“Also, the founders could not have changed institutions without their motivations — their characters — changing.”

That would come as a great shock to the founders!!

On the contrary; they modified European institutions to reflect their view of human nature and account for it.

I strongly suggest you do some research into the philosophical underpinnings of the Revolution and the Constitutional period. It was HEAVILY based on European enlightenment tradition, particularly John Locke and the experience of the Glorious Revolution of 1688. It had NOTHING to do with the native Americans (I particularly love your adoption of the myth of the “noble savage”!). Jefferson’s Declaration was drawn, at times almost verbatim, from Locke’s Two Treatises on Government (Live, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, v. Locke’s Live, Liberty, and Property). Locke justified the removal of James II from power and his replacement with William of Orange and Mary; Jefferson was justifying the separation of the colonies from a King. But the European, and yes enlightenment, underpinnings are there.

It also had little to do with egalitarianism, at least as I suspect you understand it. I’ll let Madison say it:

“Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”
Federalist No. 10

The Founders very much brought their Europeon traditions with them; we still have them. Our law is based upon the English common law traditions, for example. And it was their jaundiced view of human nature which was the rationale for the system of checks and balances we today enjoy.

Start with the Federalist papers, Capn. I’ve also got a copy of Two Treatises I might loan, as well as Hobbe’s Leviathan. That’s a start. Learn before you speak, Capn.

As to Mother Teresa, it’s not difficult to understand her motivation based upon self-interest, in at least two ways: 1) her service brought her closer to God, and to heaven 2) she loved those she served, and got a pleasure and satisfaction out of the service. Altruism isn’t independent of self-interest; it’s generally tied to it. Call it enlightened self-interest, if you like, but it’s still there. Self-interest is far more complex than simply getting paid. Try not to think so shallow, Capn.

Nice try. You’re 0 for 2. Wanna try for 0 for 3?

Spoken by a true Socialist.

The value of FREEDOM supplanted their Loyalty to the King.

Yeah, it was a lot more egalitarian than that.

that broad understandings of “human nature” speak to. You know that, of course, you’re just being intentionally obtuse.

******

Really? The other alternative is that you’re being unintentionally stupid.

There’s no rational self interest that explains Mother Theresa spending her whole life caring for lepers.

Also, the founders could not have changed institutions without their motivations — their characters — changing.

The value of loyalty (to the King, to country, to the old culture) was supplanted by the value of equality.

Some historians believe in fact that the seed of American equality was planted by the native American Indian societies that the so-called settlers encountered.

They did not have kings in the European sense. The Iroquois League was a lot like the Continetal Confederation.

Interacting with this egalitarian culture awakened in the founders a new way of organizing society.

In other words, they changed. They changed their world view, and they changed the world.

http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2007/10/rodney_and_goliath_environment.html

You guys might want to check it out…

“And don’t give me Dan Rather.That was a legitimate news story.”

Legitimate news stories don’t need forged documents.

hehehehe. FIRST off, they cant get the water permits and SECOND, Colorado doesnt want such a plant, or there would already be one.

And THIRD, this “plant” isnt going to be built anywhere else. The only reason it’s going to Holcomb is that there is already a plant there. This is an expansion, not a “new” entity.

The costs of creating this plant from scratch, with all the associated infrastructure, would make it not viable.

So dont worry. Rocky Ford isnt going to get a coal plant anytime soon.

Red Herring Dave. But we are amused, and we do encourage you to try your hystronics again.

So - these “elected representatives” -i.e. the State - will decide what points of view are required to be broadcast?

You do remember the 1st amendment, don’t you????

“If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.” - Justice Robert Jackson

As I said to CF - You have to believe in the 1st amendment all the time, not just when your side is getting airplay.

As to human nature:You miss the point - I suspect intentionally - regarding human nature. And denying it is so does not make it less so.

As I said - individual persons are difficult to predict; while the drives are the same, the intricacies of what we see as our interest are indeed quite complex. Can Mother Teresa and Charlie Manson both act in their perceived self-interest and come to vastly different conclusions as to what that is? OF COURSE!!!

Human beings, as a group however are quite predictable. And it is group behavior, much more than individual behavior, that broad understandings of “human nature” speak to. You know that, of course, you’re just being intentionally obtuse.

Am I cynical? Absolutely. Anyone with a decent understanding of human history who isn’t is fooling themselves. Yet we struggle on, despite ourselves. Amazingly, we often rise to incredible heights, despite our natures.

You noted a bit up thread the founders and the changes they made to government as evidence that people change. On the contrary; it is, indeed, the Founder’s understanding of human nature that led to the very changes you note. People did not change, only the institutions. As Madison put it:

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
Federalist No. 51

I’m with Madison here. Men are not angels, and will never be, this side of heaven. And it has always been so: if you want people to do something, appeal to their self-interest.

Ready to take back your claim that I support censorship, and ready to be uncalled a LIAR?

Just as I thought: by imposing your interpretation on my endorsement of the Fairness Doctrine, you’re lying and saying that I support censorship of GMC70’s views.

Liar.

Your cynical theory that people are all the same and they never change explains a lot about you and your fellow conservatives–the only way to “control” people is to keep them afraid with superior firepower.

Your simple-minded theory that Charles Manson and BTK are motivated in the same way that Ghandi and Mother Theresa are says volumes about the policies you and your conservative ilk espouse.

One question:

Who defines the “public good?”

Exactly! Good for you!

It is the publics right to maintain scrutiny over licensing of those radio stations in order to prevent misuse or monopoly of the PUBLIC airwaves.

If ever there were a case for anti trust action, Clear channel is it.

Posted by: Max |

Totally false.

What we’re talking about here are PUBLIC airwaves. We’re not talking about print media or street corner screaming.

This is bandwidth that the PUBLIC owns and the government leases companies to use.

The PUBLIC has a right to demand more than a single partisan viewpoint be aired, and their representative government has the duty to give it to them.

The Fairness Doctrine has nothing to do with stopping your right to say whatever you want under the Constitution.

It has everything to do with government’s responsibility to serve the public good, before the good of party or corporate interests.

That was a legitimate news story.

How does CBS even come NEAR talk radio??

It doesn’t.

No one at CBS is running a “Stop Thompson express” similar to Sean Hannity’s “stop Hillary express.”

There is no CBS or any other media equivalent in bias of Rush.

You already know that though.

You are just afraid to lose that one bit of TRULY biased media that happens to lean your way.

Posted by: CF2K | November 06, 2007 at 03:32 PM

By advocating the Fairness Doctrine CF, you are attacking Free Speech - Period.