America’s Founding Fathers and PH’s Constitutional Dimwits
NOTE: I first posted the following as a Facebook note:
Here’s a very informative video. It shows the great wisdom, incomparable intelligence, and genius of America’s founding fathers. I always believe that there were very specific periods in human history wherein a group of geniuses– the men of the mind”– suddenly sprouted and contributed great things to humanity. Before, during and a few years after the founding of America, great thinkers like Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Adams, Jay, Madison, and Hamilton (which I dislike a little bit for his ‘mild’ protectionism) banded together and introduced what we all know today as the “science of political thought”. Just read the Federalist Papers and Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence to know what I’m talking about.
What they did simply shows the importance of concept-formation in philosophy. They defined, evaluated, discussed and established some reality-based political concepts and principles (e.g., Republicanism, Federalism, Electoral College, individual rights, etc.) that became the foundation of the United States of America.
What made them adopt the separation of church and state principle that ended centuries of religious crusades and wars?
How did they define Republicanism and why is it consistent with the principles of separation of powers, checks and balances, limited government and free market system?
How did they know that man has inherent, inalienable “individual rights”? That a right exists even without- or not because of government?
Why did they establish a limited Republican government, the only power of which is to protect man’s rights? Why didn’t they ever talk about the power of the government to provide everything the people need? Why did they reject the idea of government welfare or welfare state?
How they tackled these issues shows the importance of philosophy in politics.
Also, why did they adopt federalism, which separates states from the federal government, for their country? Why did they deeply believe that states should be independent of the national government? This principle alone led to the creation of new principles, like the state nullification doctrine, electoral college system, state sovereignty, among others.
They understood the importance of definitions in that they painstakingly, clearly, properly defined Republicanism, Federalism, and rights. For example, Madison defined and established the concepts and principles of Republican System in Federalist Papers Nos. 10 and 51. He also gave the basic distinctions between a Republic and a Democracy, and then provided the basis why America should be a Republican government (“a government in which the scheme of representation takes place”). Thus, they established a Republican government founded on the rule of law, not rule of men, which is the basis of democracy.
The founding fathers didn’t just come up with words and terms; they knew that those concepts and principles have solid basis in reality and could impact human life. They knew that man is a conceptual animal.
They believed that the main purpose of a written constitution is not to create political powers to provide what the people want, but to limit those powers. They also rejected the idea that rights come from the government or congressional/political edict; instead they believed that rights are inherently part of man’s humanity, and that the Constitution merely recognizes, respects their existence. Furthermore, they believed that “rights”– or man’s natural rights–are not contradictory or cannibalistic. That, according to Thomas Paine, natural rights “pertain to man in right of existence” and which “are not injurious to the natural rights of others.”
That is actually what most modern-day political theorists, lawyers and even jurists fail to understand. They believe that they can take away or infringe upon the rights of some group of people, particularly the minority, should they get the required majority votes– that they can use the government to coerce a man into violating his conscience and free will by forcing him to financially support policies or ideas, which he rejects or considers to be immoral or evil. The very idea of Welfare State applied to human politics carries with it potential injury to man’s rights. For when the government assumes self-righteous, coercive power to redistribute wealth in the name of the ‘greater good’, it also assumes intrusive authority to violate the rights of some other men by taking away their property or the fruits of their labor.
Like American philosopher Ayn Rand, who greatly admired the founding fathers, said:
“The genius of the Founding Fathers was their ability not only to grasp the revolutionary ideas of the period, but to devise a means of implementing those ideas in practice, a means of translating them from the realm of philosophic abstraction into that of sociopolitical reality. By defining in detail the division of powers within the government and the ruling procedures, including the brilliant mechanism of checks and balances, they established a system whose operation and integrity were independent, so far as possible, of the moral character of any of its temporary officials—a system impervious, so far as possible, to subversion by an aspiring dictator or by the public mood of the moment.
“The heroism of the Founding Fathers was that they recognized an unprecedented opportunity, the chance to create a country of individual liberty for the first time in history—and that they staked everything on their judgment: the new nation and their own “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor.””
Philosopher Leonard Peikoff also praised the founding fathers in the following manner:
““I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”
“Jefferson—and the other Founding Fathers—meant it. They did not confine their efforts to the battle against theocracy and monarchy; they fought, on the same grounds, invoking the same principle of individual rights—against democracy, i.e., the system of unlimited majority rule. They recognized that the cause of freedom is not advanced by the multiplication of despots, and they did not propose to substitute the tyranny of a mob for that of a handful of autocrats . . . .
“When the framers of the American republic spoke of “the people,” they did not mean a collectivist organism one part of which was authorized to consume the rest. They meant a sum of individuals, each of whom—whether strong or weak, rich or poor—retains his inviolate guarantee of individual rights.”
By contrast, the framers of our Constitution (1987, 1973 and 1935) were all political ignoramuses. When they adopted our Charter (including the previous ones), they simply established what they call “republican-democratic” system without properly defining the term. They simply thought “democracy” means free society. What they failed to grasp is that democracy simply means “mob rule” or “rule of the majority”, and it failed to work in every society where it was applied. The only thing about these pinoy framers is that they had college diplomas– they were highly schooled without acquiring proper EDUCATION– and the people regarded them as political geniuses.
They believed that by restricting foreign trade and participation, including foreign talents, to be part of our economy and society, the Filipino would progress and be the master of his own land. No, I don’t doubt the intentions of those political idiots. Like you and me, they wanted this country to prosper, socially and economically. But the problem is, the system they stupidly established is simply against political and economic reality. Yes, almost every “first principle” (translation: not borrowed from the Americans) they established is against the global economic and technological trends that we see today.
The very disgusting creatures who drafted our Charter should be shamed for helping turn this nation into an economic midget.