Re: OT libertarian/taxes etc - very eloquent Chris; enjoyed it (nt)

[Guest guest]

>

> " General Pinkney opposed popular election of the Senate because it

would be a

> poor guard against bad measures. As an example, he observed that

the people

> of South Carolina supported paper money but their legislature

opposed paper

> money, " the reason [being that the latter had some sense of

character and were

> restrained by that consideration. " Sherman opposed popular

elections for the

> Senate, because they were " not as likely to produce such fit men as

elections

> by the State Legislatures. "

>

> Madison's notes help shed some light on what Sherman and others

meant by " fit

> men: "

> " Mr. Dickenson . . . wished the Senate to consist

of the most

> distinguished characters, distinguished for their _rank in life_

and their

> _weight of property_ and bearing as strong a likeness to the

British House of

> Lords as possible; and he thought such characters more likely to be

selected by

> the State Legislatures, than in any other mode. "

>

> Gerry quite eloquently explains to us that the purpose of the

Senate is to

> put a check against the democratic impulses of the Congress in

favor of the

> commercial interests:

> " The people have two great interests, the landed

interest,

> and the commercial including the stockholders. To draw both

branches from the

> people will leave no security to the latter interest; the people

being chiefly

> composed of the landed interest, and erroneously supposing that the

other

> interests are adverse to it . . . The elections being carried

through [the state

> legislatures] will be most likely to provide some check in favor of

the

> commercial interests against the landed. "

>

> Despite some members speaking out against the election of Senators

by the

> state legislatures during the sessions, the measure passed through

the Committee

> of the Whole unanimously. The measure also passed through the

General

> Convention, and was adopted into the Constitution of the United

States, ratified by

> the state conventions. "

>

> [end of paper excerpt]

>

> While some of you might be amused at the idea of small

farmers " oppressing "

> the stockholders, I do think there is some validity to the idea

that the rights

> of the minority must be protected from " excess democracy. "

>

> But that doesn't change the fact that the Federal Government in

this country

> was designed by its framers for the express purpose of creating an

entity that

> was NOT " us " because " we " are not good at governing. " Us, " or the

> " unreflecting multitude " to use Madison's words, come up with

irrational ideas like

> paper money.

>

> If you read the Consittutional Debates, Shays Rebellion comes up

frequently,

> and one of the primary reasons for the federal government is to put

down such

> rebellions. And what we now know is that Shays Rebellion was a

Rebellion not

> by the landed interests against the commercial, but against the

tyrannical

> Massachusetts government that was essentially installed by a

political coup.

>

> And isn't it interesting that all I've written about the

decentralized nature

> of New England democracy post-dates the imposition of this MA

government

> which was considered at the time by the vast majority of MA

citizens, who actually

> voted against it, to be too centralized and take too much power

away from the

> towns? Now *they* had a sense of democracy.

>

> Chris

>

>

>