Today is the 250th anniversary of Adam Smith’s An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. In my book “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution,” I explore the importance of The Wealth of Nations to the founders and why it will be even more important in this century.
The Wealth of Nations was released around the same time as the Declaration of Independence, but was not a particular success in Great Britain. Many panned his free-market theories. In addition to its foundational support for capitalism, it challenged the mercantilist policies of the British Empire and supported the claims of the colonies in seeking greater economic freedoms.
Smith, however, was immediately embraced by the founders, who saw his work as the perfect economic theory to advance their political theory. Ours was the first Enlightenment Revolution based on a belief in natural rights that came from God, not governments.
Yet, the founders knew that true individual liberty could not be achieved without economic freedom. Smith’s idea of the “invisible hand” offered an idea of individual economic freedom where the individual tastes and choices of citizens drove whole economies.
As I write in Rage and the Republic:
“While he never visited the United States, his theories seemed quintessentially American to many of his generation. For a revolution that was triggered by tariffs and fueled by events like the Boston Tea Party, Smith’s general principles read like an economic version of Common Sense. It was a type of declaration of independence not just from the British policy of mercantilism (emphasizing British exports over imports) but from economic controls over individual productivity and self-determination….
In summary, Smith was first and foremost viewed as a political theorist, and his economic theories were closely tied to his views on the natural liberties of humanity. He saw capitalism as a liberating system for individuals to allow them the wealth and resources to pursue their own chosen paths. Conversely, he saw government controls and subsidies as forms of control and potentially forms of suppression of the human will. If people are to be truly free, they must have the resources to pursue that freedom. The government dole can become a type of servitude or at least a subterfuge for citizens. If they are dependent on the government, they are never truly free.”
I believe that the key to our surviving and thriving in the 21st Century will be the preservation of what I call a “liberty-enhancing economy.” I will be discussing both anniversaries tomorrow at the Reagan Presidential Library.
Google pays $95 on a regular basis. My latest salary check was $8200 for working 10 hours a week on the internet. My younger sibling has been averaging $15k for the last few months, and he constantly works approximately 24 hours. I’m not sure how simple it was once I checked it out. This is my main concern………..…. GOOD LUCK.
==–=>>) https://lnk.ua/tEAxR7FfS
Adam Smith, who passed away 236 years ago after studying the early workings of capitalism, would probably be appalled by the Institute bearing his name, as well as by Rand and the modern world. Surprisingly, one of his admirers was Karl Marx. Smith believed that “labour… is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities,” and observed that “the masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen.” He also pointed out that “wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many” (Wealth of Nations, 1776).
You’re lying (by omission) about Smith’s economic theory:
“It is the great multiplication of the productions of all the different arts, in consequence of the division of labour, which occasions, in a well-governed society, that *universal opulence which extends itself to the lowest ranks of the people*.” (Smith, emphasis added)
One of capitalism’s values is that the poor live better than a “prince.”
Foundational to the laws and rules of humankind are the laws and rules of God and/or nature (my choice). In the late 1970s while learning and practicing secular mind power methods for self-improvement I found that occasionally I could very briefly tap-into the constitution of the universe and retrieve bits and pieces of universal law not perverted with myth, superstition and/or organized religion. Chronically mostly mildly ill from multiple common-food allergies aggravated with FDA approved food poisoning for higher food and medical corporation profits since early 1981, I’ve been a little slow at sharing most of what I found.
Pertinent to this conversation, I believe, there are “The Five General Rules (can be ‘bent’) of Human Behavior: 1) behavior plus reward yields motivation; 2) behavior plus penalty yields inhibition; 3) self-determination shall prevail; 4) moderation is the key and 5) time is the master of us all.” To deliberately ignore, misinterpret, violate and/or usurp the Constitution is to do the same to higher laws and rules. As the professor wrote about his book, I can see some parallels between Adam Smith’s views and my own “insights.” Is it any wonder that America is the extremist capitalist Christian failure it is today, with only about 10% of us creating enormous national debt while accumulating/hoarding about 2/3 of the wealth? Charles G. Shaver
Charles, I agree that the founders believed human law ultimately rests on something deeper than government itself. That idea is reflected in the Declaration of Independence when it refers to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Government was not meant to create rights but to recognize and protect rights that already exist.
Where I would differ with your conclusion is in where the blame lies for our present condition. The moral philosophy that influenced the founding, including the ideas expressed by Adam Smith in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations, assumed a citizenry capable of moral restraint, responsibility, and self-government. For a time, families, churches, and schools helped form citizens within that framework.
If the system appears to be failing today, I am not convinced the philosophical foundation itself is the problem. It may be that over the past two and a half centuries we have gradually drifted away from the formation of citizens capable of living within that moral framework. Rather than blaming “extremist capitalist Christians,” perhaps the more important question is what forces have moved us away from the virtues that thinkers like Smith believed were necessary for a free society to function in the first place.
Thanks for a thoughtful reply, Olly. I don’t think we are that far apart here. I find the Founders had something of a ‘leap from faith’ between the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the Constitution of the United States of America in 1778. I can envision some of them entering and exiting alternate states of consciousness in that sweaty convention hall during the day and/or during a good night’s sleep following some heated debate. I believe that is reflected in the wording of the Preamble, minimally, which I hold to be as enforceable as any other part of the Constitution (if not, then who/what does “We the People of the United States…” refer to?). So, how exactly is Elon Musk being the richest man, ever, concurrent with millions of working-class Americans being deprived time and again of food, homes and/or healthcare consistent with “promote the general welfare?” Where’s the “self-determination” and the “moderation?” CGS
Charles, I think your concern highlights a misunderstanding about what the system was designed to do. The Constitution was not written to guarantee equal outcomes among citizens but to preserve a framework within which individuals could pursue their own happiness under the rule of law. The phrase promote the general welfare describes the purpose of the system itself, not a promise that every person’s material condition will be the same.
That framework assumes citizens capable of exercising self-government. Within it, individuals will pursue different paths and achieve very different results. The success or wealth of someone like Elon Musk is largely irrelevant to the rest of us so long as it is achieved lawfully within that system. Thinkers such as Adam Smith, particularly in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations, assumed that economic liberty would operate within a moral framework where citizens exercised restraint and responsibility.
Which brings us back to formation. The American system depends on citizens capable of governing themselves. When that capacity weakens, people begin looking to the structure itself to deliver outcomes it was never designed to guarantee.
“The Constitution was not written to guarantee equal outcomes among citizens but to preserve a framework within which individuals could pursue their…”
We the People are fighting the Borg.
SM, in some ways it seems we are fighting each other as if we were the Borg. Given how fragmented we have become as citizens, I sometimes wonder whether we have allowed ourselves to be formed by those in positions of influence to perceive the “Borg” wherever it serves their purposes.
In other words, anything that threatens the interests of those in power can be framed as the enemy.
That brings us back to the issue we have been discussing throughout this thread. A free society depends on citizens capable of independent judgment. If that formation weakens, it becomes much easier for factions to define the threat for us rather than citizens recognizing it for themselves.
“we are fighting each other as if we were the Borg. “
My use of the Borg, as the enemy, is because it represents the Extreme Democrat position. The Borg carry only one voice that is fed to them on a regular basis and will destroy their own if they disagree with central command. The Borg is the closest to an inhuman dictatorship interested in expansion and power.
Well, Olly, perhaps we are that far apart. Not a good day for this for me, suffice it for me to end for now with all I ever asked of my government was a fair shake and all I ever got was abused, betrayed and held down. More some other day, perhaps.
Charles, I understand the frustration you are expressing. Many people have felt something similar at different points in our history. I would only add that you are not the first, and likely will not be the last, to feel disappointed by the promises made in the name of progressivism.
One of the recurring patterns in politics is that movements promising to correct inequality or engineer better outcomes through government often raise expectations that no system can realistically fulfill. The founders were wary of that dynamic, which is why they focused less on guaranteeing results and more on preserving a framework of liberty where individuals could pursue their own path under fair rules.
That difference between promising outcomes and preserving opportunity has been a central tension in American political thought for a long time.
Google pays $95 on a regular basis. My latest salary check was $8200 for working 10 hours a week on the internet. My younger sibling has been averaging $15k for the last few months, and he constantly works approximately 24 hours. I’m not sure how simple it was once I checked it out. This is my main concern…………. GOOD LUCK.
==–=>>) https://earnsmartwithus.netlify.app/
When I was an econ major at UCLA around 1970, one of my professors claimed that the Econ Department chair was known to skulk around dark alleys at night and when an Econ PhD student came along, he’s jump out an ask: “What is the most important thing that happened in 1776?” If they said “Declaration of Independence,” they wouldn’t get their PhD. I think it was a joke but I’m not sure.
“What is the most important thing that happened in 1776?”
That 56 delegates agreed upon and signed the Declaration of Independence.
While Congress adopted the document on July 4, 1776,
the formal, authorized signing began on August 2, 1776, and continued later for some members.
Put 56 members of Congress together today and nothing would be signed unanimously. And certainly not during the Congressional and Midterm election periods.
So it remains a miracle that We the People are still United 250 years later.
There are two schools of thought. Capitalism and collectivism. Collectivism in its youth was thought to possibly have some value by Franklin Roosevelt and he sent a committee to Russia to study the viability of the philosophy. Roosevelt instituted many of the collective principles during his time in office. His thoughts at the time can be understood in light of the depression that gripped the nation. He did not know what we have come to know today. The results are in. The collective system has resulted in the deaths of millions of people by the gun and mass starvation. Even after all the evidence has been presented there are still those who choose the philosophy of Marx over that of Smith. Their heartfelt compassion for the downtrodden is just a smoke screen to hide their obsession for complete control of those who they consider to be inferior. Thus the philosophy of the basket of the deplorables inexplicably lives on to this day. Pray that the philosophy of Adam Smith prevails.
TiT,
Great comment.
“Their heartfelt compassion for the downtrodden is just a smoke screen to hide their obsession for complete control of those who they consider to be inferior.”
That line sums it all up, quite nicely.
“Thus the philosophy of the basket of the deplorables inexplicably lives on to this day.”
Ah, if we would only see how they are ever so much more enlighten than us!
TiTTy,
Capitalism kills people in great numbers as well. Capitalism put kidnapped people into slave ships where huge numbers died. Capitalism put people into mines without sufficient shoring or ventilation where they died. Capitalism puffed lead vapors into the air leading to a giant increase in inner city violence; violence which has ebbed as the generations affected by those vapors age out and die following the elimination of tetra-ethyl lead from gasoline.
Do you like the “collective defense”? The “collective highways”? The “collective medical research”? Do you hate Ocean Spray? Do you hate insurance companies (OK, got me there.) Do you hate organized religion? Would you rather that banks were no longer regulated as to what they might do?
Anonymous – – “Capitalism put kidnapped people into slave ships.” How historically inaccurate.
Slavery has always existed, as far as we know. “Slavery was institutionalized by the time the first civilizations emerged (such as Sumer in Mesopotamia,[5] which dates back as far as 4000 BC). Slavery features in the Mesopotamian Code of Hammurabi (c. 1750 BC), which refers to it as an established institution.[6] Slavery was widespread in the ancient world in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Africa,[7][8][4] and the Americas.[9]>” History of Slavery – Wikipedia.
It is only in the era of economic progress in the West called “capitalism” that popular movements have developed to abolish the institution. Where market economies have been suppressed by central planning and government control of economic forces, something like slavery has been re-established, e.g., the Soviet Union.
Capitalism didn’t start with Adam Smith. Slavery wasn’t abolished by Capitalism, it was made obsolete by the industrial revolution. Slavery, as such, in oppressive countries isn’t for economic results, but as a tool of repression, which is why the US uses the largest percentage prison population in the world as slave labor.
Capitalism isnt perfect just better. I really believe that Smith wasn’t saying this is a perfect system. He simply described what he saw.
Collectivism cant escape ” Supply, demand and competition. It just is like gravity neither good nor evil just reality.
For 250 years, Adam Smith has been giving Socialists more sourpusses than even Granny Smith.
Yes, but…Smith saw himself as as much (if not more) a moral philosopher as a political philosopher. Indeed, I don’t think The Wealth of Nations can be understood without The Theory of Moral Sentiments.
Excellent Cato! Here is an article from Law & Liberty that described exactly your point:
A moralist is one who makes no bones about the fact that he offers moral guidance. Smith was well regarded in this role, widely viewed as a moralist worth heeding. He was a moral authority.
Thus, when The Wealth of Nations appeared seventeen years later in 1776, its teachings were not read merely as interesting arguments about trade and finance. They were received as the guidance of a moral authority. The teachings were influential because they came from him. They had his moral authorization. Many took them to heart.
https://lawliberty.org/adam-smiths-moral-authority/?
Every post is an ad for the book. Wake me up when we get back to discussions of real issues.
OK then, why even bother coming here?
Why do you even bother coming here?
Enjoy what Turley is talking about.
No-one is forced to come here.
Ok, so why are you trying to push people away? Its not your domain. In fact, you’re a detriment to the blog.
Turley and his stupid books. It’s all here on this blog.
It is the good professor’s blog. He can write about whatever he wants. If he mentions his book, that is his right. It is his blog. You are free to not read what he posts.
If you were in his shoes, my guess is you’d publish opinions just like Hurley.
Why would anyone want you to be awake? Your negativity is born of envy.
You should try to achieve something, then see if anyone cares.
Anonymous, the important issues you speak of take a back seat when compared to the issue of free markets versus collectivism as a guiding principle. You have a voice so why not defend Marxism by quoting directly from Das Kapital to prove your point. Considering your posts on this forum it is obvious that you maintain a well worn copy of this tome on your bedside table. As much as you would like your controlling instincts do not allow you to say what should be posted on this forum.
Certainly there must be other forums where your wisdom in your own mind would be better appreciated. However, I do appreciate that your efforts on this forum helped Donald Trump to get elected.
He has to plug his book incessantly because word of mouth isn’t going to work.
I Quit My Office Job and Found Freedom Online: Here’s My Story The office environment was draining me emotionally and physically, so I decided to make a change. Now, I work online and earn 85 per hour doing what I love. It wasn’t an easy journey, but two years later, I can proudly say my life has changed for the better!
Here’s what I do and how you can too………… https://lnk.ua/tEAxR7FfS
A liberty enhancing economy, and a liberty enhancing national government go together. In that sense Trump is an emancipator like no other. Within 12 months under Donald Trump:
◽Hamas became irrelevant
◽The UN became irrelevant
◽Wokeness became irrelevant
◽WHO became irrelevant
◽USAID became irrelevant
◽The International Criminal Court became irrelevant
◽The World Economic Forum became irrelevant
◽The Paris Climate Agreement became irrelevant
◽The Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation became irrelevant
◽The International Monetary Fund became irrelevant
◽The World Bank became irrelevant
◽The Human Rights Watch became irrelevant
◽The Amnesty International became irrelevant
◽The Council on Foreign Relations became irrelevant
◽The World Trade Organization became irrelevant
◽NATO became irrelevant
◽The European Union became irrelevant
◽The Open Society Foundations became irrelevant
◽ESG investing became irrelevant
◽DEI bureaucracies became irrelevant
◽Net-zero policies became irrelevant
◽Global migration compacts became irrelevant
◽Pandemic emergency powers became irrelevant
The global reset is in full motion under President Trump….
(AJ Inapi on X)
Trump is trying to make voting irrelevant.
Trump is making Congress irrelevant.
Trump is trying to make the Courts irrelevant.
Trump is working to make law irrelevant.
Trump will disentangle the US from the world economy and the world will pass the US by.
The loser’s view is to say the opposite of anything that is true and supports Trump.
Adam Smith’s economic theory and the founders’ political theory both depended on a certain type of citizen to sustain them. Smith assumed citizens pursuing honest income through voluntary exchange. The founders assumed citizens capable of self-government.
Do we still have that type of citizen today?
If we do, how would we recognize it?
If we do not, when did we stop intentionally forming it?
One major problem with all that nonsense you spew: corporations. They were not citizens but they had more impact than any so-called founders, any king etc. Then and now.
You are missing a pretty important piece of the history.
Corporations in the 1700s were not what we think of today. They were rare government charters granted for very specific purposes, often with monopoly privileges. A good example is the British East India Company.
In fact, Adam Smith criticized those arrangements directly in The Wealth of Nations because monopolies and government favoritism distort markets and suppress competition.
The founders were reacting against that mercantilist system of state granted privilege. Their model assumed something very different: a society built primarily on independent citizens pursuing honest income through voluntary exchange while governing themselves politically.
So the question still stands.
If both Smith’s economics and the founders’ political theory assumed citizens capable of independence and self government, do we still produce that type of citizen today?
If the answer is yes, how do we know?
If the answer is no, why not?
Case in point.
When a discussion about ideas quickly shifts to insults rather than arguments, it illustrates the civic problem I was describing earlier.
A free society ultimately depends on the character and capacity of its citizens.
The discrepancy, Olly, is that Smith’s vision assumes a marketplace of rational individuals that doesn’t scale to our modern reality. We are seeing market failure on two fronts: systemic capture by monopolies that overwhelm natural market forces, and behavioral reality—the fact that humans aren’t the rational machines Smith envisioned. When the system rewards misleading tactics, ‘honest competition’ becomes a strategic disadvantage, forcing a cycle of corruption just to maintain market share.
If ever there was a lie, it’ll always come from George’s twisted mind
No one will ever call you an economist or historian. But a liar, yes.
As for Olly, I wonder why he has a General Discharge instead of an Honorable Discharge?
Anonymous,
You’re quick to use the word ‘lie,’ yet you haven’t pointed to a single factual error in my response. . If there’s a lie here, be specific: is it the behavioral economics that proves humans aren’t rational, or the market data showing monopoly dominance? Or are you just hoping that if you shout ‘liar’ loud enough, no one will notice you still can’t engage in a discussion?
Single factual error? We fact checked you in the past and discovered you used AI, not actual sources but fiction generated by AI from which you cut-n-pasted erroneiusly no less.
“single factual error”? Geez… George, the entire comment is fiction. At best one might call it an opinion. If you were smart, you’d source your lies aka comments. But you ain’t.
Define discussion? With you involved its not a discussion its an excursion in delusion. On par with Say and Olly.
You ain’t an intellectual, a historian or an economist. Therefore your comments are empty words.
So go at it with whoever. Entertain, but you’re still a clown.
If my comments are ’empty words,’ why are you so obsessed with documenting them? You didn’t ‘discover’ my use of AI; I disclosed it—try to keep up. You call this a ‘delusion’ because you can’t handle a discussion that requires more than a third-grade vocabulary of insults. You aren’t a historian or an economist either, but the difference is I’m actually engaging with the subject matter while you’re busy playing hall monitor. If I’m the clown, you’re the one who keeps buying tickets to the show.
“. . . humans aren’t the rational machines Smith envisioned.”
You are, of course, speaking for yourself.
You are focusing on the structure of the system rather than the character of the people operating it.
Let’s run a simple test. Suppose tomorrow we eliminated corporations entirely. Would all the problems you describe disappear?
Of course not. Something else would replace them. Corporations are made up of people. Boards of directors are people. Governments are people. If the people are corrupt, the institutions they run will become corrupt.
That is true in markets and it is just as true in government.
Both Adam Smith and the American founders understood this. Their economic and political systems assumed a citizenry capable of a certain level of character and independence.
A constitutional republic does not run on autopilot. It requires citizens capable of self-government.
If the people lack the knowledge to understand how the system works, lack the engagement to maintain it, or become dependent on others to solve their problems, the system will drift toward something else.
So the root problem is not corporations or markets. Those are structures.
The real question is whether we still produce citizens capable of sustaining a free society.
Olly, You’re arguing that a pilot’s character matters more than the plane’s engineering, but even the best pilot can’t fly a plane with no wings.
The ‘invisible hand’ was never meant to be a test of virtue; it was a mechanical result of competition. When monopolies rewrite the rules, they break the machine, and no amount of ‘good character’ can fix a system designed to reward the very behavior you disagree with.
In reality, bad structures (like lack of transparency or concentrated power) corrupt even good people, while strong structures (like checks and balances) are designed specifically to protect the system from the inevitable flaws of human character.
Corporations are not just “groups of people”; they are sets of rules and incentives. A “good” person placed in a system that rewards profit at any cost (fiduciary duty) is structurally pressured to act in ways they might personally find unethical.
Your analogy actually proves the point if you follow it upstream.
You say the pilot’s character cannot overcome a plane with bad engineering. Fair enough.
But the plane did not build itself. An engineer designed it. Someone approved the design. Someone built the structure.
So the real upstream question becomes the character and judgment of the people who designed the plane in the first place.
Institutions are no different.
Corporations do not appear on their own. Governments do not appear on their own. Laws and incentives are designed, written, and enforced by people.
Over time those structures inevitably reflect the character, priorities, and tolerances of the people who create and operate them.
That is exactly why both Adam Smith and the American founders assumed a certain type of citizen. They understood that institutions are downstream from the character of the people who build them.
If the character of the citizen changes, the structure will eventually change with it.
Olly, I get your point, but it’s still flawed. Even the best ‘engineers’ can’t overcome a system that incentivizes the wrong behavior. If a corporation’s structure mandates fiduciary duty to shareholders above all else, even a saint in the CEO chair is legally and structurally pressured to prioritize profit over public good.
Our founders including Adams (our engineers) designed a government (structure) to do exactly what contradicts Adam’s view. James Madison famously wrote in Federalist No. 51, ‘If men were angels, no government would be necessary. The entire American system was designed as a machine of checks and balances precisely because the founders knew human character is fallible. They didn’t assume ‘perfect citizens’; they designed a structure where ‘ambition must be made to counteract ambition. Which explains precisely why Trump is trying to undermine the system that is designed to keep him in check. But when monopolies capture the regulatory process—it doesn’t matter how ‘good’ the citizens are; the machine is broken.
“James Madison famously wrote in Federalist No. 51, ‘If men were angels, no government would be necessary. The entire American system was designed as a machine of checks and balances precisely because the founders knew human character is fallible.”
The statement you made is correct, but forget your tunnel vision and see what the Founder’s biggest fear was. Big Government. Read the Constitution and study the period between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. Look at what the fears were. Read more Madison, one of the most brilliant architects of our system of government.
The founders wanted less government. You want to destroy what they built and wish to create a government that exists only in dreams.
It seems self-evident to me that anything in human society that does not arise from nature ultimately traces back to human agency as the first cause.
Human beings alone possess the capacity to think, choose, and act intentionally, and every institution, law, corporation, or government begins with those choices. At some point someone conceived the idea, wrote the rule, built the structure, or allowed it to continue. Over time these countless individual decisions accumulate and produce the systems we live within.
Structures can shape behavior, but they do not create themselves and cannot operate independently of the people who design, maintain, and operate them.
For that reason the long-term success or failure of any system ultimately reflects the character, judgment, and civic capacity of the citizens whose actions created it in the first place.
“If the character of the citizen changes, the structure will eventually change with it.”
OLLY, you have become an expert. How many generations do you think it takes before individual freedom is forgotten?
SM, I should say up front that I am hardly an expert. But after spending years studying the founding period and debating these issues, I have come to see the problem somewhat differently than many people I encounter.
History suggests the shift can happen more quickly than many assume. By the time of the Civil War, roughly a century had passed since the founding generation experienced the coercive policies of Great Britain that led to the grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence. So we are talking about perhaps two generations removed from the lived experience that produced the Revolution.
Yet even those generations were still being intentionally formed. Schools commonly taught civic virtue, the principles of the founding, and moral instruction that often included the Bible. The transmission of those ideas was deliberate. Compare that with today. Our society is far more fragmented, civic education is weaker, and many citizens have little familiarity with what the founding generation actually experienced or why the principles of liberty mattered so deeply to them.
Without that frame of reference, the Constitution becomes just a structure rather than what Abraham Lincoln described as the “frame of silver” surrounding the “apple of gold,” the principles expressed in the Declaration. If the apple of gold is forgotten, the frame eventually loses its meaning.
You are more of an expert than I. However, your comments and arguments bring information stored in the back of my mind to the front, where it can be better organized.
“Schools commonly taught civic virtue, the principles of the founding, and moral instruction that often included the Bible.”
Our anonymous friends do not have the advantage of knowing something about civic virtue, the Bible, and history. Until I saw the continuous assaults on the Constitution, I didn’t recognize how foundational and substantive the Bible was, even though it was always a part of me.
Fortunately, it appears more parents are choosing to educate their children outside of the public schools. That will cause the public schools to compete. Parents want good children, and ones that can learn from history. That is why I think there is a movement in that direction. Is it fast enough? I don’t know, but the real world is harsh, so maybe the cold shock might wake the young up.
SM, some things I had questions about led me to start looking deeper. I began by studying the United States Constitution and the The Federalist Papers. From there I read John Locke and Frédéric Bastiat to better understand the concept of inalienable rights. What surprised me was that I had not yet seriously read the Declaration of Independence itself. When I finally did, my perspective changed dramatically. That was when the whole system began to make sense.
The twenty-seven grievances were not simply anecdotes describing events unique to that era. They were a body of evidence describing patterns of abuse that have appeared repeatedly in tyrannical regimes throughout history. That realization led me to ask a different question. If these patterns occurred before, what would they look like if they appeared again? More importantly, I began asking why history repeats itself when we have access to more information today than any generation before us.
When I was younger, history was usually taught as a series of events, dates, and famous people. What I have come to realize more recently is that there is also a powerful human and emotional dimension behind those events. The colonists were responding not only to policies but to lived experiences that shaped their understanding of liberty. Facts alone can teach us what happened. But to understand why it happened, we have to understand the human nature and emotions that drove those events. The further a generation moves away from those experiences, the easier it becomes to lose that connection.
And when that connection fades, the lessons of history often fade with it.
You are a scholar.
Why are you a scholar? First, I have to compare you to the academic scholars on the left. 2. All too many base their scholarship on feelings, not virtue. 3. Too many of them produce research that is only original because it is fantassy. 4. Too many do not use a methodolgy that relies on evidence and logical deduction.
If you are too humble to accept the term scholar, then perhaps to satisfy your requirements, you are the scholar of the blog’s posters. I only wish there would be more posters that adhere to your type of scholarship.
SM, I appreciate the kind words. I would not call myself a scholar in the academic sense, though I do like the idea of being a citizen scholar. To me that simply means a citizen who takes seriously the responsibility of learning the principles of self-government and continuing that journey.
In truth, I have learned a great deal from people on this blog over the years, including you. Being part of these discussions for as long as I have has exposed me to many different perspectives and has helped sharpen my own understanding. That was really the motivation behind beginning my twelve-step project back in 2012. I came to believe that the path I followed in learning about our system was not unique and that others could follow it as well.
Developing the capacity for self-government is not about arriving at a final destination. It is more like a journey. A citizen simply needs to get on the path and keep learning. In that sense it reminds me a bit of the Christian walk. The important step is getting on the path. Growth follows from continuing along it.
“citizen scholar.” YES!!!!! That is what we need, citizen scholarship started in the home, and as soon as a newly born citizen hits the school system. Hillsdale wrote a book: The US Constitution, A Reader. You likely have it, but if not, it’s a compact compartment for the most important documents of our country up to Reagan. It is a reminder of what we read, forgot, and didn’t read.
I think you nailed it. Citizen scholarship really does begin in the home. Curiosity about how our system works has to start there and continue through life.
And yes, I am familiar with the reader from Hillsdale College. What struck me when I began reading those documents was how much clearer things become when you go to the sources themselves.
That, to me, is what citizen scholarship is about. Citizens taking the time to read, think, and understand the principles behind the system they live under.
OLLY,
I see it as trees in a forest. The trees are the individual/citizen. The forest is the corporation/government. Seems there are some trees that are sick/corruption and need to be removed. If the sickness is so prevalent within the forest, a controlled fire may be needed in order to save the forest.
The tricky part is when we have that many trees sick, how does one remove them without resorting to similar sickness? Normally it would be upon the rest of the trees who see the sickness for what it is, and votes them out.
However, in this day and age, a number of other trees have similar sickness and in that sickness they celebrate the sickness of others and the sickness of the forest.
Upstate, your forest analogy works well.
The trees are the citizens and the forest is the set of institutions they create and operate. If some trees are sick, they can damage the forest. If the sickness spreads widely enough, the forest itself begins to reflect that condition. The difficulty, as you point out, is what happens when the sickness becomes common. At that point the problem is no longer a few bad trees. It becomes a condition of the forest itself.
That is why the founders placed so much emphasis on the character and capacity of the citizen. Institutions can channel behavior, but they cannot permanently compensate for a citizenry that no longer understands or values the principles the institutions were built to serve.
Voting corrupt people out only works if enough citizens can recognize the corruption and are willing to act against it. When citizens lose the knowledge to understand how the system works, lose the engagement required to maintain it, or become dependent on others to solve their problems, the system eventually reflects that reality.
The forest always reflects the condition of its trees.
Olly to use your tree analogy. It is still flawed. Please keep in mind that I’m not trying to be a d!ck I’m just pointing out that your view is not entirely wrong. It’s flawed in its construct.
Your forest analogy misses the most important part: the soil.
You’re blaming the trees for being ‘sick’ while ignoring that the groundwater has can poisoned by monopolies and systemic corruption. A redwood doesn’t dominate a forest because it has ‘better character’; it dominates because it blocks the sun for everyone else. Does that make sense?
The Founders didn’t build a system that required perfect trees or assumed every tree is supposed to be perfect; they built a system of irrigation and pruning (checks and balances) to ensure the forest can survive the inevitable reality of sick trees. If the irrigation system is broken or the soil is poisoned, the character of the tree is irrelevant. So this make sense to you?
How does a system deal with a corrupt minority faction poisoning the majority? The founders seemed to discount minority factions as being powerless. I think the past few decades have shown this not to be true.
Jim, that is a good question and one Madison wrestled with directly.
In Federalist No. 10, James Madison argued that factions are inevitable. The Constitution was designed not to eliminate them but to make it harder for any one faction to dominate the system. The size of the republic, competing interests, and the separation of powers were all meant to slow the ability of factions to consolidate power.
But Madison also assumed something that often gets overlooked. Those structural safeguards only work if the citizenry remains capable of recognizing when factions are abusing power and are willing to act through elections and civic engagement. If that civic capacity weakens, even a minority faction can gain influence far beyond its numbers.
In other words, the structure can help manage faction, but it cannot permanently substitute for the character and engagement of the citizens operating the system.
Grand Ma Butler used to refer to Ronald as “The Cowboy”. I understand that there is a bronze statue of him in the library,
it would be nice to get a photo of you standing next to it (for proportion – lol).
Thanks for coming to the Reagan Library, tomorrow. Looking forward to your presentation and having the opportunity to have my book signed.
Towards that end, I’m sure our liberty-loving politicians and their benevolent benefactors will get rid if cash ASAP
@Oldfish
They will certainly try, they will use cashless China to make it look cool and convenient, and lazy, ignorant young leftists (many of them trust fund babies who don’t know what cash is to begin with) will lap it up.
Invisible jazz hands
Refert Non
______________
America Motto:
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
– Karl Marx
“Stupid is as stupid does”
– Forrest Gump on Vietcom PTSD VA Welfare recipient “George”, BFF of Abe Lincoln