Comments on: The Ten Principles of Freedom: Conclusion, and Some Observations http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/09/28/the-ten-principles-of-freedom-conclusion-and-some-observations/ Conservative and Libertarian Intellectual Philosophy and Politics Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:00:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Ivan Ivanovich http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/09/28/the-ten-principles-of-freedom-conclusion-and-some-observations/comment-page-1/#comment-57166 Ivan Ivanovich Sun, 30 Sep 2007 12:24:41 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/09/28/the-ten-principles-of-freedom-conclusion-and-some-observations/#comment-57166 Dear Mr. McMillan Thank you for your elaboration. I think I can accept this position. I understand what you are saying about “the thinking of the time” Just prior to the founding of our nation (1740) David Hume wrote about Human Understanding and he emphasized the ignorance we have, including himself in this. I believe our society has forgotten this fact and somehow is of the opinion that all is clear and it is only up the government to implement Utopia. On the other hand I have faith in the wisdom of the crowds to choose the right path. Dear Mr. McMillan
Thank you for your elaboration. I think I can accept this position. I understand what you are saying about “the thinking of the time” Just prior to the founding of our nation (1740) David Hume wrote about Human Understanding and he emphasized the ignorance we have, including himself in this. I believe our society has forgotten this fact and somehow is of the opinion that all is clear and it is only up the government to implement Utopia. On the other hand I have faith in the wisdom of the crowds to choose the right path.

]]> By: Joseph BH McMillan http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/09/28/the-ten-principles-of-freedom-conclusion-and-some-observations/comment-page-1/#comment-57155 Joseph BH McMillan Sun, 30 Sep 2007 07:45:55 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/09/28/the-ten-principles-of-freedom-conclusion-and-some-observations/#comment-57155 Dear Mr Ivanovich, Thank you for your Comment. I am not by any means suggesting that we abolish the Constitution. I am suggesting that we augment it by reference to specific Principles. I have no problem with the basic procedural protections (Separation of Powers etc) provided by the Constitution. The problem is that the Constitution does not set out any substantive protections, other than ‘rights’. But ‘rights’ only define what government should not do, not what it can do – and they have been interpreted in such a way that they do not even do what commonsense tells us they should do. This is what I say about the Founding Fathers in my book Freedom v A Tyranny of Rights: “Their intentions were honorable and utterly worthy. They advanced the cause of individual freedom to hither before unimaginable heights. They sought to place government at the disposal of the people. They established the United States as a beacon of freedom to the world. But they were in uncharted water, and thus looked to the philosophical and political 'thinking' of the time - 'thinking', as I shall show in later Sections, that was seriously flawed. Yet that is not a reflection on the Founding Fathers. What is clear is that they strenuously and sincerely sought a mechanism to advance and preserve individual freedom, and especially protect that freedom from the cunning of those who would seek to subvert it to their own authority. They laid the foundations of freedom, they did not build the temple. It would be a disservice to their enterprise to let the foundations crumble. Their enterprise was not the fossilization of the endeavor to advance human freedom, but the initiation of a dynamic process, a process that must be as dynamic and imaginative as the technological achievements that stand testimony to the power of a free people - the American people. To advance that freedom, we must now loosen the shackles that bind us to a tyranny of rights. We owe it to all those who have given their lives in the cause of freedom, and we owe it to the Founding Fathers. But most important, we owe it to our children, and their children, and all the generations to come. Generations who deserve to breathe the air of freedom, and not be suffocated in a web of rights.” I go on to stress that the dynamism of the Constitution is not to be found in the Judicial Power of the Supreme Court, but in Article V of the Constitution. And I expect that is why that Article was included. Joseph BH McMillan www.freeedomvrights.com Dear Mr Ivanovich,

Thank you for your Comment. I am not by any means suggesting that we abolish the Constitution. I am suggesting that we augment it by reference to specific Principles. I have no problem with the basic procedural protections (Separation of Powers etc) provided by the Constitution. The problem is that the Constitution does not set out any substantive protections, other than ‘rights’. But ‘rights’ only define what government should not do, not what it can do – and they have been interpreted in such a way that they do not even do what commonsense tells us they should do.

This is what I say about the Founding Fathers in my book Freedom v A Tyranny of Rights: “Their intentions were honorable and utterly worthy. They advanced the cause of individual freedom to hither before unimaginable heights. They sought to place government at the disposal of the people. They established the United States as a beacon of freedom to the world. But they were in uncharted water, and thus looked to the philosophical and political ‘thinking’ of the time – ‘thinking’, as I shall show in later Sections, that was seriously flawed.
Yet that is not a reflection on the Founding Fathers. What is clear is that they strenuously and sincerely sought a mechanism to advance and preserve individual freedom, and especially protect that freedom from the cunning of those who would seek to subvert it to their own authority.
They laid the foundations of freedom, they did not build the temple.
It would be a disservice to their enterprise to let the foundations crumble. Their enterprise was not the fossilization of the endeavor to advance human freedom, but the initiation of a dynamic process, a process that must be as dynamic and imaginative as the technological achievements that stand testimony to the power of a free people – the American people. To advance that freedom, we must now loosen the shackles that bind us to a tyranny of rights.
We owe it to all those who have given their lives in the cause of freedom, and we owe it to the Founding Fathers. But most important, we owe it to our children, and their children, and all the generations to come.
Generations who deserve to breathe the air of freedom, and not be suffocated in a web of rights.”

I go on to stress that the dynamism of the Constitution is not to be found in the Judicial Power of the Supreme Court, but in Article V of the Constitution. And I expect that is why that Article was included.

Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freeedomvrights.com

]]> By: Ivan Ivanovich http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/09/28/the-ten-principles-of-freedom-conclusion-and-some-observations/comment-page-1/#comment-57020 Ivan Ivanovich Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:41:17 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/09/28/the-ten-principles-of-freedom-conclusion-and-some-observations/#comment-57020 I'm very sympathetic to your ideas, but you lost me in the paragraph ending with "There is a world of difference between these two concepts of government: under the first, government decides; under the second, the People decide." The accomplishments of our founding fathers have endured for more than 200 years. The abolishment of the Constitution seems like anarchy to me. That state is very undesirable and has never lasted more than a few years. An imperfect enduring system is better than a “Free for All” I’m very sympathetic to your ideas, but you lost me in the paragraph ending with “There is a world of difference between these two concepts of government: under the first, government decides; under the second, the People decide.” The accomplishments of our founding fathers have endured for more than 200 years. The abolishment of the Constitution seems like anarchy to me. That state is very undesirable and has never lasted more than a few years. An imperfect enduring system is better than a “Free for All”

]]>