Joined
·
878 Posts
Re: Bunch of Liberal double talk
Let us say this: thought the politicos of the time had different ideas on how the constutition should be written, their chief issue was a general wariness of government. The argument was exactly how said government should be kept within its bounds and the best way to safeguard the liberties of the people. Can anyone imagine any one of the founders, who were pretty much universally fed up with their subservient role to the king, endorsing our current near-socialist state?
I also don't see how the different realities of the 21st century should case the role of government to be any different. As I've argued before, the chief role of a morally legitimate government (meaning that which is not tyranny) is to preserve the liberty of the people. To that end, the constitution contains the rules needed to realize that ideal. Certainly, in the past, and currently in different ways, those ideals were and are imperfectly realized, yet they are still right there in the text.
Let us say this: thought the politicos of the time had different ideas on how the constutition should be written, their chief issue was a general wariness of government. The argument was exactly how said government should be kept within its bounds and the best way to safeguard the liberties of the people. Can anyone imagine any one of the founders, who were pretty much universally fed up with their subservient role to the king, endorsing our current near-socialist state?
I also don't see how the different realities of the 21st century should case the role of government to be any different. As I've argued before, the chief role of a morally legitimate government (meaning that which is not tyranny) is to preserve the liberty of the people. To that end, the constitution contains the rules needed to realize that ideal. Certainly, in the past, and currently in different ways, those ideals were and are imperfectly realized, yet they are still right there in the text.