger piece of the pie through special treatment (always at the expense of the non-protected group), which leaves less for everyone else, which eventually makes the whole pie smaller. And it feeds on itself. More factions are formed, either to protect themselves or to mimic other faction success. They learn how political manipulation works. James Madison's writing in ''The Federalist Paper No. 10'' expresses the concern:<br />
:By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority or the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, ''adverse to the rights of other citizens'', or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. (italics added)<br />
A thing to note is that they saw faction as a threat even if it enjoys a majority. That is the reason that they gave the social contract a preeminent position by writing it down in the constitution. They were staking a large part of the protection of rights on [[Portal:Liberty and Constitution|''rule of law'']] vs. what they saw as the potential for 'tyranny of the majority'.<br />
<br />
The constitutional debate between the federalists and the anti-federalists was about whether it was more effective to deal with the threats to liberty and property at the state or the federal level. It was a family quarrel with both sides having the same goal. The federalists believed that the larger the governed population, the harder it would be to form effective factions--that there would be more people opposed to them (''Federalist No. 51''). The anti-federalists believed that factions could be better resisted at a more local level. As it turns out they were both wrong. Factions come in all shapes and sizes and adapt themselves to every opportunity and around every fault line(race, sex, religion, political niche, social cause, industry, or region), and almost any issue. And noncompeting factions strengthen and embolden each other by agreeing to vote for each other's cause. So the constraints must be robust and durable in both state and federal constitutions. The structure put into the Constitution of the U.S. was the best attempt at the time, but has been loosing its effectiveness over time. But we can at least understand its intent.<br />
<br />
The federalists carried the debate by providing a set of checks and balances and a separation of powers that were written into the constitution.<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''The Progressive'''==<br />
------------incomplete draft-------------<br />
Progressives view government as a positive force for good rather than a necessary evil. They see rights as created by government and as going far beyond the few "[[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]". They view an expanded and more authoritarian government as the tool needed to correct a number of social ills that the minimalist approach of classic liberalism ignores.<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText=Walter Lippman <ref name="TGS">Lippman, Walter; ''The Good Society''; Boston; Little Brown and Company (1937)</ref>, and F. A. Hayek<ref name="Serfdom">Hayek, F A; ''The Road to Serfdom''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press (2007)(by the Estate of F. A. Hayek. Original 1944)</ref><br />
}}<br />
{{Citations}}<br />
<references /></div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Civicwiki:What_government&diff=2384Civicwiki:What government2015-09-14T21:23:27Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div>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? --><br />
Providing you with the information needed to answer that question is the main goal of CW. Every CW topic category contributes to that answer. <br />
However, the question is approached directly within: <br>[[Portal:What Government do We Want|What Government do We Want]]. <br />
<br />
<br />
<!------------<br />
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). <br />
-------><br />
<!-----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><br />
-----><br />
<!--------<br />
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. --><br />
<!--- Following Epstein's analysis <ref name="Classical Liberal Constitution"> Richard Epstein ''The Classical Liberal Consititution'' (2014) Cambridge, Massachusetts; Harvard University Press</ref> ---><br />
<!--- This view holds that individual rights are not 'inalienable', but are created by government; and that a benevolent and powerful state---><br />
<!---, administered by impartial experts,---> <br />
<!---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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
-----------><br />
<br />
<references /></div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Topics_and_synopses&diff=2383Topics and synopses2015-09-08T18:14:38Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
"Underlying all human regulation were the rights of man and the fundamental law. Government was an attempt to work the machinery of society in conformity with these underlying obligations. A constitution was an effort to set down in writing the most important of these rules. By it the people conferred authority upon governors, judges, and assemblies, and also limited it. . . . So long as the people were in the colonial condition , their laws and the decisions of their courts had been reviewed in England . . . The people of the States were, therefore, accustomed to a written organic law, and to a fundamental law explanatory of it. . . . Thus there came into being four distinct laws: the political theory at the basis of human society, the fundamental law which was no other than the Common Law of England, the written state constitution, and the laws made by the legislature; their authority was in precisely this order."(chapter XIV<ref name"HOTUS3">Channing, Edward ''History of the United States Vol III'' New York ; The MacMillan Co (1920) </ref>)<br />
<br />
==Inalienable Rights==<br />
'''The political theory and philosophy behind the creation of the U.S.'''<br />
<br />
Inalienable Rights discusses the underlying political theory--that 'all men are created equal' and are endowed with the right to life, liberty, and property. In addition to our own Declaration of independence, there were a number of influential writers in the 18th century that shaped both English and American political theory.<br />
Inalienable Rights is the discussion of that theory.<br />
<br />
==America's Heritage==<br />
'''The events that shaped American political thought.'''<br />
<br />
History of the most relevant events and historical trends that shaped American political thought leading up to the revolutionary war. Most of it will come from the colonial time period, but not all--since our early political thought was <br />
directly descended from the evolution of liberty in England and the English Common Law.<br />
<br />
==Independence==<br />
'''''When in the Course of human events,''''' <br>''it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them . . .''<br />
<br />
Independence from England was an idea that gathered momentum slowly at first. At the time of the battle of Bunker Hill, Americans were still thinking in terms of asserting their rights as British subjects, not as independent states. There was tipping point at which all thought turned to independence. This is a discussion of how that happened and matured.<br />
<br />
This section could be combined with the previous into 'America's Heritage and Independence' since there is some overlap which could cause confusion about where to place articles. <br />
<br />
==Liberty and Constitution==<br />
'''The guarantee of liberty through Rule of Law.'''<br />
<br />
For Civicwiki, this section and the two that follow are the heart of the matter. The previous three are background material. <br />
<br />
This topic will contain articles that discuss the Constitution itself as well as the debate that lead up to it's ratification. That public forum for that debate were newspaper articles now published as ''The Federalist Papers'' and ''The Anti-Federalist Papers''. <br />
<br />
This topic is also for articles that discuss the political theory of 'rule of law'. This is the idea that the enjoyment of our fundamental rights of life, liberty, and property should be protected by overarching fundamental law and put as far out of reach of democratic impulses as possible--hence the constitution that describes and limits the power of government. <br />
<br />
==Economic Freedom==<br />
'''The most fundamental kind of freedom.'''<br />
<br />
Though most early Americans thought in terms of political freedom, It was infringements on economic freedom that set them off. Indeed, political freedom in the absence of economic freedom is an oxymoron. Political freedoms must be accompanied by a like amount of economic freedom. On the other hand, it is possible to have economic freedom in an environment of restricted political freedom--and there have been instances of such in recent history (but not in America).<br />
<br />
Articles in this section discuss economic freedom and what it means. <br />
<br />
'''Also in this section is this subsection:'''<br />
===Wealth and Poverty===<br />
'''Wealth is superior to riches'''<br />
<br />
There is a difference between wealth and riches that honest politics must understand if it is to avoid destroying both. If it does not understand it, government will end up not by redistributing wealth, but by redistributing poverty.<br />
<br />
==What Government do We Want==<br />
'''Classic Liberalism vs. Progressivism.'''<br />
<br />
This is the chapter that comes at the end of a book that tries to bring closure to all the points that the book is trying to make. In light of everything that has been said in the articles of the previous 5 topics, how should we want our government to behave?<br />
<br />
Classic Liberalism is the political theory that guided the creation of the U.S.--the theory that says that men are endowed with certain unalienable rights. That government is a necessary evil and society should tolerate only as much government as is needed to guarantee those rights. Classic liberalism is not traditional conservatism, but is commonly confused with it. <br />
<br />
Progressivism views government not as a necessary evil, but as a force for good. 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 righting social problems that classic liberalism does not address.<br />
<br />
<br />
<references /></div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Topics_and_synopses&diff=2382Topics and synopses2015-09-08T18:13:23Z<p>Jeff: inserted wealth and poverty</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
"Underlying all human regulation were the rights of man and the fundamental law. Government was an attempt to work the machinery of society in conformity with these underlying obligations. A constitution was an effort to set down in writing the most important of these rules. By it the people conferred authority upon governors, judges, and assemblies, and also limited it. . . . So long as the people were in the colonial condition , their laws and the decisions of their courts had been reviewed in England . . . The people of the STates were, therefore, accustomed to a written organic law, and to a fundamental law explanatory of it. . . . Thus there came into being four distinct laws: the political theory at the basis of human society, the fundamental law which was no other than the Common Law of England, the written state constitution, and the laws made by the legislature; their authority was in precisely this order."(chapter XIV<ref name"HOTUS3">Channing, Edward ''History of the United States Vol III'' New York ; The MacMillan Co (1920) </ref>)<br />
<br />
==Inalienable Rights==<br />
'''The political theory and philosophy behind the creation of the U.S.'''<br />
<br />
Inalienable Rights discusses the underlying political theory--that 'all men are created equal' and are endowed with the right to life, liberty, and property. In addition to our own Declaration of independence, there were a number of influential writers in the 18th century that shaped both English and American political theory.<br />
Inalienable Rights is the discussion of that theory.<br />
<br />
==America's Heritage==<br />
'''The events that shaped American political thought.'''<br />
<br />
History of the most relevant events and historical trends that shaped American political thought leading up to the revolutionary war. Most of it will come from the colonial time period, but not all--since our early political thought was <br />
directly descended from the evolution of liberty in England and the English Common Law.<br />
<br />
==Independence==<br />
'''''When in the Course of human events,''''' <br>''it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them . . .''<br />
<br />
Independence from England was an idea that gathered momentum slowly at first. At the time of the battle of Bunker Hill, Americans were still thinking in terms of asserting their rights as British subjects, not as independent states. There was tipping point at which all thought turned to independence. This is a discussion of how that happened and matured.<br />
<br />
This section could be combined with the previous into 'America's Heritage and Independence' since there is some overlap which could cause confusion about where to place articles. <br />
<br />
==Liberty and Constitution==<br />
'''The guarantee of liberty through Rule of Law.'''<br />
<br />
For Civicwiki, this section and the two that follow are the heart of the matter. The previous three are background material. <br />
<br />
This topic will contain articles that discuss the Constitution itself as well as the debate that lead up to it's ratification. That public forum for that debate were newspaper articles now published as ''The Federalist Papers'' and ''The Anti-Federalist Papers''. <br />
<br />
This topic is also for articles that discuss the political theory of 'rule of law'. This is the idea that the enjoyment of our fundamental rights of life, liberty, and property should be protected by overarching fundamental law and put as far out of reach of democratic impulses as possible--hence the constitution that describes and limits the power of government. <br />
<br />
==Economic Freedom==<br />
'''The most fundamental kind of freedom.'''<br />
<br />
Though most early Americans thought in terms of political freedom, It was infringements on economic freedom that set them off. Indeed, political freedom in the absence of economic freedom is an oxymoron. Political freedoms must be accompanied by a like amount of economic freedom. On the other hand, it is possible to have economic freedom in an environment of restricted political freedom--and there have been instances of such in recent history (but not in America).<br />
<br />
Articles in this section discuss economic freedom and what it means. <br />
<br />
'''Also in this section is this subsection:'''<br />
===Wealth and Poverty===<br />
'''Wealth is superior to riches'''<br />
<br />
There is a difference between wealth and riches that honest politics must understand if it is to avoid destroying both. If it does not understand it, government will end up not by redistributing wealth, but by redistributing poverty.<br />
<br />
==What Government do We Want==<br />
'''Classic Liberalism vs. Progressivism.'''<br />
<br />
This is the chapter that comes at the end of a book that tries to bring closure to all the points that the book is trying to make. In light of everything that has been said in the articles of the previous 5 topics, how should we want our government to behave?<br />
<br />
Classic Liberalism is the political theory that guided the creation of the U.S.--the theory that says that men are endowed with certain unalienable rights. That government is a necessary evil and society should tolerate only as much government as is needed to guarantee those rights. Classic liberalism is not traditional conservatism, but is commonly confused with it. <br />
<br />
Progressivism views government not as a necessary evil, but as a force for good. 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 righting social problems that classic liberalism does not address.<br />
<br />
<br />
<references /></div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Topics_and_synopses&diff=2381Topics and synopses2015-09-08T18:05:44Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
"Underlying all human regulation were the rights of man and the fundamental law. Government was an attempt to work the machinery of society in conformity with these underlying obligations. A constitution was an effort to set down in writing the most important of these rules. By it the people conferred authority upon governors, judges, and assemblies, and also limited it. . . . So long as the people were in the colonial condition , their laws and the decisions of their courts had been reviewed in England . . . The people of the STates were, therefore, accustomed to a written organic law, and to a fundamental law explanatory of it. . . . Thus there came into being four distinct laws: the political theory at the basis of human society, the fundamental law which was no other than the Common Law of England, the written state constitution, and the laws made by the legislature; their authority was in precisely this order."(chapter XIV<ref name"HOTUS3">Channing, Edward ''History of the United States Vol III'' New York ; The MacMillan Co (1920) </ref>)<br />
<br />
==Inalienable Rights==<br />
'''The political theory and philosophy behind the creation of the U.S.'''<br />
<br />
Inalienable Rights discusses the underlying political theory--that 'all men are created equal' and are endowed with the right to life, liberty, and property. In addition to our own Declaration of independence, there were a number of influential writers in the 18th century that shaped both English and American political theory.<br />
Inalienable Rights is the discussion of that theory.<br />
<br />
==America's Heritage==<br />
'''The events that shaped American political thought.'''<br />
<br />
History of the most relevant events and historical trends that shaped American political thought leading up to the revolutionary war. Most of it will come from the colonial time period, but not all--since our early political thought was <br />
directly descended from the evolution of liberty in England and the English Common Law.<br />
<br />
==Independence==<br />
'''''When in the Course of human events,''''' <br>''it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them . . .''<br />
<br />
Independence from England was an idea that gathered momentum slowly at first. At the time of the battle of Bunker Hill, Americans were still thinking in terms of asserting their rights as British subjects, not as independent states. There was tipping point at which all thought turned to independence. This is a discussion of how that happened and matured.<br />
<br />
This section could be combined with the previous into 'America's Heritage and Independence' since there is some overlap which could cause confusion about where to place articles. <br />
<br />
==Liberty and Constitution==<br />
'''The guarantee of liberty through Rule of Law.'''<br />
<br />
For Civicwiki, this section and the two that follow are the heart of the matter. The previous three are background material. <br />
<br />
This topic will contain articles that discuss the Constitution itself as well as the debate that lead up to it's ratification. That public forum for that debate were newspaper articles now published as ''The Federalist Papers'' and ''The Anti-Federalist Papers''. <br />
<br />
This topic is also for articles that discuss the political theory of 'rule of law'. This is the idea that the enjoyment of our fundamental rights of life, liberty, and property should be protected by overarching fundamental law and put as far out of reach of democratic impulses as possible--hence the constitution that describes and limits the power of government. <br />
<br />
==Economic Freedom==<br />
'''The most fundamental kind of freedom.'''<br />
<br />
Though most early Americans thought in terms of political freedom, It was infringements on economic freedom that set them off. Indeed, political freedom in the absence of economic freedom is an oxymoron. Political freedoms must be accompanied by a like amount of economic freedom. On the other hand, it is possible to have economic freedom in an environment of restricted political freedom--and there have been instances of such in recent history (but not in America).<br />
<br />
Articles in this section discuss economic freedom and what it means. <br />
<br />
==What Government do We Want==<br />
'''Classic Liberalism vs. Progressivism.'''<br />
<br />
This is the chapter that comes at the end of a book that tries to bring closure to all the points that the book is trying to make. In light of everything that has been said in the articles of the previous 5 topics, how should we want our government to behave?<br />
<br />
Classic Liberalism is the political theory that guided the creation of the U.S.--the theory that says that men are endowed with certain unalienable rights. That government is a necessary evil and society should tolerate only as much government as is needed to guarantee those rights. Classic liberalism is not traditional conservatism, but is commonly confused with it. <br />
<br />
Progressivism views government not as a necessary evil, but as a force for good. 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 righting social problems that classic liberalism does not address.<br />
<br />
<br />
<references /></div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Topics_and_synopses&diff=2380Topics and synopses2015-09-08T17:57:10Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
"Underlying all human regulation were the rights of man and the fundamental law. Government was an attempt to work the machinery of society in conformity with these underlying obligations. A constitution was an effort to set down in writing the most important of these rules. By it the people conferred authority upon governors, judges, and assemblies, and also limited it. . . . So long as the people were in the colonial condition , their laws and the decisions of their courts had been reviewed in England . . . The people of the STates were, therefore, accustomed to a written organic law, and to a fundamental law explanatory of it. . . . Thus there came into being four distinct laws: the political theory at the basis of human society, the fundamental law which was no other than the Common Law of England, the written state constitution, and the laws made by the legislature; their authority was in precisely this order."(chapter XIV<ref name"HOTUS3">Channing, Edward ''History of the United States Vol III'' New York ; The MacMillan Co (1920) </ref>)<br />
<br />
==Inalienable Rights==<br />
'''The political theory and philosophy behind the creation of the U.S.'''<br />
<br />
Inalienable Rights discusses the underlying political theory--that 'all men are created equal' and are endowed with the right to life, liberty, and property. In addition to our own Declaration of independence, there were a number of influential writers in the 18th century that shaped both English and American political theory.<br />
Inalienable Rights is the discussion of that theory.<br />
<br />
==America's Heritage==<br />
'''The events that shaped American political thought.'''<br />
<br />
History of the most relevant events and historical trends that shaped American political thought leading up to the revolutionary war. Most of it will come from the colonial time period, but not all--since our early political thought was <br />
directly descended from the evolution of liberty in England and the English Common Law.<br />
<br />
==Independence==<br />
'''''When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them . . .'''''<br />
<br />
Independence from England was an idea that gathered momentum slowly at first. At the time of the battle of Bunker Hill, Americans were still thinking in terms of asserting their rights as British subjects, not as independent states. There was tipping point at which all thought turned to independence. This is a discussion of how that happened and matured.<br />
<br />
This section could be combined with the previous into 'America's Heritage and Independence' since there is some overlap which could cause confusion about where to place articles. <br />
<br />
==Liberty and Constitution==<br />
'''The guarantee of liberty through the Rule of Law.'''<br />
<br />
For Civicwiki, this section and the two that follow are the heart of the matter. The previous three are background material. <br />
<br />
This topic will contain articles that discuss the Constitution itself as well as the debate that lead up to it's ratification. That public forum for that debate were newspaper articles now published as ''The Federalist Papers'' and ''The Anti-Federalist Papers''. <br />
<br />
This topic is also for articles that discuss the political theory of 'rule of law'. This is the idea that the enjoyment of our fundamental rights of life, liberty, and property should be protected by overarching fundamental law and put as far out of reach of democratic impulses as possible--hence the constitution that describes and limits the power of government. <br />
<br />
==Economic Freedom==<br />
'''The most fundamental kind of freedom.'''<br />
<br />
Though most early Americans thought in terms of political freedom, It was infringements on economic freedom that set them off. Indeed, political freedom in the absence of economic freedom is an oxymoron. Political freedoms must be accompanied by a like amount of economic freedom. On the other hand, it is possible to have economic freedom in an environment of restricted political freedom--and there have been instances of such in recent history (but not in America).<br />
<br />
Articles in this section discuss economic freedom and what it means. <br />
<br />
==What Government do We Want==<br />
'''Classic Liberalism vs. Progressivism.'''<br />
<br />
This is the chapter that comes at the end of a book that tries to bring closure to all the points that the book is trying to make. In light of everything that has been said in the articles of the previous 5 topics, how should we want our government to behave?<br />
<br />
Classic Liberalism is the political theory that guided the creation of the U.S.--the theory that says that men are endowed with certain unalienable rights. That government is a necessary evil and society should tolerate only as much government as is needed to guarantee those rights. Classic liberalism is not traditional conservatism, but is commonly confused with it. <br />
<br />
Progressivism views government not as a necessary evil, but as a force for good. 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 righting social problems that classic liberalism does not address.<br />
<br />
<br />
<references /></div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Topics_and_synopses&diff=2379Topics and synopses2015-09-08T17:46:19Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div><br />
"Underlying all human regulation were the rights of man and the fundamental law. Government was an attempt to work the machinery of society in conformity with these underlying obligations. A constitution was an effort to set down in writing the most important of these rules. By it the people conferred authority upon governors, judges, and assemblies, and also limited it. . . . So long as the people were in the colonial condition , their laws and the decisions of their courts had been reviewed in England . . . The people of the STates were, therefore, accustomed to a written organic law, and to a fundamental law explanatory of it. . . . Thus there came into being four distinct laws: the political theory at the basis of human society, the fundamental law which was no other than the Common Law of England, the written state constitution, and the laws made by the legislature; their authority was in precisely this order."(chapter XIV<ref name"HOTUS3">Channing, Edward ''History of the United States Vol III'' New York ; The MacMillan Co (1920) </ref>)<br />
<br />
==Inalienable Rights==<br />
Inalienable Rights discusses the underlying political theory--that 'all men are created equal' and are endowed with the right to life, liberty, and property. In addition to our own Declaration of independence, there were a number of influential writers in the 18th century that shaped both English and American political theory.<br />
Inalienable Rights is the discussion of that theory.<br />
<br />
==America's Heritage==<br />
History of the most relevant events and historical trends that shaped American political thought leading up to the revolutionary war. Most of it will come from the colonial time period, but not all--since our early political thought was <br />
directly descended from the evolution of liberty in England and the English Common Law.<br />
<br />
==Independence== <br />
Independence from England was an idea that gathered momentum slowly at first. At the time of the battle of Bunker Hill, Americans were still thinking in terms of asserting their rights as British subjects, not as independent states. There was tipping point at which all thought turned to independence. This is a discussion of how that happened and matured.<br />
<br />
This section could be combined with the previous into 'America's Heritage and Independence' since there is some overlap which could cause confusion about where to place articles. <br />
<br />
==Liberty and Constitution==<br />
For Civicwiki, this section and the two that follow are the heart of the matter. The previous three are background material. <br />
<br />
This topic will contain articles that discuss the Constitution itself as well as the debate that lead up to it's ratification. That public forum for that debate were newspaper articles now published as ''The Federalist Papers'' and ''The Anti-Federalist Papers''. <br />
<br />
This topic is also for articles that discuss the political theory of 'rule of law'. This is the idea that the enjoyment of our fundamental rights of life, liberty, and property should be protected by overarching fundamental law and put as far out of reach of democratic impulses as possible--hence the constitution that describes and limits the power of government. <br />
<br />
==Economic Freedom==<br />
The most fundamental kind of freedom. Though most early Americans thought in terms of political freedom, It was infringements on economic freedom that set them off. Indeed, political freedom in the absence of economic freedom is an oxymoron. Political freedoms must be accompanied by a like amount of economic freedom. On the other hand, it is possible to have economic freedom in an environment of restricted political freedom--and there have been instances of such in recent history (but not in America).<br />
<br />
Articles in this section discuss economic freedom and what it means. <br />
<br />
==What Government do We Want==<br />
Classic Liberalism vs. Progressivism. <br />
<br />
Classic Liberalism is the political theory that guided the creation of the U.S.--the theory that says that men are endowed with certain unalienable rights. That government is a necessary evil and society should tolerate only as much government as is needed to guarantee those rights.<br />
<br />
Progressivism views government not as a necessary evil, but as a force for good. That government is the source of rights and rights are as many and as generous as the government determines. <br />
<br />
This is like the chapter that comes at the end of a book that tries to bring closure to all the points that the book is trying to make. In light of everything that has been said in the articles of the previous 5 topics, how should we want our government to behave?<br />
<br />
<br />
<references /></div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Topics_and_synopses&diff=2378Topics and synopses2015-09-08T17:23:06Z<p>Jeff: Create the page</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
"Underlying all human regulation were the rights of man and the fundamental law. Government was an attempt to work the machinery of society in conformity with these underlying obligations. A constitution was an effort to set down in writing the most important of these rules. By it the people conferred authority upon governors, judges, and assemblies, and also limited it. . . . So long as the people were in the colonial condition , their laws and the decisions of their courts had been reviewed in England . . . The people of the STates were, therefore, accustomed to a written organic law, and to a fundamental law explanatory of it. . . . Thus there came into being four distinct laws: the political theory at the basis of human society, the fundamental law which was no other than the Common Law of England, the written state constitution, and the laws made by the legislature; their authority was in precisely this order."(chapter XIV<ref name"HOTUS3">Channing, Edward ''History of the United States Vol III'' New York ; The MacMillan Co (1920) </ref>)<br />
<br />
==Inalienable Rights==<br />
Inalienable Rights discusses the underlying political theory--that 'all men are created equal' and are endowed with the right to life, liberty, and property. In addition to our own Declaration of independence, there were a number of influential writers in the 18th century that shaped both English and American political theory.<br />
Inalienable Rights is the discussion of that theory.<br />
<br />
==America's Heritage==<br />
History of the most relevant events and historical trends that shaped American political thought leading up to the revolutionary war. Most of it will come from the colonial time period, but not all--since our early political thought was <br />
directly descended from the evolution of liberty in England and the English Common Law.<br />
<br />
==Independence== <br />
Independence from England was an idea that gathered momentum slowly at first. At the time of the battle of Bunker Hill, Americans were still thinking in terms of asserting their rights as British subjects, not as independent states. There was tipping point at which all thought turned to independence. This is a discussion of how that happened and matured.<br />
<br />
This section could be combined with the previous into 'America's Heritage and Independence' since there is some overlap which could cause confusion about where to place articles. <br />
<br />
==Liberty and Constitution==<br />
For Civicwiki, this section and the two that follow are the heart of the matter. The previous three are background material. <br />
<br />
<br />
<references /></div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Basic_Choice:_Classic_Liberal_vs._Progressive&diff=2377Talk:The Basic Choice: Classic Liberal vs. Progressive2015-09-04T17:44:27Z<p>Jeff: Created page with "To comment or leave a suggestion or question about this article, please click on the tab "Add topic" and follow the prompts."</p>
<hr />
<div>To comment or leave a suggestion or question about this article, please click on the tab "Add topic" and follow the prompts.</div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=The_Basic_Choice:_Classic_Liberal_vs._Progressive&diff=2376The Basic Choice: Classic Liberal vs. Progressive2015-09-04T17:36:56Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Article<br />
|HasCategory=What Government<br />
|HasSummary=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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
|HasAuthor=Jeff<br />
|HasArticleDate=2015/08/31<br />
}}<br />
{{SectionDefault<br />
|HasArticleText=--Incomplete Draft--<br />
<br />
With over 300 million people in America, we have the entire spectrum of political view. CW attempts to make the discussion more compact by viewing our choice as between "classic liberal" and "progressive". We prefer not to use "conservative" and "liberal" because the meanings of those terms have been distorted over the last 80 or 90 years and have become rather vague. We must qualify the liberalism of which we write as 'classic' since the term 'liberal' was coopted by progressives 80 years ago. Our meaning adheres to its usage throughout American history until about 1930. It is interesting to note that F. A. Hayek, Nobel Laureate and well known liberal in the classic sense put an essay at the end of his influential work ''The Consitution of Liberty''<ref name="CofL">Hayek, F A; ''The Constitution of Liberty''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press; (1960)</ref> titled <u>Why I Am Not a Conservative</u>. It is a good illustration of how today's political labels have been misused and drifted away from their traditional meanings. In fact, many--maybe most--modern conservatives are classic liberals in that they identify with the intent of the constitution as it was written. (Of course, that begs the question "what was the intent of the constitution as it was written"? and we will get to that in other articles. When we do, we won't improve on Epstein's book<ref name="CLC">Epstein, Richard A; ''The Classical Liberal Constitution''; Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press (2014)</ref> though we will be more brief.) <br />
<br />
Modern 'liberals' don't care for modern 'conservatives' and vice versa even though they may not know what those terms mean with any precision. There are more points on the spectrum to the left, right, and in the middle. There are the more ideologically pure libertarians and socialists at opposite ends; and the less ideological and less constant centrists that seem to pick and choose their positions based on what feels right to them. Most libertarians and modern conservatives will identify more closely with classic liberalism, and modern liberals and socialists with progressivism though there are probably important differences. We are not going to sort all that out in this article. CW wishes to present clear choices that can be described with some precision; and the large majority of Americans fit either 'classic liberal' or 'progressive' well enough for our purposes.<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''The Classic Liberal'''==<br />
------------incomplete draft-------------<br />
We use the term 'classic liberal' to refer to what it meant to hold the prevalent political perspective that existed at the time our Constitution was ratified up to the advent of the progressives in the early part of the 20th century. In short, it is a belief that "in a state of nature" that individuals are completely free and enjoy a set of inalienable natural rights--the most fundamental of which are liberty and property. However, humans prefer life within a society to isolation; and life within a society requires something more in order that those rights might be protected from internal and external threat--a social contract is necessary. Therefore, government is necessary to protect those natural rights. In this view government is a necessary evil. That only as much government as is required to provide those protections should be tolerated.<br />
<br />
====The State of Nature and the Social Contract====<br />
Edward Channing writes<ref name="Channing3">Channing, Edward; ''A History of The United States, Volume III, The American Revolution''; New York; The MacMillan Company (1920) <br>(The monumental 6 volume set won the 1926 Pulitzer Prize for history)</ref> (Chapter XIV) about the political views of the people in the 13 colonies prior to forming The United States. Each colony considered itself a separate entity. A Virginian was first Virginian and then English. When they gained independence they viewed themselves as completely free and sovereign with no outside control. They viewed themselves as in "in a state of nature." but also as in a "society" that must somehow coordinate to protect their natural rights.<br />
<br />
In that classic liberal theory 'natural' man is born with a fundamental set of [[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]. But in a state of nature, those rights are always at risk from antisocial forces; and, if society has not coordinated a solution, "natural man" must look to his own personal defense. They needed something better than that--a social contract enforced by a government. <br />
<br />
The Declaration of Independence, after establishing that we are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", makes a strong statement about the consent of the governed: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". However, the founders did not envision that each person among us gets to opt in or out of the government--deciding whether or not to pay taxes or respect the property rights of others for example. Is it possible that we could have a stable society in which consent must be obtained from every person? The classic liberal answer is that, in a state of nature, liberty and property rights are always at risk of internal and external threats. The need to defend against dangerous human tendencies remain even after civil society is formed. There are always power hungry or antisocial people who won't be nice. A reliance on purely voluntary cooperation may work in Galt's Gulch where there are a small number of self reliant and like minded people. In a larger society, such an absence of government would create a power vacuum that will be filled by an undesirable despotism. To protect our natural rights and preempt being ruled by an adversarial force, each of the 13 American colonies entered into a social contract by forming a state government. <br />
:An important point: perhaps because the consent of every member of society to a government is unattainable, and certainly because we all (including the dissenters) possess the 'unalienable' rights, it is doubly important that the ability of "factions" (a person or group) to violate those rights be put as far out of reach as possible. The protection of rights must be enshrined in law that outranks even a majority.<br />
<br />
The state governments that each colony formed were a way to domesticate coercive force for their benefit and protection. (It is interesting that such was the motivation for the [[American Freedom's Feudal Beginning|feudal system]] in England 800 years earlier.) Each colony formed a government based on a set of rules that they called constitutions. The colonies associated themselves together to assert their rights during the independence movement and afterward to create a nation with standing among their peers. Their legal obligations, however were first to their state governments. An interesting observation is that there was unity of political thought among the 13 colonies in that they each formed a state government that was republican in its structure and that none adopted the monarchical institutions of England--this even though their political theory was grounded in English tradition and common law. <br />
<br />
Richard Epstein points out in the preface of his recent book<ref name="CLC" /> that what he calls "classical liberal theory" rested on the concepts of private property and limited government. That it did not espouse an idea of total freedom of the individual to do <u>whatever</u> he wished. That it believed that every government action should improve the overall welfare of every member of society. And that meant the protection of liberty and property and little else. "State coercion for one's own good is not some code word for misguided paternalism. Nor is it a contradiction in terms. Rather, it is the minimum condition for the public provision of certain collective goods." (page 20)<ref name="CLC" /> The classic liberal reason for government is then, to protect our fundamental rights against threats. <br />
<br />
====The Problem of Factions====<br />
"Factions" were one of the major threats recognized during the constitutional debates. Self-interested action is a cornerstone of American success. (And it often has altruistic origins as George Gilder pointed out in ''Wealth and Poverty''.) But self-interested activity can become self-serving in a way that undermines the public welfare by manipulating the rules of politics--rules that can never be perfected--to create political favor that is far beyond protection of classic liberal rights. This happens when factions lobby and politic for a larger piece of the pie through special treatment (always at the expense of the non-protected group), which leaves less for everyone else, which eventually makes the whole pie smaller. And it feeds on itself. More factions are formed, either to protect themselves or to mimic other faction success. They learn how political manipulation works. James Madison's writing in ''The Federalist Paper No. 10'' expresses the concern:<br />
:By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority or the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, ''adverse to the rights of other citizens'', or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. (italics added)<br />
A thing to note is that they saw faction as a threat even if it enjoys a majority. That is the reason that they gave the social contract a preeminent position by writing it down in the constitution. They were staking a large part of the protection of rights on [[Portal:Liberty and Constitution|''rule of law'']] vs. what they saw as the potential for 'tyranny of the majority'.<br />
<br />
The constitutional debate between the federalists and the anti-federalists was about whether it was more effective to deal with the threats to liberty and property at the state or the federal level. It was a family quarrel with both sides having the same goal. The federalists believed that the larger the governed population, the harder it would be to form effective factions--that there would be more people opposed to them (''Federalist No. 51''). The anti-federalists believed that factions could be better resisted at a more local level. As it turns out they were both wrong. Factions come in all shapes and sizes and adapt themselves to every opportunity and around every fault line(race, sex, religion, political niche, social cause, industry, or region), and almost any issue. And noncompeting factions strengthen and embolden each other by agreeing to vote for each other's cause. So the constraints must be robust and durable in both state and federal constitutions. The structure put into the Constitution of the U.S. was the best attempt at the time, but has been loosing its effectiveness over time. But we can at least understand its intent.<br />
<br />
The federalists carried the debate by providing a set of checks and balances and a separation of powers that were written into the constitution.<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''The Progressive'''==<br />
------------incomplete draft-------------<br />
Progressives view government as a positive force for good rather than a necessary evil. They see rights as created by government and as going far beyond the few "[[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]". They view an expanded and more authoritarian government as the tool needed to correct a number of social ills that the minimalist approach of classic liberalism ignores.<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText=Walter Lippman <ref name="TGS">Lippman, Walter; ''The Good Society''; Boston; Little Brown and Company (1937)</ref>, and F. A. Hayek<ref name="Serfdom">Hayek, F A; ''The Road to Serfdom''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press (2007)(by the Estate of F. A. Hayek. Original 1944)</ref><br />
}}<br />
{{Citations}}<br />
<references /></div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=The_Basic_Choice:_Classic_Liberal_vs._Progressive&diff=2375The Basic Choice: Classic Liberal vs. Progressive2015-09-04T17:05:22Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Article<br />
|HasCategory=What Government<br />
|HasSummary=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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
|HasAuthor=Jeff<br />
|HasArticleDate=2015/08/31<br />
}}<br />
{{SectionDefault<br />
|HasArticleText=--Incomplete Draft--<br />
<br />
With over 300 million people in America, we have the entire spectrum of political view. CW attempts to make the discussion more compact by viewing our choice as between "classic liberal" and "progressive". We prefer not to use "conservative" and "liberal" because the meanings of those terms have been distorted over the last 80 or 90 years and have become rather vague. We must qualify the liberalism of which we write as 'classic' since the term 'liberal' was coopted by progressives 80 years ago. Our meaning adheres to its usage throughout American history until about 1930. It is interesting to note that F. A. Hayek, Nobel Laureate and well known liberal in the classic sense put an essay at the end of his influential work ''The Consitution of Liberty''<ref name="CofL">Hayek, F A; ''The Constitution of Liberty''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press; (1960)</ref> titled <u>Why I Am Not a Conservative</u>. It is a good illustration of how today's political labels have been misused and drifted away from their traditional meanings. In fact, many--maybe most--modern conservatives are classic liberals in that they identify with the intent of the constitution as it was written. (Of course, that begs the question "what was the intent of the constitution as it was written"? and we will get to that in other articles. When we do, we won't improve on Epstein's book<ref name="CLC">Epstein, Richard A; ''The Classical Liberal Constitution''; Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press (2014)</ref> though we will be more brief.) <br />
<br />
Modern 'liberals' don't care for modern 'conservatives' and vice versa even though they may not know what those terms mean with any precision. There are more points on the spectrum to the left, right, and in the middle. There are the more ideologically pure libertarians and socialists at opposite ends; and the less ideological and less constant centrists that seem to pick and choose their positions based on what feels right to them. Most libertarians and modern conservatives will identify more closely with classic liberalism, and modern liberals and socialists with progressivism though there are probably important differences. We are not going to sort all that out in this article. CW wishes to present clear choices that can be described with some precision; and the large majority of Americans fit either 'classic liberal' or 'progressive' well enough for our purposes. <br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''The Classic Liberal'''==<br />
<br />
We use the term 'classic liberal' to refer to what it meant to hold the prevalent political perspective that existed at the time our Constitution was ratified up to the advent of the progressives in the early part of the 20th century. In short, it is a belief that "in a state of nature" that individuals are completely free and enjoy a set of inalienable natural rights--the most fundamental of which are liberty and property. However, humans prefer life within a society to isolation; and life within a society requires something more in order that those rights might be protected from internal and external threat--a social contract is necessary. Therefore, government is necessary to protect those natural rights. In this view government is a necessary evil. That only as much government as is required to provide those protections should be tolerated.<br />
<br />
====The State of Nature and the Social Contract====<br />
Edward Channing writes<ref name="Channing3">Channing, Edward; ''A History of The United States, Volume III, The American Revolution''; New York; The MacMillan Company (1920) <br>(The monumental 6 volume set won the 1926 Pulitzer Prize for history)</ref> (Chapter XIV) about the political views of the people in the 13 colonies prior to forming The United States. Each colony considered itself a separate entity. A Virginian was first Virginian and then English. When they gained independence they viewed themselves as completely free and sovereign with no outside control. They viewed themselves as in "in a state of nature." but also as in a "society" that must somehow coordinate to protect their natural rights.<br />
<br />
In that classic liberal theory 'natural' man is born with a fundamental set of [[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]. But in a state of nature, those rights are always at risk from antisocial forces; and, if society has not coordinated a solution, "natural man" must look to his own personal defense. They needed something better than that--a social contract enforced by a government. <br />
<br />
The Declaration of Independence, after establishing that we are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", makes a strong statement about the consent of the governed: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". However, the founders did not envision that each person among us gets to opt in or out of the government--deciding whether or not to pay taxes or respect the property rights of others for example. Is it possible that we could have a stable society in which consent must be obtained from every person? The classic liberal answer is that, in a state of nature, liberty and property rights are always at risk of internal and external threats. The need to defend against dangerous human tendencies remain even after civil society is formed. There are always power hungry or antisocial people who won't be nice. A reliance on purely voluntary cooperation may work in Galt's Gulch where there are a small number of self reliant and like minded people. In a larger society, such an absence of government would create a power vacuum that will be filled by an undesirable despotism. To protect our natural rights and preempt being ruled by an adversarial force, each of the 13 American colonies entered into a social contract by forming a state government. <br />
:An important point: perhaps because the consent of every member of society to a government is unattainable, and certainly because we all (including the dissenters) possess the 'unalienable' rights, it is doubly important that the ability of "factions" (a person or group) to violate those rights be put as far out of reach as possible. The protection of rights must be enshrined in law that outranks even a majority.<br />
<br />
The state governments that each colony formed were a way to domesticate coercive force for their benefit and protection. (It is interesting that such was the motivation for the [[American Freedom's Feudal Beginning|feudal system]] in England 800 years earlier.) Each colony formed a government based on a set of rules that they called constitutions. The colonies associated themselves together to assert their rights during the independence movement and afterward to create a nation with standing among their peers. Their legal obligations, however were first to their state governments. An interesting observation is that there was unity of political thought among the 13 colonies in that they each formed a state government that was republican in its structure and that none adopted the monarchical institutions of England--this even though their political theory was grounded in English tradition and common law. <br />
<br />
Richard Epstein points out in the preface of his recent book<ref name="CLC" /> that what he calls "classical liberal theory" rested on the concepts of private property and limited government. That it did not espouse an idea of total freedom of the individual to do <u>whatever</u> he wished. That it believed that every government action should improve the overall welfare of every member of society. And that meant the protection of liberty and property and little else. "State coercion for one's own good is not some code word for misguided paternalism. Nor is it a contradiction in terms. Rather, it is the minimum condition for the public provision of certain collective goods." (page 20)<ref name="CLC" /> The classic liberal reason for government is then, to protect our fundamental rights against threats. <br />
<br />
====The Problem of Factions====<br />
"Factions" were one of the major threats recognized during the constitutional debates. Self-interested action is a cornerstone of American success. (And it often has altruistic origins as George Gilder pointed out in ''Wealth and Poverty''.) But self-interested activity can become self-serving in a way that undermines the public welfare by manipulating the rules of politics--rules that can never be perfected--to create political favor that is far beyond protection of classic liberal rights. This happens when factions lobby and politic for a larger piece of the pie through special treatment (always at the expense of the non-protected group), which leaves less for everyone else, which eventually makes the whole pie smaller. And it feeds on itself. More factions are formed, either to protect themselves or to mimic other faction success. They learn how political manipulation works. James Madison's writing in ''The Federalist Paper No. 10'' expresses the concern:<br />
:By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority or the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, ''adverse to the rights of other citizens'', or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. (italics added)<br />
A thing to note is that they saw faction as a threat even if it enjoys a majority. That is the reason that they gave the social contract a preeminent position by writing it down in the constitution. They were staking a large part of the protection of rights on [[Portal:Liberty and Constitution|''rule of law'']] vs. what they saw as the potential for 'tyranny of the majority'.<br />
<br />
The constitutional debate between the federalists and the anti-federalists was about whether it was more effective to deal with the threats to liberty and property at the state or the federal level. It was a family quarrel with both sides having the same goal. The federalists believed that the larger the governed population, the harder it would be to form effective factions--that there would be more people opposed to them (''Federalist No. 51''). The anti-federalists believed that factions could be better resisted at a more local level. As it turns out they were both wrong. Factions come in all shapes and sizes and adapt themselves to every opportunity and around every fault line(race, sex, religion, political niche, social cause, industry, or region), and almost any issue. And noncompeting factions strengthen and embolden each other by agreeing to vote for each other's cause. So the constraints must be robust and durable in both state and federal constitutions. The structure put into the Constitution of the U.S. was the best attempt at the time, but has been loosing its effectiveness over time. But we can at least understand its intent.<br />
<br />
The federalists carried the debate by providing a set of checks and balances and a separation of powers that were written into the constitution.<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''The Progressive'''==<br />
<br />
Progressives view government as a positive force for good rather than a necessary evil. They see rights as created by government and as going far beyond the few "[[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]". They view an expanded and more authoritarian government as the tool needed to correct a number of social ills that the minimalist approach of classic liberalism ignores.<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText=Walter Lippman <ref name="TGS">Lippman, Walter; ''The Good Society''; Boston; Little Brown and Company (1937)</ref>, and F. A. Hayek<ref name="Serfdom">Hayek, F A; ''The Road to Serfdom''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press (2007)(by the Estate of F. A. Hayek. Original 1944)</ref><br />
<br />
}}<br />
{{Citations}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<references /></div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=The_Basic_Choice:_Classic_Liberal_vs._Progressive&diff=2374The Basic Choice: Classic Liberal vs. Progressive2015-09-04T16:24:30Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Article<br />
|HasCategory=What Government<br />
|HasSummary=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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
|HasAuthor=Jeff<br />
|HasArticleDate=2015/08/31<br />
}}<br />
{{SectionDefault<br />
|HasArticleText=--Incomplete Draft--<br />
<br />
:<small>This section has been influenced by a number of authors, but most directly by: Richard Epstein<ref name="CLC">Epstein, Richard A; ''The Classical Liberal Constitution''; Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press (2014)</ref>, Edward Channing<ref name="Channing3">Channing, Edward; ''A History of The United States, Volume III, The American Revolution''; New York; The MacMillan Company (1920) <br>(The monumental 6 volume set won the 1926 Pulitzer Prize for history)</ref>, Walter Lippman <ref name="TGS">Lippman, Walter; ''The Good Society''; Boston; Little Brown and Company (1937)</ref>, and F. A. Hayek<ref name="Serfdom">Hayek, F A; ''The Road to Serfdom''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press (2007)(by the Estate of F. A. Hayek. Original 1944)</ref><ref name="CofL">Hayek, F A; ''The Constitution of Liberty''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press; (1960)</ref> Civicwiki (CW) considers Epstein, Lippman, and Hayek to be classic liberals. Channing is a historian and his books are excellent resources in which he discusses objectively the political theories that guided people throughout American history. He does not reveal his own preferences.</small><br />
With over 300 million people in America, we have the entire spectrum of political view. CW attempts to make the discussion more compact by viewing our choice as between "classic liberal" and "progressive". We prefer not to use "conservative" and "liberal" because the meanings of those terms have been distorted over the last 80 or 90 years and have become rather vague. Modern 'liberals' don't care for modern 'conservatives' and vice versa even though they may not know what those terms mean with any precision. There are more points on the spectrum to the left, right, and in the middle. There are the more ideologically pure libertarians and socialists at opposite ends; and the less ideological and less constant centrists that seem to pick and choose their positions based on what feels right to them. Most libertarians and modern conservatives will identify more closely with classic liberalism, and modern liberals and socialists with progressivism though there are probably important differences. We are not going to sort all that out in this article. CW wishes to present clear choices that can be described with some precision; and the large majority of Americans fit either 'classic liberal' or 'progressive' well enough for our purposes. We must qualify the liberalism of which we write as 'classic' since the term 'liberal' was coopted by progressives 80 years ago. Our meaning adheres to its usage throughout American history until about 1930. It is interesting to note that F. A. Hayek, Nobel Laureate and well known liberal in the classic sense put an essay at the end of his influential work ''The Consitution of Liberty''<ref name="CofL" /> titled <u>Why I Am Not a Conservative</u>. It is a good illustration of how today's political labels have been misused and drifted away from their traditional meanings. In fact, many--maybe most--modern conservatives are classic liberals in that they identify with the intent of the constitution as it was written. (Of course, that begs the question "what was the intent of the constitution as it was written"? and we will get to that in other articles. When we do, we won't improve on Epstein's book<ref name="CLC" /> though we will be more brief.)<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''The Classic Liberal'''==<br />
<br />
We use the term 'classic liberal' to refer to what it meant to hold the prevalent political perspective that existed at the time our Constitution was ratified up to the advent of the progressives in the early part of the 20th century. In short, it is a belief that "in a state of nature" that individuals are completely free and enjoy a set of inalienable natural rights--the most fundamental of which are liberty and property. However, life within a society requires something more in order that those rights might be protected from internal and external threat--a social contract is necessary. Therefore, government is necessary to protect those natural rights. In this view government is a necessary evil. That only as much government as is required to provide those protections should be tolerated.<br />
<br />
====The State of Nature and the Social Contract====<br />
Edward Channing writes about the political views of the people in the 13 colonies prior to forming The United States (chapter XIV<ref name="Channing3" />). Each colony considered itself a separate entity. A Virginian was first Virginian and then English. When they gained independence they viewed themselves as completely free and sovereign with no outside control. They viewed themselves as in "in a state of nature." but also as in a "society" that must somehow coordinate to protect their natural rights.<br />
<br />
In that classic liberal theory 'natural' man is born with a fundamental set of [[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]. But in a state of nature, those rights are always at risk from antisocial forces; and, if society has not coordinated a solution, "natural man" must look to his own personal defense. They needed something better than that--a social contract enforced by a government. <br />
<br />
The Declaration of Independence, after establishing that we are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", makes a strong statement about the consent of the governed: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". However, the founders did not envision that each person among us gets to opt in or out of the government--deciding whether or not to pay taxes or respect the property rights of others. Is it possible that we could have a stable society in which consent must be obtained from every person? The classic liberal answer is that, in a state of nature, liberty and property rights are always at risk of internal and external threats. The need to defend against dangerous human tendencies remain even after civil society is formed. There are always power hungry or antisocial people who won't be nice. A reliance on purely voluntary cooperation may work in Galt's Gulch where there are a small number of self reliant and like minded people. In a larger society, such an absence of government would create a power vacuum that will be filled by an undesirable despotism. To protect our natural rights and preempt being ruled by an adversarial force, each of the 13 American colonies entered into a social contract by forming a state government. <br />
<br />
The state governments that each colony formed were a way to domesticate coercive force for their benefit and protection. (It is interesting that such was the motivation for the [[American Freedom's Feudal Beginning|feudal system]] in England 800 years earlier.) Each colony formed a government based on a set of rules that they called constitutions. The colonies associated themselves together to assert their rights during the independence movement and afterward to create a nation with standing among their peers. Their legal obligations, however were first to their state governments. An interesting observation is that there was unity of political thought among the 13 colonies in that they each formed a state government that was republican in its structure and that none adopted the monarchical institutions of England--this even though their political theory was grounded in English tradition and common law. <br />
<br />
Richard Epstein points out in the preface of his recent book<ref name="CLC" /> that what he calls "classical liberal theory" rested on the concepts of private property and limited government. That it did not espouse an idea of total freedom of the individual to do <u>whatever</u> he wished. That it believed that every government action should improve the overall welfare of every member of society. And that meant the protection of liberty and property and little else. "State coercion for one's own good is not some code word for misguided paternalism. Nor is it a contradiction in terms. Rather, it is the minimum condition for the public provision of certain collective goods." (page 20)<ref name="CLC" /> The classic liberal reason for government is then, to protect our fundamental rights against threats. <br />
<br />
====The Problem of Factions====<br />
"Factions" were one of the major threats recognized during the constitutional debates. Self-interested action is a cornerstone of American success. (And it often has altruistic origins as George Gilder pointed out in ''Wealth and Poverty''.) But self-interested activity can become self-serving in a way that undermines the public welfare by manipulating the rules of politics--rules that can never be perfected--to create political favor that is far beyond protection of classic liberal rights. This happens when factions lobby and politic for a larger piece of the pie through special treatment (always at the expense of the non-protected group), which leaves less for everyone else, which eventually makes the whole pie smaller. And it feeds on itself. More factions are formed, either to protect themselves or to mimic other faction success. They learn how political manipulation works. James Madison's writing in ''The Federalist Paper No. 10'' expresses the concern:<br />
:By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority or the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, ''adverse to the rights of other citizens'', or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. (italics added)<br />
A thing to note is that they saw faction as a threat even if it enjoys a majority. That is the reason that they gave the social contract a preeminent position by writing it down in the constitution. They were staking a large part of the protection of rights on [[Portal:Liberty and Constitution|''rule of law'']] vs. what they saw as the potential for 'tyranny of the majority'.<br />
<br />
The constitutional debate between the federalists and the anti-federalists was about whether it was more effective to deal with the threats to liberty and property at the state or the federal level. It was a family quarrel with both sides having the same goal. The federalists believed that the larger the governed population, the harder it would be to form effective factions--that there would be more people opposed to them (''Federalist No. 51''). The anti-federalists believed that factions could be better resisted at a more local level. As it turns out they were both wrong. Factions come in all shapes and sizes and adapt themselves to every opportunity and around every fault line(race, sex, religion, political niche, social cause, industry, or region), and almost any issue. And noncompeting factions strengthen and embolden each other by agreeing to vote for each other's cause. So the constraints must be robust and durable in both state and federal constitutions. The structure put into the Constitution of the U.S. was the best attempt at the time, but has been loosing its effectiveness over time. But we can at least understand its intent.<br />
<br />
The federalists carried the debate by providing a set of checks and balances and a separation of powers that were written into the constitution.<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''The Progressive'''==<br />
<br />
Progressives view government as a positive force for good rather than a necessary evil. They see rights as created by government and as going far beyond the few "[[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]". They view an expanded and more authoritarian government as the tool needed to correct a number of social ills that the minimalist approach of classic liberalism ignores.<br />
}}<br />
{{Citations}}<br />
<references /></div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:What_Government_do_We_Want&diff=2373Portal:What Government do We Want2015-09-04T16:05:10Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
<div style="width:100%;border:1px solid #000080;"><br />
<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><br />
<table width="100%" border="0" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000080;" cellpadding="0"><br />
<tr><td style="padding:5px;"><br />
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. <br />
[[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>from ''If I Ran the Zoo'' by Dr. Seuss|link=]]</p><br />
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). <br />
<br>We'll call this view of government 'classic liberal'. <br />
<!-----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><br />
-----><br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
Which do we want? <br />
<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.<br />
<br />
<br />
<references /><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<!--</div>--><br />
<table style="width:100%; vertical-align:top; margin-top:8px;"><br />
<tr><br />
<td width="50%" valign="top" style="padding:6px;"><br />
<div style="width:100%;border:1px solid #000080;padding:3px;"><br />
<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><br />
Click on arrows to see subcategories and articles.<br><br />
Article titles are in italics.<br />
{{#categorytree:What Government|mode=pages}}<br />
</div><br />
<div style="width:100%;border:1px solid #000080;margin-top:6px;padding:3px;"><br />
<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><br />
*Write (or edit) a page about about an important issue. <br />
*Improve the introduction above (text and image).<br />
</div><br />
</td><br />
<td>&nbsp;</td><br />
<td width="50%" valign="top" style="padding:6px;"><br />
<div style="width:100%;border:1px solid #000080;padding:3px;"><br />
<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><br />
''Classic Liberal vs. Progressive''<br />
<br>{{Featured Article|The Basic Choice: Classic Liberal vs. Progressive}}<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<!---<br />
<div style="width:100%;border:1px solid #000080;margin-top:6px;padding:3px;"><br />
<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><br />
{{#ask:[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]|format=ul}}<br />
</div><br />
---><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
</div></div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=The_Basic_Choice:_Classic_Liberal_vs._Progressive&diff=2372The Basic Choice: Classic Liberal vs. Progressive2015-09-04T16:04:05Z<p>Jeff: Jeff moved page The Basics Choice: Classic Liberal vs. Progressive to The Basic Choice: Classic Liberal vs. Progressive without leaving a redirect: correct typo</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Article<br />
|HasCategory=What Government<br />
|HasSummary=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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
|HasAuthor=Jeff<br />
|HasArticleDate=2015/08/31<br />
}}<br />
{{SectionDefault<br />
|HasArticleText=--Incomplete Draft--<br />
<br />
:<small>We have used several authors extensively in this section: Richard Epstein<ref name="CLC">Epstein, Richard A; ''The Classical Liberal Constitution''; Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press (2014)</ref>, Edward Channing<ref name="Channing3">Channing, Edward; ''A History of The United States, Volume III, The American Revolution''; New York; The MacMillan Company (1920) <br>(The monumental 6 volume set won the 1926 Pulitzer Prize for history)</ref>, Walter Lippman <ref name="TGS">Lippman, Walter; ''The Good Society''; Boston; Little Brown and Company (1937)</ref>, and F. A. Hayek<ref name="Serfdom">Hayek, F A; ''The Road to Serfdom''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press (2007)(by the Estate of F. A. Hayek. Original 1944)</ref><ref name="CofL">Hayek, F A; ''The Constitution of Liberty''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press; (1960)</ref> Civicwiki (CW) considers Epstein, Lippman, and Hayek to be classic liberals. Channing is a historian and his books are excellent resources in which he discusses objectively the political theories that guided people throughout American history. He does not reveal his own preferences.</small><br />
With over 300 million people in America, we have the entire spectrum of political view. CW attempts to make the discussion more compact by viewing our choice as between "classic liberal" and "progressive". We prefer not to use "conservative" and "liberal" because the meanings of those terms have been distorted over the last 80 or 90 years and have become rather vague. Modern 'liberals' don't care for modern 'conservatives' and vice versa even though we doubt that either knows what those terms represent with any precision. There are more points on the spectrum to the left, right, and in the middle. There are the more ideologically pure libertarians and socialists at opposite ends; and the less ideological and less constant centrists that seem to pick and choose their positions based on what feels right to them. Most libertarians and modern conservatives will identify more closely with classic liberalism, and modern liberals and socialists with progressivism though there are probably important differences. We are not going to sort all that out in this article. CW wishes to present clear choices that can be described with some precision; and the large majority of Americans fit either 'classic liberal' or 'progressive' well enough for our purposes. We must qualify the liberalism of which we write as 'classic' since the term 'liberal' was coopted by progressives 80 years ago. Our meaning adheres to its usage throughout American history until about 1930. It is interesting to note that F. A. Hayek, Nobel Laureate and well known liberal in the classic sense put an essay at the end of his influential work ''The Consitution of Liberty''<ref name="CofL" /> titled <u>Why I Am Not a Conservative</u>. It is a good illustration of how today's political labels have been misused and drifted away from their traditional meanings.<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''The Classic Liberal'''==<br />
<br />
We use the term 'classic liberal' to refer to what it meant to hold the prevalent political perspective that existed at the time our Constitution was ratified up to the advent of the progressives in the early part of the 20th century. In short, it is a belief that "in a state of nature" that individuals are completely free and enjoy a set of inalienable natural rights--the most fundamental of which are liberty and property. However, life within a society requires something more in order that those rights might be protected from internal and external threat--a social contract is necessary. Therefore, government is necessary to protect those natural rights. In this view government is a necessary evil. That only as much government as is required to provide those protections should be tolerated.<br />
<br />
====The State of Nature and the Social Contract====<br />
Edward Channing writes about the political views of the people in the 13 colonies prior to forming The United States (chapter XIV<ref name="Channing3" />). Each colony considered itself a separate entity. A Virginian was first Virginian and then English. When they gained independence they viewed themselves as completely free and sovereign with no outside control. They viewed themselves as in "in a state of nature." but also as in a "society" that must somehow coordinate to protect their natural rights.<br />
<br />
In that classic liberal theory 'natural' man is born with a fundamental set of [[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]. But in a state of nature, those rights are always at risk from antisocial forces; and, if society has not coordinated a solution, "natural man" must look to his own personal defense. They needed something better than that--a social contract enforced by a government. <br />
<br />
The Declaration of Independence, after establishing that we are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", makes a strong statement about the consent of the governed: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". However, the founders did not envision that each person among us gets to opt in or out of the government--deciding whether or not to pay taxes or respect the property rights of others. Is it possible that we could have a stable society in which consent must be obtained from every person? The classic liberal answer is that, in a state of nature, liberty and property rights are always at risk of internal and external threats. The need to defend against dangerous human tendencies remain even after civil society is formed. There are always power hungry or antisocial people who won't be nice. A reliance on purely voluntary cooperation may work in Galt's Gulch where there are a small number of self reliant and like minded people. In a larger society, such an absence of government would create a power vacuum that will be filled by an undesirable despotism. To protect our natural rights and preempt being ruled by an adversarial force, each of the 13 American colonies entered into a social contract by forming a state government. <br />
<br />
The state governments that each colony formed were a way to domesticate coercive force for their benefit and protection. (It is interesting that such was the motivation for the [[American Freedom's Feudal Beginning|feudal system]] in England 800 years earlier.) Each colony formed a government based on a set of rules that they called constitutions. The colonies associated themselves together to assert their rights during the independence movement and afterward to create a nation with standing among their peers. Their legal obligations, however were first to their state governments. An interesting observation is that there was unity of political thought among the 13 colonies in that they each formed a state government that was republican in its structure and that none adopted the monarchical institutions of England--this even though their political theory was grounded in English tradition and common law. <br />
<br />
Richard Epstein points out in the preface of his recent book<ref name="CLC" /> that what he calls "classical liberal theory" rested on the concepts of private property and limited government. That it did not espouse an idea of total freedom of the individual to do <u>whatever</u> he wished. That it believed that every government action should improve the overall welfare of every member of society. And that meant the protection of liberty and property and little else. "State coercion for one's own good is not some code word for misguided paternalism. Nor is it a contradiction in terms. Rather, it is the minimum condition for the public provision of certain collective goods." (page 20)<ref name="CLC" /> The classic liberal reason for government is then, to protect our fundamental rights against threats. <br />
<br />
====The Problem of Factions====<br />
"Factions" were one of the major threats recognized during the constitutional debates. Self-interested action is a cornerstone of American success. (And it often has altruistic origins as George Gilder pointed out in ''Wealth and Poverty''.) But self-interested activity can become self-serving in a way that undermines the public welfare by manipulating the rules of politics--rules that can never be perfected--to create political favor that is far beyond protection of classic liberal rights. This happens when factions lobby and politic for a larger piece of the pie through special treatment (always at the expense of the non-protected group), which leaves less for everyone else, which eventually makes the whole pie smaller. And it feeds on itself. More factions are formed, either to protect themselves or to mimic other faction success. They learn how political manipulation works. James Madison's writing in ''The Federalist Paper No. 10'' expresses the concern:<br />
:By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority or the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, ''adverse to the rights of other citizens'', or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. (italics added)<br />
A thing to note is that they saw faction as a threat even if it enjoys a majority. That is the reason that they gave the social contract a preeminent position by writing it down in the constitution. They were staking a large part of the protection of rights on [[Portal:Liberty and Constitution|''rule of law'']] vs. what they saw as the potential for 'tyranny of the majority'.<br />
<br />
The constitutional debate between the federalists and the anti-federalists was about whether it was more effective to deal with the threats to liberty and property at the state or the federal level. It was a family quarrel with both sides having the same goal. The federalists believed that the larger the governed population, the harder it would be to form effective factions--that there would be more people opposed to them (''Federalist No. 51''). The anti-federalists believed that factions could be better resisted at a more local level. As it turns out they were both wrong. Factions come in all shapes and sizes and adapt themselves to every opportunity and around every fault line(race, sex, religion, political niche, social cause, industry, or region), and almost any issue. And noncompeting factions strengthen and embolden each other by agreeing to vote for each other's cause. So the constraints must be robust and durable in both state and federal constitutions. The structure put into the Constitution of the U.S. was the best attempt at the time, but has been loosing its effectiveness over time. But we can at least understand its intent.<br />
<br />
The federalists carried the debate by providing a set of checks and balances and a separation of powers that were written into the constitution.<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''The Progressive'''==<br />
<br />
Progressives view government as a positive force for good rather than a necessary evil. They see rights as created by government and as going far beyond the few "[[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]". They view an expanded and more authoritarian government as the tool needed to correct a number of social ills that the minimalist approach of classic liberalism ignores.<br />
}}<br />
{{Citations}}<br />
<references /></div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=The_Basic_Choice:_Classic_Liberal_vs._Progressive&diff=2371The Basic Choice: Classic Liberal vs. Progressive2015-09-04T16:01:08Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Article<br />
|HasCategory=What Government<br />
|HasSummary=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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
|HasAuthor=Jeff<br />
|HasArticleDate=2015/08/31<br />
}}<br />
{{SectionDefault<br />
|HasArticleText=--Incomplete Draft--<br />
<br />
:<small>We have used several authors extensively in this section: Richard Epstein<ref name="CLC">Epstein, Richard A; ''The Classical Liberal Constitution''; Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press (2014)</ref>, Edward Channing<ref name="Channing3">Channing, Edward; ''A History of The United States, Volume III, The American Revolution''; New York; The MacMillan Company (1920) <br>(The monumental 6 volume set won the 1926 Pulitzer Prize for history)</ref>, Walter Lippman <ref name="TGS">Lippman, Walter; ''The Good Society''; Boston; Little Brown and Company (1937)</ref>, and F. A. Hayek<ref name="Serfdom">Hayek, F A; ''The Road to Serfdom''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press (2007)(by the Estate of F. A. Hayek. Original 1944)</ref><ref name="CofL">Hayek, F A; ''The Constitution of Liberty''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press; (1960)</ref> Civicwiki (CW) considers Epstein, Lippman, and Hayek to be classic liberals. Channing is a historian and his books are excellent resources in which he discusses objectively the political theories that guided people throughout American history. He does not reveal his own preferences.</small><br />
With over 300 million people in America, we have the entire spectrum of political view. CW attempts to make the discussion more compact by viewing our choice as between "classic liberal" and "progressive". We prefer not to use "conservative" and "liberal" because the meanings of those terms have been distorted over the last 80 or 90 years and have become rather vague. Modern 'liberals' don't care for modern 'conservatives' and vice versa even though we doubt that either knows what those terms represent with any precision. There are more points on the spectrum to the left, right, and in the middle. There are the more ideologically pure libertarians and socialists at opposite ends; and the less ideological and less constant centrists that seem to pick and choose their positions based on what feels right to them. Most libertarians and modern conservatives will identify more closely with classic liberalism, and modern liberals and socialists with progressivism though there are probably important differences. We are not going to sort all that out in this article. CW wishes to present clear choices that can be described with some precision; and the large majority of Americans fit either 'classic liberal' or 'progressive' well enough for our purposes. We must qualify the liberalism of which we write as 'classic' since the term 'liberal' was coopted by progressives 80 years ago. Our meaning adheres to its usage throughout American history until about 1930. It is interesting to note that F. A. Hayek, Nobel Laureate and well known liberal in the classic sense put an essay at the end of his influential work ''The Consitution of Liberty''<ref name="CofL" /> titled <u>Why I Am Not a Conservative</u>. It is a good illustration of how today's political labels have been misused and drifted away from their traditional meanings.<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''The Classic Liberal'''==<br />
<br />
We use the term 'classic liberal' to refer to what it meant to hold the prevalent political perspective that existed at the time our Constitution was ratified up to the advent of the progressives in the early part of the 20th century. In short, it is a belief that "in a state of nature" that individuals are completely free and enjoy a set of inalienable natural rights--the most fundamental of which are liberty and property. However, life within a society requires something more in order that those rights might be protected from internal and external threat--a social contract is necessary. Therefore, government is necessary to protect those natural rights. In this view government is a necessary evil. That only as much government as is required to provide those protections should be tolerated.<br />
<br />
====The State of Nature and the Social Contract====<br />
Edward Channing writes about the political views of the people in the 13 colonies prior to forming The United States (chapter XIV<ref name="Channing3" />). Each colony considered itself a separate entity. A Virginian was first Virginian and then English. When they gained independence they viewed themselves as completely free and sovereign with no outside control. They viewed themselves as in "in a state of nature." but also as in a "society" that must somehow coordinate to protect their natural rights.<br />
<br />
In that classic liberal theory 'natural' man is born with a fundamental set of [[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]. But in a state of nature, those rights are always at risk from antisocial forces; and, if society has not coordinated a solution, "natural man" must look to his own personal defense. They needed something better than that--a social contract enforced by a government. <br />
<br />
The Declaration of Independence, after establishing that we are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", makes a strong statement about the consent of the governed: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". However, the founders did not envision that each person among us gets to opt in or out of the government--deciding whether or not to pay taxes or respect the property rights of others. Is it possible that we could have a stable society in which consent must be obtained from every person? The classic liberal answer is that, in a state of nature, liberty and property rights are always at risk of internal and external threats. The need to defend against dangerous human tendencies remain even after civil society is formed. There are always power hungry or antisocial people who won't be nice. A reliance on purely voluntary cooperation may work in Galt's Gulch where there are a small number of self reliant and like minded people. In a larger society, such an absence of government would create a power vacuum that will be filled by an undesirable despotism. To protect our natural rights and preempt being ruled by an adversarial force, each of the 13 American colonies entered into a social contract by forming a state government. <br />
<br />
The state governments that each colony formed were a way to domesticate coercive force for their benefit and protection. (It is interesting that such was the motivation for the [[American Freedom's Feudal Beginning|feudal system]] in England 800 years earlier.) Each colony formed a government based on a set of rules that they called constitutions. The colonies associated themselves together to assert their rights during the independence movement and afterward to create a nation with standing among their peers. Their legal obligations, however were first to their state governments. An interesting observation is that there was unity of political thought among the 13 colonies in that they each formed a state government that was republican in its structure and that none adopted the monarchical institutions of England--this even though their political theory was grounded in English tradition and common law. <br />
<br />
Richard Epstein points out in the preface of his recent book<ref name="CLC" /> that what he calls "classical liberal theory" rested on the concepts of private property and limited government. That it did not espouse an idea of total freedom of the individual to do <u>whatever</u> he wished. That it believed that every government action should improve the overall welfare of every member of society. And that meant the protection of liberty and property and little else. "State coercion for one's own good is not some code word for misguided paternalism. Nor is it a contradiction in terms. Rather, it is the minimum condition for the public provision of certain collective goods." (page 20)<ref name="CLC" /> The classic liberal reason for government is then, to protect our fundamental rights against threats. <br />
<br />
====The Problem of Factions====<br />
"Factions" were one of the major threats recognized during the constitutional debates. Self-interested action is a cornerstone of American success. (And it often has altruistic origins as George Gilder pointed out in ''Wealth and Poverty''.) But self-interested activity can become self-serving in a way that undermines the public welfare by manipulating the rules of politics--rules that can never be perfected--to create political favor that is far beyond protection of classic liberal rights. This happens when factions lobby and politic for a larger piece of the pie through special treatment (always at the expense of the non-protected group), which leaves less for everyone else, which eventually makes the whole pie smaller. And it feeds on itself. More factions are formed, either to protect themselves or to mimic other faction success. They learn how political manipulation works. James Madison's writing in ''The Federalist Paper No. 10'' expresses the concern:<br />
:By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority or the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, ''adverse to the rights of other citizens'', or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. (italics added)<br />
A thing to note is that they saw faction as a threat even if it enjoys a majority. That is the reason that they gave the social contract a preeminent position by writing it down in the constitution. They were staking a large part of the protection of rights on [[Portal:Liberty and Constitution|''rule of law'']] vs. what they saw as the potential for 'tyranny of the majority'.<br />
<br />
The constitutional debate between the federalists and the anti-federalists was about whether it was more effective to deal with the threats to liberty and property at the state or the federal level. It was a family quarrel with both sides having the same goal. The federalists believed that the larger the governed population, the harder it would be to form effective factions--that there would be more people opposed to them (''Federalist No. 51''). The anti-federalists believed that factions could be better resisted at a more local level. As it turns out they were both wrong. Factions come in all shapes and sizes and adapt themselves to every opportunity and around every fault line(race, sex, religion, political niche, social cause, industry, or region), and almost any issue. And noncompeting factions strengthen and embolden each other by agreeing to vote for each other's cause. So the constraints must be robust and durable in both state and federal constitutions. The structure put into the Constitution of the U.S. was the best attempt at the time, but has been loosing its effectiveness over time. But we can at least understand its intent.<br />
<br />
The federalists carried the debate by providing a set of checks and balances and a separation of powers that were written into the constitution.<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''The Progressive'''==<br />
<br />
Progressives view government as a positive force for good rather than a necessary evil. They see rights as created by government and as going far beyond the few "[[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]". They view an expanded and more authoritarian government as the tool needed to correct a number of social ills that the minimalist approach of classic liberalism ignores.<br />
}}<br />
{{Citations}}<br />
<references /></div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=The_Basic_Choice:_Classic_Liberal_vs._Progressive&diff=2370The Basic Choice: Classic Liberal vs. Progressive2015-09-04T15:30:44Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Article<br />
|HasCategory=What Government<br />
|HasSummary=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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
|HasAuthor=Jeff<br />
|HasArticleDate=2015/08/31<br />
}}<br />
{{SectionDefault<br />
|HasArticleText=--Incomplete Draft--<br />
<br />
:<small>We have used several authors extensively in this section: Richard Epstein<ref name="CLC">Epstein, Richard A; ''The Classical Liberal Constitution''; Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press (2014)</ref>, Edward Channing<ref name="Channing3">Channing, Edward; ''A History of The United States, Volume III, The American Revolution''; New York; The MacMillan Company (1920) <br>(The monumental 6 volume set won the 1926 Pulitzer Prize for history)</ref>, Walter Lippman <ref name="TGS">Lippman, Walter; ''The Good Society''; Boston; Little Brown and Company (1937)</ref>, and F. A. Hayek<ref name="Serfdom">Hayek, F A; ''The Road to Serfdom''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press (2007)(by the Estate of F. A. Hayek. Original 1944)</ref><ref name="CofL">Hayek, F A; ''The Constitution of Liberty''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press; (1960)</ref> Civicwiki (CW) considers Epstein, Lippman, and Hayek to be classic liberals. Channing is a historian and his books are excellent resources in which he discusses objectively the political theories that guided people throughout American history. He does not reveal his own preferences.</small><br />
With over 300 million people in America, we have the entire spectrum of political view. CW attempts to make the discussion more compact by viewing our choice as between "classic liberal" and "progressive". We prefer not to use "conservative" and "liberal" because the meanings of those terms have been distorted over the last 80 or 90 years and have become rather vague. Modern 'liberals' don't care for modern 'conservatives' and vice versa even though we doubt that either knows what those terms represent with any precision. There are more points on the spectrum to the left, right, and in the middle. There are the more ideologically pure libertarians and socialists at opposite ends; and the less ideological and less constant centrists that seem to pick and choose their positions based on what feels right to them. Most libertarians and modern conservatives will identify more closely with classic liberalism, and modern liberals and socialists with progressivism though there are probably important differences. We are not going to sort all that out in this article. CW wishes to present clear choices that can be described with some precision; and the large majority of Americans fit either 'classic liberal' or 'progressive' well enough for our purposes. We must qualify the liberalism of which we write as 'classic' since the term 'liberal' was coopted by progressives 80 years ago. Our meaning adheres to its usage throughout American history until about 1930. It is interesting to note that F. A. Hayek, Nobel Laureate and well known liberal in the classic sense put an essay at the end of his influential work ''The Consitution of Liberty''<ref name="CofL" /> titled <u>Why I Am Not a Conservative</u>. It is a good illustration of how today's political labels have been misused and drifted away from their traditional meanings.<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''The Classic Liberal'''==<br />
<br />
We use the term 'classic liberal' to refer to what it meant to hold the prevalent political perspective that existed at the time our Constitution was ratified up to the advent of the progressives in the early part of the 20th century. In short, it is a belief that "in a state of nature" that individuals are completely free and enjoy a set of inalienable natural rights--the most fundamental of which are liberty and property. However, life within a society requires something more in order that those rights might be protected from internal and external threat--a social contract is necessary. Therefore, government is necessary to protect those natural rights. In this view government is a necessary evil. That only as much government as is required to provide those protections should be tolerated.<br />
<br />
====The State of Nature and the Social Contract====<br />
Edward Channing writes about the political views of the people in the 13 colonies prior to forming The United States (chapter XIV<ref name="Channing3" />). Each colony considered itself a separate entity. A Virginian was first Virginian and then English. When they gained independence they viewed themselves as completely free and sovereign with no outside control. They viewed themselves as in "in a state of nature." but also as in a "society" that must somehow coordinate to protect their natural rights.<br />
<br />
In that classic liberal theory 'natural' man is born with a fundamental set of [[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]. But in a state of nature, those rights are always at risk from antisocial forces; and natural man must look to his own defense. They needed something better than that--a social contract enforced by a government. <br />
<br />
The Declaration of Independence, after establishing that we are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", makes a strong statement about the consent of the governed: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". However, the founders did not envision that each person among us gets to opt in or out of the government--deciding whether or not to pay taxes or respect the property rights of others. Is it possible that we could have a stable society in which consent must be obtained from every person? The classic liberal answer is that, in a state of nature, liberty and property rights are always at risk of internal and external threats. The need to defend against dangerous human tendencies remain even after civil society is formed. There are always power hungry or antisocial people who won't be nice. A reliance on purely voluntary cooperation may work in Galt's Gulch where there are a small number of self reliant and like minded people. In a larger society, such an absence of government would create a power vacuum that will be filled by an undesirable despotism. To protect our natural rights and preempt being ruled by an adversarial force, each of the 13 American colonies entered into a social contract by forming a state government. <br />
<br />
The state governments that each colony formed were a way to domesticate coercive force for their benefit and protection. (It is interesting that such was the motivation for the [[American Freedom's Feudal Beginning|feudal system]] in England 800 years earlier.) Each colony formed a government based on a set of rules that they called constitutions. The colonies associated themselves together to assert their rights during the independence movement and afterward to create a nation with standing among their peers. Their legal obligations, however were first to their state governments. An interesting observation is that there was unity of political thought among the 13 colonies in that they each formed a state government that was republican in its structure and that none adopted the monarchical institutions of England--this even though their political theory was grounded in English tradition and common law. <br />
<br />
Richard Epstein points out in the preface of his recent book<ref name="CLC" /> that what he calls "classical liberal theory" rested on the concepts of private property and limited government. That it did not espouse an idea of total freedom of the individual to do <u>whatever</u> he wished. That it believed that every government action should improve the overall welfare of every member of society. And that meant the protection of liberty and property and little else. "State coercion for one's own good is not some code word for misguided paternalism. Nor is it a contradiction in terms. Rather, it is the minimum condition for the public provision of certain collective goods." (page 20)<ref name="CLC" /><br />
<br />
====The Problem of Factions====<br />
The classic liberal reason for government is then, to protect our fundamental rights against threats. "Factions" were one of the major threats recognized during the constitutional debates. Self-interested action is a cornerstone of American success. (And it often has altruistic origins as George Gilder pointed out in ''Wealth and Poverty''.) But self-interested activity can become self-serving in a way that undermines the public welfare by manipulating the rules of politics--rules that can never be perfected. This happens when factions lobby and politic for a larger piece of the pie through special treatment (always at the expense of the non-protected group), which leaves less for everyone else, which eventually makes the whole pie smaller. And it feeds on itself. More factions are formed, either to protect themselves or to mimic other faction success. They learn how political manipulation works. James Madison's writing in The Federalist Papers #10 show the concern:<br />
:By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority or the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, ''adverse to the rights of other citizens'', or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. (italics added)<br />
A thing to note is that they saw faction as a threat even if it enjoys a majority. That is the reason that they gave the social contract a preeminent position by writing it down in the constitution. They were staking a large part of the protection of rights on [[Portal:Liberty and Constitution|''rule of law'']] vs. what they saw as the potential for 'tyranny of the majority'.<br />
<br />
The constitutional debate between the federalists and the anti-federalists were about whether it was safer to deal with the threats to liberty and property at the state or the federal level. It was a family quarrel with both sides having the same goal. The federalists believed that the larger the governed population, the harder it would be to form effective factions--that there would be more people opposed to them. The anti-federalists believed that factions could be better resisted at a more local level. As it turns out they were both wrong. Factions come in all shapes and sizes and adapt themselves to every opportunity and around every fault line(race, sex, religion, political niche, social cause, industry, or region), and almost any issue. And noncompeting factions embolden each other by agreeing to vote for each other's cause. The constraints must be robust and durable. <br />
<br />
The federalists carried the debate by providing a set of checks and balances and a separation of powers that were written into the constitution.<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''The Progressive'''==<br />
<br />
Progressives view government as a positive force for good rather than a necessary evil. They see rights as created by government and as going far beyond the few "[[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]". They view an expanded and more authoritarian government as the tool needed to correct a number of social ills that the minimalist approach of classic liberalism ignores.<br />
}}<br />
{{Citations}}<br />
<references /></div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=The_Basic_Choice:_Classic_Liberal_vs._Progressive&diff=2369The Basic Choice: Classic Liberal vs. Progressive2015-09-04T15:20:09Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Article<br />
|HasCategory=What Government<br />
|HasSummary=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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
|HasAuthor=Jeff<br />
|HasArticleDate=2015/08/31<br />
}}<br />
{{SectionDefault<br />
|HasArticleText=--Incomplete Draft--<br />
<br />
:<small>We have used several authors extensively in this section: Richard Epstein<ref name="CLC">Epstein, Richard A; ''The Classical Liberal Constitution''; Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press (2014)</ref>, Edward Channing<ref name="Channing3">Channing, Edward; ''A History of The United States, Volume III, The American Revolution''; New York; The MacMillan Company (1920) <br>(The monumental 6 volume set won the 1926 Pulitzer Prize for history)</ref>, Walter Lippman <ref name="TGS">Lippman, Walter; ''The Good Society''; Boston; Little Brown and Company (1937)</ref>, and F. A. Hayek<ref name="Serfdom">Hayek, F A; ''The Road to Serfdom''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press (2007)(by the Estate of F. A. Hayek. Original 1944)</ref><ref name="CofL">Hayek, F A; ''The Constitution of Liberty''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press; (1960)</ref> Civicwiki (CW) considers Epstein, Lippman, and Hayek to be classic liberals. Channing is a historian and his books are excellent resources in which he discusses objectively the political theories that guided people throughout American history. He does not reveal his own preferences.</small><br />
With over 300 million people in America, we have the entire spectrum of political view. CW attempts to make the discussion more compact by viewing our choice as between "classic liberal" and "progressive". We prefer not to use "conservative" and "liberal" because the meanings of those terms have been distorted over the last 80 or 90 years and have become rather vague. 'Liberals' don't care for 'conservatives' and vice versa even though we doubt that either knows what those terms represent with any precision. There are more points on the spectrum to the left, right, and in the middle. There are the more ideologically pure libertarians and socialists; and the less ideological and less constant centrists that seem to pick and choose their positions based on what feels right to them. Most libertarians and modern conservatives will identify more closely with classic liberalism, and liberals and socialists with progressivism though there are probably important differences. We are not going to sort all that out in this article. CW wishes to present a clear choices that can be described with some precision; and we believe that the large majority of Americans fit either 'classic liberal' or 'progressive' well enough for our purposes. It is interesting to note that F. A. Hayek, Nobel Laureate and well known liberal in the classic sense put an essay at the end of his influential work ''The Consitution of Liberty''<ref name="CofL" /> titled <u>Why I Am Not a Conservative</u>. It is a good illustration of how today's political labels have been misused and drifted away from their traditional meanings.<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''The Classic Liberal'''==<br />
<br />
We use the term 'classic liberal' to refer to what it meant to hold the prevalent political perspective that existed at the time our Constitution was ratified up to the advent of the progressives in the early part of the 20th century. In short, it is a belief that "in a state of nature" that individuals are completely free and enjoy a set of inalienable natural rights--the most fundamental of which are liberty and property. However, life within a society requires something more in order that those rights might be protected from internal and external threat--a social contract is necessary. Therefore, government is necessary to protect those natural rights. In this view government is a necessary evil. That only as much government as is required to provide those protections should be tolerated.<br />
<br />
====The State of Nature and the Social Contract====<br />
Edward Channing writes about the political views of the people in the 13 colonies prior to forming The United States (chapter XIV<ref name="Channing3" />). Each colony considered itself a separate entity. A Virginian was first Virginian and then English. When they gained independence they viewed themselves as completely free and sovereign with no outside control. They viewed themselves as in "in a state of nature." but also as in a "society" that must somehow coordinate to protect their natural rights.<br />
<br />
In that classic liberal theory 'natural' man is born with a fundamental set of [[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]. But in a state of nature, those rights are always at risk from antisocial forces; and natural man must look to his own defense. They needed something better than that--a social contract enforced by a government. <br />
<br />
The Declaration of Independence, after establishing that we are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", makes a strong statement about the consent of the governed: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". However, the founders did not envision that each person among us gets to opt in or out of the government--deciding whether or not to pay taxes or respect the property rights of others. Is it possible that we could have a stable society in which consent must be obtained from every person? The classic liberal answer is that, in a state of nature, liberty and property rights are always at risk of internal and external threats. The need to defend against dangerous human tendencies remain even after civil society is formed. There are always power hungry or antisocial people who won't be nice. A reliance on purely voluntary cooperation may work in Galt's Gulch where there are a small number of self reliant and like minded people. In a larger society, such an absence of government would create a power vacuum that will be filled by an undesirable despotism. To protect our natural rights and preempt being ruled by an adversarial force, each of the 13 American colonies entered into a social contract by forming a state government. <br />
<br />
The state governments that each colony formed were a way to domesticate coercive force for their benefit and protection. (It is interesting that such was the motivation for the [[American Freedom's Feudal Beginning|feudal system]] in England 800 years earlier.) Each colony formed a government based on a set of rules that they called constitutions. The colonies associated themselves together to assert their rights during the independence movement and afterward to create a nation with standing among their peers. Their legal obligations, however were first to their state governments. An interesting observation is that there was unity of political thought among the 13 colonies in that they each formed a state government that was republican in its structure and that none adopted the monarchical institutions of England--this even though their political theory was grounded in English tradition and common law. <br />
<br />
Richard Epstein points out in the preface of his recent book<ref name="CLC" /> that what he calls "classical liberal theory" rested on the concepts of private property and limited government. That it did not espouse an idea of total freedom of the individual to do <u>whatever</u> he wished. That it believed that every government action should improve the overall welfare of every member of society. And that meant the protection of liberty and property and little else. "State coercion for one's own good is not some code word for misguided paternalism. Nor is it a contradiction in terms. Rather, it is the minimum condition for the public provision of certain collective goods." (page 20)<ref name="CLC" /><br />
<br />
====The Problem of Factions====<br />
The classic liberal reason for government is then, to protect our fundamental rights against threats. "Factions" were one of the major threats recognized during the constitutional debates. Self-interested action is a cornerstone of American success. (And it often has altruistic origins as George Gilder pointed out in ''Wealth and Poverty''.) But self-interested activity can become self-serving in a way that undermines the public welfare by manipulating the rules of politics--rules that can never be perfected. This happens when factions lobby and politic for a larger piece of the pie through special treatment (always at the expense of the non-protected group), which leaves less for everyone else, which eventually makes the whole pie smaller. And it feeds on itself. More factions are formed, either to protect themselves or to mimic other faction success. They learn how political manipulation works. James Madison's writing in The Federalist Papers #10 show the concern:<br />
:By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority or the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, ''adverse to the rights of other citizens'', or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. (italics added)<br />
A thing to note is that they saw faction as a threat even if it enjoys a majority. That is the reason that they gave the social contract a preeminent position by writing it down in the constitution. They were staking a large part of the protection of rights on [[Portal:Liberty and Constitution|''rule of law'']] vs. what they saw as the potential for 'tyranny of the majority'.<br />
<br />
The constitutional debate between the federalists and the anti-federalists were about whether it was safer to deal with the threats to liberty and property at the state or the federal level. It was a family quarrel with both sides having the same goal. The federalists believed that the larger the governed population, the harder it would be to form effective factions--that there would be more people opposed to them. The anti-federalists believed that factions could be better resisted at a more local level. As it turns out they were both wrong. Factions come in all shapes and sizes and adapt themselves to every opportunity and around every fault line(race, sex, religion, political niche, social cause, industry, or region), and almost any issue. And noncompeting factions embolden each other by agreeing to vote for each other's cause. The constraints must be robust and durable. <br />
<br />
The federalists carried the debate by providing a set of checks and balances and a separation of powers that were written into the constitution.<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''The Progressive'''==<br />
<br />
Progressives view government as a positive force for good rather than a necessary evil. They see rights as created by government and as going far beyond the few "[[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]". They view an expanded and more authoritarian government as the tool needed to correct a number of social ills that the minimalist approach of classic liberalism ignores.<br />
}}<br />
{{Citations}}<br />
<references /></div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=The_Basic_Choice:_Classic_Liberal_vs._Progressive&diff=2368The Basic Choice: Classic Liberal vs. Progressive2015-09-04T14:35:56Z<p>Jeff: Jeff moved page The Basics of Classic Liberal vs. Progressive to The Basics Choice: Classic Liberal vs. Progressive without leaving a redirect</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Article<br />
|HasCategory=What Government<br />
|HasSummary=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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
|HasAuthor=Jeff<br />
|HasArticleDate=2015/08/31<br />
}}<br />
{{SectionDefault<br />
|HasArticleText=--Incomplete Draft--<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''Classic Liberal'''==<br />
<br />
:<small>We have used several authors extensively in this section: Richard Epstein<ref name="CLC">Epstein, Richard A; ''The Classical Liberal Constitution''; Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press (2014)</ref>, Edward Channing<ref name="Channing3">Channing, Edward; ''A History of The United States, Volume III, The American Revolution''; New York; The MacMillan Company (1920) <br>(The monumental 6 volume set won the 1926 Pulitzer Prize for history)</ref>, Walter Lippman <ref name="TGS">Lippman, Walter; ''The Good Society''; Boston; Little Brown and Company (1937)</ref>, and F. A. Hayek<ref name="Serfdom">Hayek, F A; ''The Road to Serfdom''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press (2007)(by the Estate of F. A. Hayek. Original 1944)</ref><ref name="CofL">Hayek, F A; ''The Constitution of Liberty''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press; (1960)</ref> Each of these authors can be described as a classic liberal.<br />
</small><br />
We use the term 'classic liberal' to refer to what it meant to hold the prevalent political perspective that existed at the time our Constitution was ratified up to the advent of the progressives in the early part of the 20th century. In short, it is a belief that "in a state of nature" that individuals are completely free and enjoy a set of inalienable natural rights--the most fundamental of which are liberty and property. However, life within a society requires something more in order that those rights might be protected from internal and external threat--a social contract is necessary. Therefore, government is necessary to protect those natural rights. In this view government is a necessary evil. That only as much government as is required to provide those protections should be tolerated.<br />
<br />
====The State of Nature and the Social Contract====<br />
Edward Channing writes about the political views of the people in the 13 colonies prior to forming The United States (chapter XIV<ref name="Channing3" />). Each colony considered itself a separate entity. A Virginian was first Virginian and then English. When they gained independence they viewed themselves as completely free and sovereign with no outside control. They viewed themselves as in "in a state of nature." but also as in a "society" that must somehow coordinate to protect their natural rights.<br />
<br />
In that classic liberal theory 'natural' man is born with a fundamental set of [[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]. But in a state of nature, those rights are always at risk from antisocial forces; and natural man must look to his own defense. They needed something better than that--a social contract enforced by a government. <br />
<br />
The Declaration of Independence, after establishing that we are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", makes a strong statement about the consent of the governed: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". However, the founders did not envision that each person among us gets to opt in or out of the government--deciding whether or not to pay taxes or respect the property rights of others. Is it possible that we could have a stable society in which consent must be obtained from every person? The classic liberal answer is that, in a state of nature, liberty and property rights are always at risk of internal and external threats. The need to defend against dangerous human tendencies remain even after civil society is formed. There are always power hungry or antisocial people who won't be nice. A reliance on purely voluntary cooperation may work in Galt's Gulch where there are a small number of self reliant and like minded people. In a larger society, such an absence of government would create a power vacuum that will be filled by an undesirable despotism. To protect our natural rights and preempt being ruled by an adversarial force, each of the 13 American colonies entered into a social contract by forming a state government. <br />
<br />
The state governments that each colony formed were a way to domesticate coercive force for their benefit and protection. (It is interesting that such was the motivation for the [[American Freedom's Feudal Beginning|feudal system]] in England 800 years earlier.) Each colony formed a government based on a set of rules that they called constitutions. The colonies associated themselves together to assert their rights during the independence movement and afterward to create a nation with standing among their peers. Their legal obligations, however were first to their state governments. An interesting observation is that there was unity of political thought among the 13 colonies in that they each formed a state government that was republican in its structure and that none adopted the monarchical institutions of England--this even though their political theory was grounded in English tradition and common law. <br />
<br />
Richard Epstein points out in the preface of his recent book<ref name="CLC" /> that what he calls "classical liberal theory" rested on the concepts of private property and limited government. That it did not espouse an idea of total freedom of the individual to do <u>whatever</u> he wished. That it believed that every government action should improve the overall welfare of every member of society. And that meant the protection of liberty and property and little else. "State coercion for one's own good is not some code word for misguided paternalism. Nor is it a contradiction in terms. Rather, it is the minimum condition for the public provision of certain collective goods." (page 20)<ref name="CLC" /><br />
<br />
====The Problem of Factions====<br />
The classic liberal reason for government is then, to protect our fundamental rights against threats. "Factions" were one of the major threats recognized during the constitutional debates. Self-interested action is a cornerstone of American success. (And it often has altruistic origins as George Gilder pointed out in ''Wealth and Poverty''.) But self-interested activity can become self-serving in a way that undermines the public welfare by manipulating the rules of politics--rules that can never be perfected. This happens when factions lobby and politic for a larger piece of the pie through special treatment (always at the expense of the non-protected group), which leaves less for everyone else, which eventually makes the whole pie smaller. And it feeds on itself. More factions are formed, either to protect themselves or to mimic other faction success. They learn how political manipulation works. James Madison's writing in The Federalist Papers #10 show the concern:<br />
:By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority or the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, ''adverse to the rights of other citizens'', or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. (italics added)<br />
A thing to note is that they saw faction as a threat even if it enjoys a majority. That is the reason that they gave the social contract a preeminent position by writing it down in the constitution. They were staking a large part of the protection of rights on [[Portal:Liberty and Constitution|''rule of law'']] vs. what they saw as the potential for 'tyranny of the majority'.<br />
<br />
The constitutional debate between the federalists and the anti-federalists were about whether it was safer to deal with the threats to liberty and property at the state or the federal level. It was a family quarrel with both sides having the same goal. The federalists believed that the larger the governed population, the harder it would be to form effective factions--that there would be more people opposed to them. The anti-federalists believed that factions could be better resisted at a more local level. As it turns out they were both wrong. Factions come in all shapes and sizes and adapt themselves to every opportunity and around every fault line(race, sex, religion, political niche, social cause, industry, or region), and almost any issue. And noncompeting factions embolden each other by agreeing to vote for each other's cause. The constraints must be robust and durable. <br />
<br />
The federalists carried the debate by providing a set of checks and balances and a separation of powers that were written into the constitution. <br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''Progressive'''==<br />
<br />
Progressives view government as a positive force for good rather than a necessary evil. They see rights as created by government and as going far beyond the few "[[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]". They view an expanded and more authoritarian government as the tool needed to correct a number of social ills that the minimalist approach of classic liberalism ignores.<br />
}}<br />
{{Citations}}<br />
<references /></div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=The_Basic_Choice:_Classic_Liberal_vs._Progressive&diff=2367The Basic Choice: Classic Liberal vs. Progressive2015-09-03T23:15:42Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Article<br />
|HasCategory=What Government<br />
|HasSummary=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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
|HasAuthor=Jeff<br />
|HasArticleDate=2015/08/31<br />
}}<br />
{{SectionDefault<br />
|HasArticleText=--Incomplete Draft--<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''Classic Liberal'''==<br />
<br />
:<small>We have used several authors extensively in this section: Richard Epstein<ref name="CLC">Epstein, Richard A; ''The Classical Liberal Constitution''; Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press (2014)</ref>, Edward Channing<ref name="Channing3">Channing, Edward; ''A History of The United States, Volume III, The American Revolution''; New York; The MacMillan Company (1920) <br>(The monumental 6 volume set won the 1926 Pulitzer Prize for history)</ref>, Walter Lippman <ref name="TGS">Lippman, Walter; ''The Good Society''; Boston; Little Brown and Company (1937)</ref>, and F. A. Hayek<ref name="Serfdom">Hayek, F A; ''The Road to Serfdom''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press (2007)(by the Estate of F. A. Hayek. Original 1944)</ref><ref name="CofL">Hayek, F A; ''The Constitution of Liberty''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press; (1960)</ref> Each of these authors can be described as a classic liberal.<br />
</small><br />
We use the term 'classic liberal' to refer to what it meant to hold the prevalent political perspective that existed at the time our Constitution was ratified up to the advent of the progressives in the early part of the 20th century. In short, it is a belief that "in a state of nature" that individuals are completely free and enjoy a set of inalienable natural rights--the most fundamental of which are liberty and property. However, life within a society requires something more in order that those rights might be protected from internal and external threat--a social contract is necessary. Therefore, government is necessary to protect those natural rights. In this view government is a necessary evil. That only as much government as is required to provide those protections should be tolerated.<br />
<br />
====The State of Nature and the Social Contract====<br />
Edward Channing writes about the political views of the people in the 13 colonies prior to forming The United States (chapter XIV<ref name="Channing3" />). Each colony considered itself a separate entity. A Virginian was first Virginian and then English. When they gained independence they viewed themselves as completely free and sovereign with no outside control. They viewed themselves as in "in a state of nature." but also as in a "society" that must somehow coordinate to protect their natural rights.<br />
<br />
In that classic liberal theory 'natural' man is born with a fundamental set of [[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]. But in a state of nature, those rights are always at risk from antisocial forces; and natural man must look to his own defense. They needed something better than that--a social contract enforced by a government. <br />
<br />
The Declaration of Independence, after establishing that we are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", makes a strong statement about the consent of the governed: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". However, the founders did not envision that each person among us gets to opt in or out of the government--deciding whether or not to pay taxes or respect the property rights of others. Is it possible that we could have a stable society in which consent must be obtained from every person? The classic liberal answer is that, in a state of nature, liberty and property rights are always at risk of internal and external threats. The need to defend against dangerous human tendencies remain even after civil society is formed. There are always power hungry or antisocial people who won't be nice. A reliance on purely voluntary cooperation may work in Galt's Gulch where there are a small number of self reliant and like minded people. In a larger society, such an absence of government would create a power vacuum that will be filled by an undesirable despotism. To protect our natural rights and preempt being ruled by an adversarial force, each of the 13 American colonies entered into a social contract by forming a state government. <br />
<br />
The state governments that each colony formed were a way to domesticate coercive force for their benefit and protection. (It is interesting that such was the motivation for the [[American Freedom's Feudal Beginning|feudal system]] in England 800 years earlier.) Each colony formed a government based on a set of rules that they called constitutions. The colonies associated themselves together to assert their rights during the independence movement and afterward to create a nation with standing among their peers. Their legal obligations, however were first to their state governments. An interesting observation is that there was unity of political thought among the 13 colonies in that they each formed a state government that was republican in its structure and that none adopted the monarchical institutions of England--this even though their political theory was grounded in English tradition and common law. <br />
<br />
Richard Epstein points out in the preface of his recent book<ref name="CLC" /> that what he calls "classical liberal theory" rested on the concepts of private property and limited government. That it did not espouse an idea of total freedom of the individual to do <u>whatever</u> he wished. That it believed that every government action should improve the overall welfare of every member of society. And that meant the protection of liberty and property and little else. "State coercion for one's own good is not some code word for misguided paternalism. Nor is it a contradiction in terms. Rather, it is the minimum condition for the public provision of certain collective goods." (page 20)<ref name="CLC" /><br />
<br />
====The Problem of Factions====<br />
The classic liberal reason for government is then, to protect our fundamental rights against threats. "Factions" were one of the major threats recognized during the constitutional debates. Self-interested action is a cornerstone of American success. (And it often has altruistic origins as George Gilder pointed out in ''Wealth and Poverty''.) But self-interested activity can become self-serving in a way that undermines the public welfare by manipulating the rules of politics--rules that can never be perfected. This happens when factions lobby and politic for a larger piece of the pie through special treatment (always at the expense of the non-protected group), which leaves less for everyone else, which eventually makes the whole pie smaller. And it feeds on itself. More factions are formed, either to protect themselves or to mimic other faction success. They learn how political manipulation works. James Madison's writing in The Federalist Papers #10 show the concern:<br />
:By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority or the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, ''adverse to the rights of other citizens'', or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. (italics added)<br />
A thing to note is that they saw faction as a threat even if it enjoys a majority. That is the reason that they gave the social contract a preeminent position by writing it down in the constitution. They were staking a large part of the protection of rights on [[Portal:Liberty and Constitution|''rule of law'']] vs. what they saw as the potential for 'tyranny of the majority'.<br />
<br />
The constitutional debate between the federalists and the anti-federalists were about whether it was safer to deal with the threats to liberty and property at the state or the federal level. It was a family quarrel with both sides having the same goal. The federalists believed that the larger the governed population, the harder it would be to form effective factions--that there would be more people opposed to them. The anti-federalists believed that factions could be better resisted at a more local level. As it turns out they were both wrong. Factions come in all shapes and sizes and adapt themselves to every opportunity and around every fault line(race, sex, religion, political niche, social cause, industry, or region), and almost any issue. And noncompeting factions embolden each other by agreeing to vote for each other's cause. The constraints must be robust and durable. <br />
<br />
The federalists carried the debate by providing a set of checks and balances and a separation of powers that were written into the constitution. <br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''Progressive'''==<br />
<br />
Progressives view government as a positive force for good rather than a necessary evil. They see rights as created by government and as going far beyond the few "[[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]". They view an expanded and more authoritarian government as the tool needed to correct a number of social ills that the minimalist approach of classic liberalism ignores.<br />
}}<br />
{{Citations}}<br />
<references /></div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=The_Basic_Choice:_Classic_Liberal_vs._Progressive&diff=2366The Basic Choice: Classic Liberal vs. Progressive2015-09-03T22:43:22Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Article<br />
|HasCategory=What Government<br />
|HasSummary=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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
|HasAuthor=Jeff<br />
|HasArticleDate=2015/08/31<br />
}}<br />
{{SectionDefault<br />
|HasArticleText=--Incomplete Draft--<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''Classic Liberal'''==<br />
<br />
:<small>We have used several authors extensively in this section: Richard Epstein<ref name="CLC">Epstein, Richard A; ''The Classical Liberal Constitution''; Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press (2014)</ref>, Edward Channing<ref name="Channing3">Channing, Edward; ''A History of The United States, Volume III, The American Revolution''; New York; The MacMillan Company (1920) <br>(The monumental 6 volume set won the 1926 Pulitzer Prize for history)</ref>, Walter Lippman <ref name="TGS">Lippman, Walter; ''The Good Society''; Boston; Little Brown and Company (1937)</ref>, and F. A. Hayek<ref name="Serfdom">Hayek, F A; ''The Road to Serfdom''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press (2007)(by the Estate of F. A. Hayek. Original 1944)</ref><ref name="CofL">Hayek, F A; ''The Constitution of Liberty''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press; (1960)</ref> Each of these authors can be described as a classic liberal.<br />
</small><br />
We use the term 'classic liberal' to refer to what it meant to hold the prevalent political perspective that existed at the time our Constitution was ratified up to the advent of the progressives in the early part of the 20th century. In short, it is a belief that "in a state of nature" that individuals are completely free and enjoy a set of inalienable natural rights--the most fundamental of which are liberty and property. However, life within a society requires something more in order that those rights might be protected from internal and external threat--a social contract is necessary. Therefore, government is necessary to protect those natural rights. In this view government is a necessary evil. That only as much government as is required to provide those protections should be tolerated.<br />
<br />
====The State of Nature and the Social Contract====<br />
Edward Channing writes about the political views of the people in the 13 colonies prior to forming The United States (chapter XIV<ref name="Channing3" />). Each colony considered itself a separate entity. A Virginian was first Virginian and then English. When they gained independence they viewed themselves as completely free and sovereign with no outside control. They viewed themselves as in "in a state of nature." but also as in a "society" that must somehow coordinate to protect their natural rights.<br />
<br />
In that classic liberal theory 'natural' man is born with a fundamental set of [[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]. But in a state of nature, those rights are always at risk from antisocial forces; and natural man must look to his own defense. They needed something better than that--a social contract enforced by a government. <br />
<br />
The Declaration of Independence, after establishing that we are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", makes a strong statement about the consent of the governed: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". However, the founders did not envision that each person among us gets to opt in or out of the government--deciding whether or not to pay taxes or respect the property rights of others. Is it possible that we could have a stable society in which consent must be obtained from every person? The classic liberal answer is that, in a state of nature, liberty and property rights are always at risk of internal and external threats. The need to defend against dangerous human tendencies remain even after civil society is formed. There are always power hungry or antisocial people who won't be nice. A reliance on purely voluntary cooperation may work in Galt's Gulch where there are a small number of self reliant and like minded people. In a larger society, such an absence of government would create a power vacuum that will be filled by an undesirable despotism. To protect our natural rights and preempt being ruled by an adversarial force, each of the 13 American colonies entered into a social contract by forming a state government. <br />
<br />
The state governments that each colony formed were a way to domesticate coercive force for their benefit and protection. (It is interesting that such was the motivation for the [[American Freedom's Feudal Beginning|feudal system]] in England 800 years earlier.) Each colony formed a government based on a set of rules that they called constitutions. The colonies associated themselves together to assert their rights during the independence movement and afterward to create a nation with standing among their peers. Their legal obligations, however were first to their state governments. An interesting observation is that there was unity of political thought among the 13 colonies in that they each formed a state government that was republican in its structure and that none adopted the monarchical institutions of England--this even though their political theory was grounded in English tradition and common law. <br />
<br />
Richard Epstein points out in the preface of his recent book<ref name="CLC" /> that what he calls "classical liberal theory" rested on the concepts of private property and limited government. That it did not espouse an idea of total freedom of the individual to do <u>whatever</u> he wished. That it believed that every government action should improve the overall welfare of every member of society. And that meant the protection of liberty and property and little else. "State coercion for one's own good is not some code word for misguided paternalism. Nor is it a contradiction in terms. Rather, it is the minimum condition for the public provision of certain collective goods." (page 20)<ref name="CLC" /><br />
<br />
====The Problem of Factions====<br />
The classic liberal reason for government is then, to protect our fundamental rights against threats. "Factions" were one of the major threats recognized during the constitutional debates. Self-interested action is a cornerstone of American success. (And it often has altruistic origins as George Gilder pointed out in ''Wealth and Poverty''.) But self-interested activity can become self-serving in a way that undermines the public welfare by manipulating the rules of politics--rules that can never be perfected. This happens when factions lobby and politic for a larger piece of the pie through special treatment, which leaves less for everyone else, which eventually makes the whole pie smaller. And it feeds on itself. More factions are formed, either to protect themselves or to mimic other faction success. They learn how political manipulation works. James Madison's writing in The Federalist Papers #10 show the concern:<br />
:By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority or the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, ''adverse to the rights of other citizens'', or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. (italics added)<br />
A thing to note is that they saw faction as a threat even if it enjoys a majority. That is the reason that they gave the social contract a preeminent position by writing it down in the constitution. They were staking a large part of the protection of rights on ''rule of law'' vs. what they saw as the potential for 'tyranny of the majority'.<br />
<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''Progressive'''==<br />
<br />
Progressives view government as a positive force for good rather than a necessary evil. They see rights as created by government and as going far beyond the few "[[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]". They view an expanded and more authoritarian government as the tool needed to correct a number of social ills that the minimalist approach of classic liberalism ignores.<br />
}}<br />
{{Citations}}<br />
<references /></div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:What_Government_do_We_Want&diff=2365Portal:What Government do We Want2015-09-03T19:10:03Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
<div style="width:100%;border:1px solid #000080;"><br />
<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><br />
<table width="100%" border="0" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000080;" cellpadding="0"><br />
<tr><td style="padding:5px;"><br />
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. <br />
[[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>from ''If I Ran the Zoo'' by Dr. Seuss|link=]]</p><br />
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). <br />
<br>We'll call this view of government 'classic liberal'. <br />
<!-----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><br />
-----><br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
Which do we want? <br />
<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.<br />
<br />
<br />
<references /><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<!--</div>--><br />
<table style="width:100%; vertical-align:top; margin-top:8px;"><br />
<tr><br />
<td width="50%" valign="top" style="padding:6px;"><br />
<div style="width:100%;border:1px solid #000080;padding:3px;"><br />
<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><br />
Click on arrows to see subcategories and articles.<br><br />
Article titles are in italics.<br />
{{#categorytree:What Government|mode=pages}}<br />
</div><br />
<div style="width:100%;border:1px solid #000080;margin-top:6px;padding:3px;"><br />
<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><br />
*Write (or edit) a page about about an important issue. <br />
*Improve the introduction above (text and image).<br />
</div><br />
</td><br />
<td>&nbsp;</td><br />
<td width="50%" valign="top" style="padding:6px;"><br />
<div style="width:100%;border:1px solid #000080;padding:3px;"><br />
<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><br />
''Classic Liberal vs. Progressive''<br />
<br>{{Featured Article|The Basics of Classic Liberal vs. Progressive}}<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<!---<br />
<div style="width:100%;border:1px solid #000080;margin-top:6px;padding:3px;"><br />
<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><br />
{{#ask:[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]|format=ul}}<br />
</div><br />
---><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
</div></div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:What_Government_do_We_Want&diff=2364Portal:What Government do We Want2015-09-03T19:08:42Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
<div style="width:100%;border:1px solid #000080;"><br />
<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><br />
<table width="100%" border="0" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000080;" cellpadding="0"><br />
<tr><td style="padding:5px;"><br />
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. <br />
[[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>from ''If I Ran the Zoo'' by Dr. Seuss|link=]]</p><br />
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). <br />
<br>We'll call this view of government 'classic liberal'. <br />
<!-----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><br />
-----><br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
Which do we want? <br />
<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.<br />
<br />
<br />
<references /><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<!--</div>--><br />
<table style="width:100%; vertical-align:top; margin-top:8px;"><br />
<tr><br />
<td width="50%" valign="top" style="padding:6px;"><br />
<div style="width:100%;border:1px solid #000080;padding:3px;"><br />
<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><br />
Click on arrows to see subcategories and articles.<br><br />
Article titles are in italics.<br />
{{#categorytree:What Government|mode=pages}}<br />
</div><br />
<div style="width:100%;border:1px solid #000080;margin-top:6px;padding:3px;"><br />
<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><br />
*Improve the introduction above (text and image).<br />
**Find a good image to represent the portal. <br />
*Write (or edit) a page about about an important issue. <br />
<br />
</div><br />
</td><br />
<td>&nbsp;</td><br />
<td width="50%" valign="top" style="padding:6px;"><br />
<div style="width:100%;border:1px solid #000080;padding:3px;"><br />
<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><br />
''Classic Liberal vs. Progressive''<br />
<br>{{Featured Article|The Basics of Classic Liberal vs. Progressive}}<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<!---<br />
<div style="width:100%;border:1px solid #000080;margin-top:6px;padding:3px;"><br />
<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><br />
{{#ask:[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]|format=ul}}<br />
</div><br />
---><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
</div></div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:What_Government_do_We_Want&diff=2363Portal:What Government do We Want2015-09-03T18:29:53Z<p>Jeff: Change featured article</p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
<div style="width:100%;border:1px solid #000080;"><br />
<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><br />
<table width="100%" border="0" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000080;" cellpadding="0"><br />
<tr><td style="padding:5px;"><br />
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. <br />
[[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>from ''If I Ran the Zoo'' by Dr. Seuss|link=]]</p><br />
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). <br />
<br>We'll call this view of government 'classic liberal'. <br />
<!-----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><br />
-----><br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
Which do we want? <br />
<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.<br />
<br />
<br />
<references /><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<!--</div>--><br />
<table style="width:100%; vertical-align:top; margin-top:8px;"><br />
<tr><br />
<td width="50%" valign="top" style="padding:6px;"><br />
<div style="width:100%;border:1px solid #000080;padding:3px;"><br />
<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><br />
Click on arrows to see subcategories and articles.<br><br />
Article titles are in italics.<br />
{{#categorytree:What Government|mode=pages}}<br />
</div><br />
<div style="width:100%;border:1px solid #000080;margin-top:6px;padding:3px;"><br />
<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><br />
*Improve the introduction above (text and image).<br />
**Find a good image to represent the portal. <br />
*Write (or edit) a page about about an important issue. <br />
<br />
</div><br />
</td><br />
<td>&nbsp;</td><br />
<td width="50%" valign="top" style="padding:6px;"><br />
<div style="width:100%;border:1px solid #000080;padding:3px;"><br />
<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><br />
''Classic Liberal vs. Progressive''<br />
<br>{{Featured Article|The Basics of Classic Liberal vs. Progressive}}<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<!---<br />
<div style="width:100%;border:1px solid #000080;margin-top:6px;padding:3px;"><br />
<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><br />
{{#ask:[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]|format=ul}}<br />
</div><br />
---><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
</div></div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=The_Basic_Choice:_Classic_Liberal_vs._Progressive&diff=2362The Basic Choice: Classic Liberal vs. Progressive2015-09-03T17:25:58Z<p>Jeff: Jeff moved page The Competing Views--Classic Liberal vs. Progressive to The Basics of Classic Liberal vs. Progressive without leaving a redirect</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Article<br />
|HasCategory=What Government<br />
|HasSummary=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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
|HasAuthor=Jeff<br />
|HasArticleDate=2015/08/31<br />
}}<br />
{{SectionDefault<br />
|HasArticleText=--Incomplete Draft--<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''Classic Liberal'''==<br />
<br />
:<small>We have used several authors extensively in this section: Richard Epstein<ref name="CLC">Epstein, Richard A; ''The Classical Liberal Constitution''; Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press (2014)</ref>, Edward Channing<ref name="Channing3">Channing, Edward; ''A History of The United States, Volume III, The American Revolution''; New York; The MacMillan Company (1920) <br>(The monumental 6 volume set won the 1926 Pulitzer Prize for history)</ref>, Walter Lippman <ref name="TGS">Lippman, Walter; ''The Good Society''; Boston; Little Brown and Company (1937)</ref>, and F. A. Hayek<ref name="Serfdom">Hayek, F A; ''The Road to Serfdom''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press (2007)(by the Estate of F. A. Hayek. Original 1944)</ref><ref name="CofL">Hayek, F A; ''The Constitution of Liberty''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press; (1960)</ref> Each of these authors can be described as a classic liberal.<br />
</small><br />
We use the term 'classic liberal' to refer to what it meant to hold the prevalent political perspective that existed at the time our Constitution was ratified up to the advent of the progressives in the early part of the 20th century. In short, it is a belief that "in a state of nature" that individuals are completely free and enjoy a set of inalienable natural rights--the most fundamental of which are liberty and property. However, life within a society requires something more in order that those rights might be protected from internal and external threat--a social contract is necessary. Therefore, government is necessary to protect those natural rights. In this view government is a necessary evil. That only as much government as is required to provide those protections should be tolerated.<br />
<br />
====The State of Nature and the Social Contract====<br />
Edward Channing writes about the political views of the people in the 13 colonies prior to forming The United States (chapter XIV<ref name="Channing3" />). Each colony considered itself a separate entity. A Virginian was first Virginian and then English. When they gained independence they viewed themselves as completely free and sovereign with no outside control. They viewed themselves as in "in a state of nature." but also as in a "society" that must somehow coordinate to protect their natural rights.<br />
<br />
In that classic liberal theory 'natural' man is born with a fundamental set of [[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]. But in a state of nature, those rights are always at risk from antisocial forces; and natural man must look to his own defense. They needed something better than that--a social contract enforced by a government. <br />
<br />
The Declaration of Independence, after establishing that we are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", makes a strong statement about the consent of the governed: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". However, the founders did not envision that each person among us gets to opt in or out of the government--deciding whether or not to pay taxes or respect the property rights of others. Is it possible that we could have a stable society in which consent must be obtained from every person? The classic liberal answer is that, in a state of nature, liberty and property rights are always at risk of internal and external threats. There are always power hungry or antisocial people who won't be nice. A reliance on purely voluntary cooperation may work in Galt's Gulch where there are a small number of self reliant and like minded people. In a larger society, such an absence of government would create a power vacuum that will be filled by an undesirable despotism. To protect our natural rights and preempt being ruled by an adversarial force, each of the 13 American colonies entered into a social contract by forming a state government. <br />
<br />
The state governments that each colony formed was a way to domesticate coercive force for their benefit and protection. (It is interesting that such was the motivation for the [[American Freedom's Feudal Beginning|feudal system]] in England 800 years earlier.) Each colony formed a government based on a set of rules that they called constitutions. The colonies associated themselves together to assert their rights during the independence movement and afterward to create a nation with standing among their peers. Their legal obligations, however were first to their state governments. An interesting observation is that there was unity of political thought among the 13 colonies in that they each formed a state government that was republican in its structure and that none adopted the monarchical institutions of England--this even though their political theory was grounded in English tradition and common law. <br />
<br />
Richard Epstein points out in the preface of his recent book<ref name="CLC" /> that what he calls "classical liberal theory" rested on the concepts of private property and limited government. That it did not espouse an idea of total freedom of the individual to do <u>whatever</u> he wished. That it believed that every government action should improve the overall welfare of every member of society. And that meant the protection of liberty and property and little else.<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''Progressive'''==<br />
<br />
Progressives view government as a positive force for good rather than a necessary evil. They see rights as created by government and as going far beyond the few "[[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]". They view an expanded and more authoritarian government as the tool needed to correct a number of social ills that the minimalist approach of classic liberalism ignores.<br />
}}<br />
{{Citations}}<br />
<references /></div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=The_Basic_Choice:_Classic_Liberal_vs._Progressive&diff=2361The Basic Choice: Classic Liberal vs. Progressive2015-09-03T17:13:12Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Article<br />
|HasCategory=What Government<br />
|HasSummary=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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
|HasAuthor=Jeff<br />
|HasArticleDate=2015/08/31<br />
}}<br />
{{SectionDefault<br />
|HasArticleText=--Incomplete Draft--<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''Classic Liberal'''==<br />
<br />
:<small>We have used several authors extensively in this section: Richard Epstein<ref name="CLC">Epstein, Richard A; ''The Classical Liberal Constitution''; Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press (2014)</ref>, Edward Channing<ref name="Channing3">Channing, Edward; ''A History of The United States, Volume III, The American Revolution''; New York; The MacMillan Company (1920) <br>(The monumental 6 volume set won the 1926 Pulitzer Prize for history)</ref>, Walter Lippman <ref name="TGS">Lippman, Walter; ''The Good Society''; Boston; Little Brown and Company (1937)</ref>, and F. A. Hayek<ref name="Serfdom">Hayek, F A; ''The Road to Serfdom''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press (2007)(by the Estate of F. A. Hayek. Original 1944)</ref><ref name="CofL">Hayek, F A; ''The Constitution of Liberty''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press; (1960)</ref> Each of these authors can be described as a classic liberal.<br />
</small><br />
We use the term 'classic liberal' to refer to what it meant to hold the prevalent political perspective that existed at the time our Constitution was ratified up to the advent of the progressives in the early part of the 20th century. In short, it is a belief that "in a state of nature" that individuals are completely free and enjoy a set of inalienable natural rights--the most fundamental of which are liberty and property. However, life within a society requires something more in order that those rights might be protected from internal and external threat--a social contract is necessary. Therefore, government is necessary to protect those natural rights. In this view government is a necessary evil. That only as much government as is required to provide those protections should be tolerated.<br />
<br />
====The State of Nature and the Social Contract====<br />
Edward Channing writes about the political views of the people in the 13 colonies prior to forming The United States (chapter XIV<ref name="Channing3" />). Each colony considered itself a separate entity. A Virginian was first Virginian and then English. When they gained independence they viewed themselves as completely free and sovereign with no outside control. They viewed themselves as in "in a state of nature." but also as in a "society" that must somehow coordinate to protect their natural rights.<br />
<br />
In that classic liberal theory 'natural' man is born with a fundamental set of [[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]. But in a state of nature, those rights are always at risk from antisocial forces; and natural man must look to his own defense. They needed something better than that--a social contract enforced by a government. <br />
<br />
The Declaration of Independence, after establishing that we are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", makes a strong statement about the consent of the governed: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". However, the founders did not envision that each person among us gets to opt in or out of the government--deciding whether or not to pay taxes or respect the property rights of others. Is it possible that we could have a stable society in which consent must be obtained from every person? The classic liberal answer is that, in a state of nature, liberty and property rights are always at risk of internal and external threats. There are always power hungry or antisocial people who won't be nice. A reliance on purely voluntary cooperation may work in Galt's Gulch where there are a small number of self reliant and like minded people. In a larger society, such an absence of government would create a power vacuum that will be filled by an undesirable despotism. To protect our natural rights and preempt being ruled by an adversarial force, each of the 13 American colonies entered into a social contract by forming a state government. <br />
<br />
The state governments that each colony formed was a way to domesticate coercive force for their benefit and protection. (It is interesting that such was the motivation for the [[American Freedom's Feudal Beginning|feudal system]] in England 800 years earlier.) Each colony formed a government based on a set of rules that they called constitutions. The colonies associated themselves together to assert their rights during the independence movement and afterward to create a nation with standing among their peers. Their legal obligations, however were first to their state governments. An interesting observation is that there was unity of political thought among the 13 colonies in that they each formed a state government that was republican in its structure and that none adopted the monarchical institutions of England--this even though their political theory was grounded in English tradition and common law. <br />
<br />
Richard Epstein points out in the preface of his recent book<ref name="CLC" /> that what he calls "classical liberal theory" rested on the concepts of private property and limited government. That it did not espouse an idea of total freedom of the individual to do <u>whatever</u> he wished. That it believed that every government action should improve the overall welfare of every member of society. And that meant the protection of liberty and property and little else.<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''Progressive'''==<br />
<br />
Progressives view government as a positive force for good rather than a necessary evil. They see rights as created by government and as going far beyond the few "[[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]". They view an expanded and more authoritarian government as the tool needed to correct a number of social ills that the minimalist approach of classic liberalism ignores.<br />
}}<br />
{{Citations}}<br />
<references /></div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=The_Basic_Choice:_Classic_Liberal_vs._Progressive&diff=2360The Basic Choice: Classic Liberal vs. Progressive2015-09-03T17:01:28Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Article<br />
|HasCategory=What Government<br />
|HasSummary=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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
|HasAuthor=Jeff<br />
|HasArticleDate=2015/08/31<br />
}}<br />
{{SectionDefault<br />
|HasArticleText=--Incomplete Draft--<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''Classic Liberal'''==<br />
<br />
:<small>We have used several authors extensively in this section: Richard Epstein<ref name="CLC">Epstein, Richard A; ''The Classical Liberal Constitution''; Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press (2014)</ref>, Edward Channing<ref name="Channing3">Channing, Edward; ''A History of The United States, Volume III, The American Revolution''; New York; The MacMillan Company (1920) <br>(The monumental 6 volume set won the 1926 Pulitzer Prize for history)</ref>, Walter Lippman <ref name="TGS">Lippman, Walter; ''The Good Society''; Boston; Little Brown and Company (1937)</ref>, and F. A. Hayek<ref name="Serfdom">Hayek, F A; ''The Road to Serfdom''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press (2007)(by the Estate of F. A. Hayek. Original 1944)</ref><ref name="CofL">Hayek, F A; ''The Constitution of Liberty''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press; (1960)</ref> Each of these authors can be described as a classic liberal.<br />
</small><br />
We use the term 'classic liberal' to refer to what it meant to hold the prevalent political perspective that existed at the time our Constitution was ratified up to the advent of the progressives in the early part of the 20th century. In short, it is a belief that "in a state of nature" that individuals are completely free and enjoy a set of inalienable natural rights--the most fundamental of which are liberty and property. However, life within a society requires something more in order that those rights might be protected from internal and external threat--a social contract is necessary. Therefore, government is necessary to protect those natural rights. In this view government is a necessary evil. That only as much government as is required to provide those protections should be tolerated.<br />
<br />
====The State of Nature and the Social Contract====<br />
Edward Channing writes about the political views of the people in the 13 colonies prior to forming The United States (chapter XIV<ref name="Channing3" />). Each colony considered itself a separate entity. A Virginian was first Virginian and then English. When they gained independence they viewed themselves as completely free and sovereign with no outside control. They viewed themselves as in "in a state of nature." but also as in a "society" that must somehow coordinate to protect their natural rights.<br />
<br />
'Natural' man is born with a fundamental set of [[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]. But in a state of nature, those rights are always at risk from antisocial forces; and natural man must look to his own defense. They needed something better than that. The state governments that each colony formed was a way to domesticate coercive force for their benefit and protection. (It is interesting that such was the motivation for the [[American Freedom's Feudal Beginning|feudal system]] in England 900 years earlier.) Each colony formed a government based on a set of rules that they called constitutions. The colonies associated themselves together to assert their rights during the independence movement and afterward to create a nation with standing among their peers. Their legal obligations, however were first to their state governments. An interesting observation is that there was unity of political thought among the 13 colonies in that they each formed a state government that was republican in its structure with important similarities and that none adopted of the monarchical institutions of England--this even though their political theory was grounded in English tradition and common law. <br />
<br />
The Declaration of Independence, after establishing that we are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", makes a strong statement about the consent of the governed: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". However, the founders did not envision that each person among us gets to opt in or out of the government--deciding whether or not to pay taxes or respect the property rights of others. Is it possible that we could have a stable society in which consent must be obtained from every person? The classic liberal answer is that, in a state of nature, liberty and property rights are always at risk of internal and external threats. There are always power hungry or antisocial people who won't be nice. A reliance on purely voluntary cooperation may work in Galt's Gulch where there are a small number of self reliant and like minded people. In a larger society, such an absence of government would create a power vacuum that will be filled by an undesirable despotism. To protect our natural rights and preempt being ruled by an adversarial force, each of the 13 American colonies entered into a social contract by forming a government. <br />
<br />
Richard Epstein points out in the preface of his recent book<ref name="CLC" /> that what he calls "classical liberal theory" rested on the concepts of private property and limited government. That it did not espouse an idea of total freedom of the individual to do <u>whatever</u> he wished. That it believed that every government action should improve the overall welfare of every member of society. And that meant the protection of liberty and property and little else.<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''Progressive'''==<br />
<br />
Progressives view government as a positive force for good rather than a necessary evil. They see rights as created by government and as going far beyond the few "[[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]". They view an expanded and more authoritarian government as the tool needed to correct a number of social ills that the minimalist approach of classic liberalism ignores.<br />
}}<br />
{{Citations}}<br />
<references /></div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=The_Basic_Choice:_Classic_Liberal_vs._Progressive&diff=2359The Basic Choice: Classic Liberal vs. Progressive2015-09-03T16:58:50Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Article<br />
|HasCategory=What Government<br />
|HasSummary=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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
|HasAuthor=Jeff<br />
|HasArticleDate=2015/08/31<br />
}}<br />
{{SectionDefault<br />
|HasArticleText=--Incomplete Draft--<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''Classic Liberal'''==<br />
<br />
:<small>We have used several authors extensively in this section: Richard Epstein<ref name="CLC">Epstein, Richard A; ''The Classical Liberal Constitution''; Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press (2014)</ref>, Edward Channing<ref name="Channing3">Channing, Edward; ''A History of The United States, Volume III, The American Revolution''; New York; The MacMillan Company (1920) <br>(The monumental 6 volume set won the 1926 Pulitzer Prize for history)</ref>, Walter Lippman <ref name="TGS">Lippman, Walter; ''The Good Society''; Boston; Little Brown and Company (1937)</ref>, and F. A. Hayek<ref name="Serfdom">Hayek, F A; ''The Road to Serfdom''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press (2007)(by the Estate of F. A. Hayek. Original 1944)</ref><ref name="CofL">Hayek, F A; ''The Constitution of Liberty''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press; (1960)</ref> Each of these authors can be described as a classic liberal.<br />
</small><br />
We use the term 'classic liberal' to refer to what it meant to hold the prevalent political perspective that existed at the time our Constitution was ratified up to the advent of the progressives in the early part of the 20th century. In short, it is a belief that "in a state of nature" that individuals are completely free and enjoy a set of inalienable natural rights--the most fundamental of which are liberty and property. However, life within a society requires something more in order that those rights might be protected from internal and external threat--a social contract is necessary. Therefore, government is necessary to protect those natural rights. In this view government is a necessary evil. That only as much government as is required to provide those protections should be tolerated.<br />
<br />
====The State of Nature and the Social Contract====<br />
Edward Channing writes about the political views of the people in the 13 colonies prior to forming The United States (chapter XIV<ref name="Channing3" />). Each colony considered itself a separate entity. A Virginian was first Virginian and then English. When they gained independence they viewed themselves as completely free and sovereign with no outside control. They viewed themselves as in "in a state of nature." but also as in a "society" that must somehow coordinate to protect their natural rights.<br />
<br />
'Natural' man is born with a fundamental set of [[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]. But in a state of nature, those rights are always at risk from antisocial forces; and natural man must look to his own defense. They needed something better than that. The state governments that each colony formed was a way to domesticate coercive force for their benefit and protection. (It is interesting that such was the motivation for the [[Feudalism|feudal system]] in England 1000 years earlier.]] Each colony formed a government based on a set of rules that they called constitutions. The colonies associated themselves together to assert their rights during the independence movement and afterward to create a nation with standing among their peers. Their legal obligations, however were first to their state governments. An interesting observation is that there was unity of political thought among the 13 colonies in that they each formed a state government that was republican in its structure with important similarities and that none adopted of the monarchical institutions of England--this even though their political theory was grounded in English tradition and common law. <br />
<br />
The Declaration of Independence, after establishing that we are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", makes a strong statement about the consent of the governed: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". However, the founders did not envision that each person among us gets to opt in or out of the government--deciding whether or not to pay taxes or respect the property rights of others. Is it possible that we could have a stable society in which consent must be obtained from every person? The classic liberal answer is that, in a state of nature, liberty and property rights are always at risk of internal and external threats. There are always power hungry or antisocial people who won't be nice. A reliance on purely voluntary cooperation may work in Galt's Gulch where there are a small number of self reliant and like minded people. In a larger society, such an absence of government would create a power vacuum that will be filled by an undesirable despotism. To protect our natural rights and preempt being ruled by an adversarial force, each of the 13 American colonies entered into a social contract by forming a government. <br />
<br />
Richard Epstein points out in the preface of his recent book<ref name="CLC" /> that what he calls "classical liberal theory" rested on the concepts of private property and limited government. That it did not espouse an idea of total freedom of the individual to do <u>whatever</u> he wished. That it believed that every government action should improve the overall welfare of every member of society. And that meant the protection of liberty and property and little else.<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''Progressive'''==<br />
<br />
Progressives view government as a positive force for good rather than a necessary evil. They see rights as created by government and as going far beyond the few "[[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]". They view an expanded and more authoritarian government as the tool needed to correct a number of social ills that the minimalist approach of classic liberalism ignores.<br />
}}<br />
{{Citations}}<br />
<references /></div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Civicwiki:What_government&diff=2358Civicwiki:What government2015-09-03T16:07:55Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div>How do we want our government to behave? 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? <br />
Providing you with the information needed to answer that question is the main goal of CW. Every CW topic category contributes to that answer. <br />
However, the question is approached directly within: <br>[[Portal:What Government do We Want|What Government do We Want]]. <br />
<br />
<br />
<!------------<br />
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). <br />
-------><br />
<!-----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><br />
-----><br />
<!--------<br />
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. --><br />
<!--- Following Epstein's analysis <ref name="Classical Liberal Constitution"> Richard Epstein ''The Classical Liberal Consititution'' (2014) Cambridge, Massachusetts; Harvard University Press</ref> ---><br />
<!--- This view holds that individual rights are not 'inalienable', but are created by government; and that a benevolent and powerful state---><br />
<!---, administered by impartial experts,---> <br />
<!---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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
-----------><br />
<br />
<references /></div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Civicwiki:What_government&diff=2357Civicwiki:What government2015-09-03T16:07:11Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div>How do we want our government to behave? 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? <br />
Providing you with the information needed to answer that question is the main goal of CW. Every CW topic category contributes to that answer. <br />
<br>However, the question is approached directly within: <br>[[Portal:What Government do We Want|What Government do We Want]]. <br />
<br />
<br />
<!------------<br />
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). <br />
-------><br />
<!-----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><br />
-----><br />
<!--------<br />
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. --><br />
<!--- Following Epstein's analysis <ref name="Classical Liberal Constitution"> Richard Epstein ''The Classical Liberal Consititution'' (2014) Cambridge, Massachusetts; Harvard University Press</ref> ---><br />
<!--- This view holds that individual rights are not 'inalienable', but are created by government; and that a benevolent and powerful state---><br />
<!---, administered by impartial experts,---> <br />
<!---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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
-----------><br />
<br />
<references /></div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=The_Basic_Choice:_Classic_Liberal_vs._Progressive&diff=2356The Basic Choice: Classic Liberal vs. Progressive2015-09-03T02:06:06Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Article<br />
|HasCategory=What Government<br />
|HasSummary=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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
|HasAuthor=Jeff<br />
|HasArticleDate=2015/08/31<br />
}}<br />
{{SectionDefault<br />
|HasArticleText=--Incomplete Draft--<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''Classic Liberal'''==<br />
<br />
:<small>We have used several authors extensively in this section: Richard Epstein<ref name="CLC">Epstein, Richard A; ''The Classical Liberal Constitution''; Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press (2014)</ref>, Edward Channing<ref name="Channing3">Channing, Edward; ''A History of The United States, Volume III, The American Revolution''; New York; The MacMillan Company (1920) <br>(The monumental 6 volume set won the 1926 Pulitzer Prize for history)</ref>, Walter Lippman <ref name="TGS">Lippman, Walter; ''The Good Society''; Boston; Little Brown and Company (1937)</ref>, and F. A. Hayek<ref name="Serfdom">Hayek, F A; ''The Road to Serfdom''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press (2007)(by the Estate of F. A. Hayek. Original 1944)</ref><ref name="CofL">Hayek, F A; ''The Constitution of Liberty''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press; (1960)</ref> Each of these authors can be described as a classic liberal.<br />
</small><br />
We use the term 'classic liberal' to refer to what it meant to hold the prevalent political perspective that existed at the time our Constitution was ratified up to the advent of the progressives in the early part of the 20th century. In short, it is a belief that "in a state of nature" that individuals are completely free and enjoy a set of inalienable natural rights--the most fundamental of which are liberty and property. However, life within a society requires something more in order that those rights might be protected from internal and external threat--a social contract is necessary. Therefore, government is necessary to protect those natural rights. In this view government is a necessary evil. That only as much government as is required to provide those protections should be tolerated.<br />
<br />
====The State of Nature and Society====<br />
Edward Channing writes about the political views of the people in the 13 colonies prior to forming The United States (chapter XIV<ref name="Channing3" />). Each colony considered itself a separate entity. A Virginian was first Virginian and then English. When they gained independence they viewed themselves as completely free and sovereign with no outside control. They viewed themselves as in "in a state of nature" and in a "society". Each colony formed a government based on a set of rules that they called constitutions. The colonies associated themselves together to assert their rights during the independence movement and afterward to create a nation with standing among their peers. Their legal obligations, however were first to their state governments. An interesting observation is that there was unity of political thought among the 13 colonies in that they each formed a state government that was republican in its structure with important similarities and that none adopted of the monarchical institutions of England--this even though their political theory was grounded in English tradition and common law. <br />
<br />
====The Social Contract====<br />
The Declaration of Independence, after establishing that we are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", makes a strong statement about "the consent of the governed": "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". Is it possible that we could have a stable society in which consent must be obtained from each person? The classic liberal answer is that, in a state of nature, liberty and property rights are always at risk. So how do we coordinate society to reduce that risk. A reliance on purely voluntary cooperation may work in Galt's Gulch where there are a small number of self reliant and like minded people. In a larger society, such an anarchy creates a vacuum that will be filled by an undesirable, probably despotic, power. <br />
<br />
Richard Epstein points out in the preface of his recent book<ref name="CLC" /> that what he calls "classical liberal theory" rested on the concepts of private property and limited government. That it did not espouse an idea of total freedom of the individual to do <u>whatever</u> he wished. That it believed that every government action should improve the overall welfare of every member of society. And that meant the protection of liberty and property and little else.<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''Progressive'''==<br />
<br />
Progressives view government as a positive force for good rather than a necessary evil. They see rights as created by government and as going far beyond the few "[[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]". They view an expanded and more authoritarian government as the tool needed to correct a number of social ills that the minimalist approach of classic liberalism ignores.<br />
}}<br />
{{Citations}}<br />
<references /></div>Jeffhttp://civicwiki.org/w/index.php?title=The_Basic_Choice:_Classic_Liberal_vs._Progressive&diff=2355The Basic Choice: Classic Liberal vs. Progressive2015-09-02T20:09:40Z<p>Jeff: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Article<br />
|HasCategory=What Government<br />
|HasSummary=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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
|HasAuthor=Jeff<br />
|HasArticleDate=2015/08/31<br />
}}<br />
{{SectionDefault<br />
|HasArticleText=--Incomplete Draft--<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''Classic Liberal'''==<br />
<br />
:<small>We have used several authors extensively in this section: Richard Epstein<ref name="CLC">Epstein, Richard A; ''The Classical Liberal Constitution''; Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press (2014)</ref>, Edward Channing<ref name="Channing3">Channing, Edward; ''A History of The United States, Volume III, The American Revolution''; New York; The MacMillan Company (1920) <br>(The monumental 6 volume set won the 1926 Pulitzer Prize for history)</ref>, Walter Lippman <ref name="TGS">Lippman, Walter; ''The Good Society''; Boston; Little Brown and Company (1937)</ref>, and F. A. Hayek<ref name="Serfdom">Hayek, F A; ''The Road to Serfdom''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press (2007)(by the Estate of F. A. Hayek. Original 1944)</ref><ref name="CofL">Hayek, F A; ''The Constitution of Liberty''; Chicago; The University of Chicago Press; (1960)</ref> Each of these authors can be described as a classic liberal.<br />
</small><br />
We use the term 'classic liberal' to refer to what it meant to hold the prevalent political perspective that existed at the time our Constitution was ratified up to the advent of the progressives in the early part of the 20th century. In short, it is a belief that "in a state of nature" that individuals are completely free and enjoy a set of inalienable natural rights--the most fundamental of which are liberty and property. However, life within a society requires something more in order that those rights might be protected from internal and external threat--a social contract is necessary. Therefore, government is necessary to protect those natural rights. In this view government is a necessary evil. That only as much government as is required to provide those protections should be tolerated.<br />
<br />
====The State of Nature and Society====<br />
Edward Channing writes about the political views of the people in the 13 colonies prior to forming The United States (chapter XIV<ref name="Channing3" />). Each colony considered itself a separate entity. A Virginian was first Virginian and then English. When they gained independence they viewed themselves as completely free and sovereign with no outside control. They viewed themselves as in "in a state of nature" and in a "society". Each colony formed a government based on a set of rules that they called constitutions. The colonies associated themselves together to assert their rights during the independence movement and afterward to create a nation with standing among their peers. Their legal obligations, however were first to their state governments. An interesting observation is that there was unity of political thought among the 13 colonies in that they each formed a state government that was republican in its structure with important similarities and that none adopted of the monarchical institutions of England--this even though their political theory was grounded in English tradition and common law. <br />
<br />
Richard Epstein points out in the preface of his recent book<ref name="CLC" /> that what he calls "classical liberal theory" rested on the concepts of private property and limited government. That it did not espouse an idea of total freedom of the individual to do <u>whatever</u> he wished. That it believed that every government action should improve the overall welfare of every member of society. And that meant the protection of liberty and property and little else.<br />
}}<br />
{{Section<br />
|HasArticleText==='''Progressive'''==<br />
<br />
Progressives view government as a positive force for good rather than a necessary evil. They see rights as created by government and as going far beyond the few "[[Inalienable Rights|inalienable rights]]". They view an expanded and more authoritarian government as the tool needed to correct a number of social ills that the minimalist approach of classic liberalism ignores.<br />
}}<br />
{{Citations}}<br />
<references /></div>Jeff