Guest post: Why socialism wins
Members of the Squalicum High School Rotary Interact Club race each other while breaking up bread for stuffing Nov. 21 2012, a while preparing food for an annual free Thanksgiving Day meal in Bellingham, Wa. | AP Photo/The Bellingham Herald/ Philip A. Dwyer
By Dave Gresham
The first principle of reason is to treat others as you would be treated. The concept is innate knowledge, and even infants understand it, though they lack the ability to articulate the concept. Indeed, by the time a child can talk, the idea is the first wisdom that they can express with words. In fact, so exceptional is this one single principle, it is literally the only thing that all rational adults agree on.
Certainly many people do not obey this “golden rule,” especially among the young, for we all cling to selfishness, but no one denies it. To do so would publicly humiliate oneself, since the idea carries its own authority.
Reasoning also concludes there is another facet to this universal principle, which is that we should love each other. This also becomes self-evident, for no rational person wishes others to be unkind to them.
More than anywhere else in our lives, love and reason are seen in their fullest flower within the family unit. Our spouses, children, parents, friends and relatives are the happiest part of our lives. So the concept as it applies to society is clear: The golden rule and love must be the core foundation in any proper system of governance – and the most loving and reasonable structure is a family.
What are the basic rights of every family member? Food, shelter, clothes, and to be cared for when one is unable to provide for themselves. In other words, one’s basic rights are one’s basic needs. Therefore, these are the basic rights of every citizen. And this is altogether fair, since every one of us lives under a government that we did not design, but are subjected to, just as we were born into a family over which we had no control. And note, taking the principle further, anything that controls others must be benevolent in its design and behavior, or it forfeits the right to lead, just as bad parents lose custody of their children.
The family principle always applies, whether at the top where the system is designed, or at the bottom in prisons, where citizens are sent to reconsider their violations of the golden rule and spare the innocent further suffering, just as wayward children are punished by being confined to their room.
The government must reflect that we are all one family – the most loving societal structure we know – or the system is wrong.
And herein is a fundamental problem with raw capitalism. When a system allows the domination of peers, then this is not family, but slavery. In fact, pure capitalism is essentially a form of war, since it not only allows taking advantage of others, it rewards it. Insult to injury, it even punishes charity, for any generous act is a step towards one’s own poverty without the safety net of minimum standards. “Everyone for themselves” fails miserably without a counterbalance for the entire group.
A worker waits for customers in a government food market in Havana. | AP Photo 2009
On the other hand, communism, with its imaginary equality of every member, also falls short. Though everyone may be equal in value, not everyone is equal in abilities. A dandelion is not the same as a sequoia. Moreover, if everybody receives an equal share of the fruits of labor, no matter what effort they contribute, then laziness flourishes and creativity dies. In short, the system collapses under the weight of freeloaders, while the lack of tangible reward for extra effort is demoralizing. “One size fits all” fails miserably without a counterbalance for individuality.
Ultimately, the idea of a nation being a family is better reflected in socialist governments. This is because they do a better job of incorporating the universal truth of love and the golden rule. In other words, a socialist nation more closely resembles a family and therefore succeeds where the other systems do not.
The family principle also makes it easy to see how citizens should pay for government. Obviously, the higher the income an individual has, then the higher percentage of taxes they must pay for the upkeep of the family. Those who earn very little should pay the lowest percentage. Parents always spend a much greater percentage of their money on the children, rather than the other way around.
What about maximums or minimums on how much income a citizen can earn?
First, the idea of a maximum is contrary to the idea of life itself. Limits to an individual’s growth should be subject only to fairness and the needs of fellow citizens. While peers must not suffer hardship because of another’s prosperity, restricting someone’s growth out of envy is profoundly wrong. So there should not be income caps.
But if an individual is fortunate enough to earn a billion dollars a year, then obviously he should be paying at least 90% in income tax, which is the way our government once was. After all, everyone earns their living with the direct and indirect help of countless other people. And only being able to keep 100 million dollars for oneself is a problem most of us would like to have.
As for minimums, even though babies burden the upkeep of the home, (meaning criminals and those who refuse to pull their weight), they are still granted the basic necessities of life. And if one is unsure exactly what those minimums should be, then the place to start is by guaranteeing that law-abiding citizens are entitled to at least whatever is granted to prison inmates. This principle is self-explanatory and carries its own authority.
But “everyone will freeload” say our greedy capitalist masters. Nonsense. Think it through. Rooming in a jail-sized space, little privacy, public showers and toilets, rules and curfews, doing community service work for your upkeep. The concept is more of a halfway house – a bridge. The point is, family members would not be cast out. Who among us would willingly allow their selfish teenagers to perish, even if they were lazy and self-indulgent?
And never forget, some of these people in such dire circumstances are innocent, perhaps even sainted. We’ve all seen people who were injured or infirmed by accident or by the hand of others, while some precious individuals are suffering because they voluntarily interceded to help someone else!
Yet, while this goes on, some wealthy people are making 200,000 times more per year than minimum wage. Who on earth is worth that much more than their hard-working employees? These are peers we are talking about! Equal human beings! Who can justify such an obscenity with so many broken people that cannot support themselves, much less their families?
And none of this begins to the address the tens of millions of citizens that are unemployed or underemployed, or the hundred million people who are underpaid through no fault of their own. In fact, minimum wage should be doubled, perhaps even tripled.
How can anyone with great riches ignore the poverty of their neighbors? Only capitalists and their sycophants even try to justify it, though every wealthy person attained their lofty position with an incalculable amount of help from the rest of humanity.
But all people will never be wise, for there will always be children, so selfishness and crimes will continue, and sometimes succeed, to the detriment of many innocent people. And though punishment may come to pass, in this age or the next, the remedy for victims is often beyond our mortal power to resolve.
So what choices do we have?
Should we leave it to god to provide assistance to our brethren? Or is that just a miserable excuse we use to justify doing nothing?
Or should we emulate the highest principle in every day and age, which is love and the golden rule, and become the family we were meant to be?
December 14, 2012 - 6:00 AM
My god, everything about this post is ridiculous.
When has socialism ever produced prosperity? Why does everyone have more in capitalist countries? Why has the United States been the world’s economic leader for so many years?
Dave Gresham and socialist adherents the world over continue to miscalculate human nature. Human beings will NOT break their backs for long to contribute to a system in which they aren’t motivated and rewarded. I can’t understand why centuries of failure hasn’t taught them that.
Well said Dave Gresham!
Lypocrisy! You fail to realize that the capitalist system via motivation for the individual to succeed increases production to the extent there is
more for all. Socialism demotivates the individual. It has failed every time it has been tried. While I acknowledge that reforms are needed to ensure those in need are taken care of without government employees enriching themselves in the process or without government’s inherent inefficiency squandering scarce resource one only has to look at the vast amount of available assistance that the present system delivers to understand socialism in not, nor will be, the answer.
If right wingers had an ounce of honesty in them, they would admit that there is no pure capitalism nation on earth for a reason. They would also know that if there were, many of them would have been left in the dust long ago. Oddly enough, they never turn down their time at the trough, even as they decry the poor and needy theirs.
EVERY successful, prosperous, free, industrialized nation on earth has a system to take care of the poor, elderly, disabled and unemployed. Also for a reason. It is what we are “called” to do.
The worst for me is those who profess to be Christian. They thump a book they neither read nor comprehend. They know that “love thy neighbor” is not defined by them and yet they try mightily to do so.
The next time anyone is tempted to take a right winger seriously, see how many of them post under their actual, real names. They hide in the safety of the internet and Roanoke.com offered anonymity with bile, lies and distortions they would never say publicly and sign their name to. They KNOW what they say is shameful.
The college I lead expresses its values in the following way:
-Openness to the Spirit
-Community
-Simplicity
-Dignity and Respect for all
We believe that our four core values flow from joyful service to all, especially with the needy and underserved.
In my view, that’s not socialistic, but it is in keeping with what you expressed in the article Dave Gresham.
Dave, you must have never had kids…or took time to raise them.
My wife and I have had to TEACH my babies to not take/steal toys, TEACH them not to lie, TEACH them not to bite, TEACH them not to hit. Ask any Mother who doesn’t dump the raising of her children on someone else’s lap..if they had to TEACH these things.
Doesn’t sound to me like ‘treat others as you would want to be treated.’
Socialism, deconstructed, looks a lot like Christianity.
Great Article Dave. Wish I had more time to comment, work is calling. I wish more of us would be honest and realize we have a strong component of socialism in our country. It’s not a bad thing.
When you allow the government to become the charity- they are allowed greater power and begin to abuse it. This experiment you are talking about leads to Communism eventually.
Should we be doing more to help our neighbors? YES!!! The 12-12-12 concert is a great example of ‘treat others’, or ‘Love they neighbor’. I am all for it on a personal, local, and private level.
I am not for the government being a charity, but believe we as individuals need to give and show love to those who are in need. A check from the government doesn’t have ‘love’ behind it.
Liberals need to decide if they want their taxes to go through the government red tape and bureaucracy, before it gets to someone personally.
Or, do they want to deliver it personally I.E.(NYC Cop to barefoot man)….
Which one really represents America?
Ron May,
The values you have expressed are voluntary, I assume. The socialist system extolled by Dave Gresham is not. It’s coerced. In that reality, the poor and needy do not get helped. Look at your own college’s donations. When capitalism is going strong as it was prior to 2007, charities and the poor are helped a lot more. Now that we are entering a socialist era favored by Dave Gresham, how are the poor doing now? How are your donations going now compared to the past?
Socialism is a lie. Only those in power get helped, and you can understand why the leaders push it. Everyone else becomes poorer. I cannot understand why the leftwingers in here cheer for obama’s brand of socialism. You can clearly see it hasn’t worked and won’t work. Common sense tells you the economy cannot improve as long as business (capitalists) are the enemy and the government keeps getting bigger and bigger.
I also find it odd a Catholic college’s core mission statement has been scrubbed of all religious references. No mention of God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Mary. No emphasis on prayer. Nothing spiritual.
I agree with a lot of this article but would like to make the following points in rebuttal:
- For me, government should provide a safety net, not a way of life.
- Since you made the comparison between parents (the well-to-do) and children (the poor), then as parents control many aspects of children’s lives, then the well-to-do should control many aspects of the lives of the poor. Again, your comparison, not mine.
- I don’t believe anyone should pay more than 49.99% in taxes. The majority of a person’s income should belong to them and provide a reward for success.
If right wingers had an ounce of honesty in them. . .Comment by Sandi S
aunders — December 14, 2012 @ 8:10 am
LOL. . .this from a dishonest and liberal. FYI. . .the USA pays out more
in welfare, assistance and benefits to both it’s citizens and foreign citizens (via foreign aid) than any other country in the world because of. . .CAPITALISM. This is really the worst for you Sandi. . .you cannot
deal with honesty or the truth.
“No mention of God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Mary.”
REALLY, suzie? I wonder what this means:
-Openness to the Spirit
Why do always have to lie in your posts?
Unbelievable how may words this articule uses to describe La La Land.
….and, before you spelling police attack….I do know how to spell ”article”.
“Why do YOU always…”
Jeez.
The golden rule is “do to others as they would do unto you” not “do as you want to them”. Government force is not loving and it is not “benevolent” which is why the federal government is limited by the constitution. Pure capitalism allows for full freedom and prosperity because the free market decides everything. The problem is with Crony Capitalism when the government picks winners and losers and everyone suffers.
“I do know how to spell ”article”.
But do you know how to spell “many”?
Dan, be careful. If you continue to allow your blog to be a forum for 911 truthers and proponents of socialism, you might get the reputation of being a crazed left-wing blogger:)
Yes, conservatives and right wingers are “all for it on a personal, local, and private level”, and then when Hurricane Sandy hits, they want the Federal coffers to open and open quickly. I do not have to invent words like Leon does to know that is hypocrisy writ large.
Unfortunately, the scale of the problem calls for a federal response and tax dollars. If private charity was or could do it, the taxpayers would never have needed to. Trying to become the Plutocracy Republicans support will only make problems worse as jobs and wages decrease.
Thanks for the laugh Pistol Pete, no one who reads the right winger comments in here will ever believe that their charity has “‘love’ behind it”!
Unfortunately, the scale of the problem calls for a federal response and tax dollars. If private charity was or could do it, the taxpayers would never have needed to. Trying to become the Plutocracy Republicans support will only make problems worse as jobs and wages decrease.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — December 14, 2012 @ 11:12 am
Lypocrisy. Victims of Sandy are still wondering when FEMA assistance will effectively rendered. . .private charities have, and are delivering.
AS to jobs and wages. . .reckon we can figure out who the losers are there; 8.0 plus unemployment for four years followed by reunelection and a cloud of new layoffs.
For anyone who is interested in what “pure capitalism” is like, I highly recommend the first 2 episodes of The History Channel’s series “The Men Who Built America”.
There’s a word for right wingers that want federal tax dollars, Neocons i.e. Chris Christie.
Wrong Larry. aThe Golden Rule is “Do unto other as you would have them do unto you.” Which is another way of saying “as you want them to do unto you.”
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6%3A31&version=NIV
There ya go!
Ron,
Seriously, can you tell us why there is no mention of God, Jesus, or Mary; or the concept of prayer somewhere in your school’s mission statement? You are missing a golden opportunity to attract and inspire students in a Catholic college. The order of sisters that sponsors the school cite a devotion to Mary. Why did you omit her? God, Jesus, Mary and prayer are so central to Catholic teaching, it’s hard to believe they have been scrubbed.
Mother Teresa said prayer begets faith and faith begets service. Building a strong faith is what fires the furnace of service. Without that faith, the ethic of service isn’t nearly as intense as it could be.
I think you should consider getting the college’s mission statement rewritten. What do you think, Ron?
Socialism, deconstructed, looks a lot like Christianity.
God opposes socialism. Mary said so at Fatima. Socialism, as I demonstrated, is antithetical to Christianity.
Comment by Suzie — December 14, 2012 @ 7:04 pm
Your comments in response to my post at 8:16 a.m. this morning show clearly, once again, that you cannot read.
Dave, I can send you a list of socialistic countries that might like to live in. No one is holding you hostage in the US. What percent of your income are you sharing with others?
Thanks to all of you that had encouraging comments.
I quite agree with Kristen that Socialism deconstructed looks a lot like Christianity, (if taken as what Jesus taught about helping others and not as the businesses that most preachers are running).
The great middle class we had came after we socialized retirement (social security), socialized schools (public education), socialized medicine (for the poor and elderly with Medicare and Medicaid), socialized road and bridge building, socialized land (public parks and federally protected areas), etc.
But after WWII, Europe raced right by us in advancing the family concept of nations, in particular the Scandinavian countries.
And ever since Reagan, we are going backwards, as the wealthy have tripled their incomes while the rest of us lost ground… Now our leaders, that the wealthy own, speak of privatizing schools with vouchers, cutting social security (some even push to privatize that), fight against universal health care (we are the only modern nation without it, yet our costs are double), push to drill and mine all federal lands until nothing pristine is left, etc.
Meanwhile, people like Ed Weaver, whose post puberty education is limited to news outlets that billionaire stockholders control, bark like his masters trained him to whenever anyone tries to undo his neutering.
Dave Gresham, pretty cool post!
I believe in sharing what I have with my family and community. I believe in treating people with dignity and respect. I believe it is dignified and respectful to try and understand another’s point of view – walk a mile in their shoes. I believe in the basic goodness of most people. I believe that the United States is at its greatest when we share the wealth, give of ourselves, and take care of each other.
Call me a socialist. I consider it a compliment.
suzie, of course, can’t answer my question to her. Because she has lied yet again.
Your comments in response to my post at 8:16 a.m. this morning show clearly, once again, that you cannot read.
Ron, I am sorry you are dismissive of my question. I had really hoped for an honest discussion . Yes, the mission statement refers to a “spirit”. But this is a vague homogenization, perhaps meant not to offend the general public. If you are referring to the Holy Spirit, you should come out and say it.
I just think it is misguided to water down the mission statement by taking the “Catholic” out of it. I would assume you are attempting to appeal to a broad pool of potential students and don’t want to alienate non-Catholics. But I think it is a mistake. God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Mary, and prayer are all very powerful in firing up a desire to serve. Not only would your students become more motivated to serve, your school would preserve its Catholic identity. Otherwise you become bland with nothing to set you apart. Kids don’t want bland. They want conviction.
Regardless of what you think of me, I hope you will look past it and consider my advice.
I quite agree with Kristen that Socialism deconstructed looks a lot like Christianity, (if taken as what Jesus taught about helping others and not as the businesses that most preachers are running).
Dave Gresham,
Once again, socialism as practiced bears no relation to Christianity. Christianity involves voluntary giving. Socialism is confiscation of resources.
The socialism you describe doesn’t exist in the real world because it violates human nature. I challenge you to name one “socialist” country in the history of the world that has enabled the average person to prosper to a degree even close to those in the United States.
Name a country in which the poor have as much as they do in capitalist America. Capitalism is the best antidote to poverty.
Tell me how I’m wrong.
SuzieQ, are you certain this wasn’t revealed at Gowdaloop?
SuzieQ, are you certain this wasn’t revealed at Gowdaloop?
Kristen,
I know you’re smarting from my ridicule of your previous misspellings, but I’ve stopped doing that. Couldn’t you give the hyperventilating over my typos a rest?
Just thought I would note Goal #27 of the Communist Party for America which might be relevant here.
“Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”
Hmm.
“107.Gaudaloupe.
The ‘ou’ is a variant. The ‘au’ is a typo. Girl doesn’t make spelling mistakes.
Comment by Suzie — December 13, 2012 @ 10:16 pm ”
Suzie, I’m going to be serving this up to you forever. For. Ever. Own it, babe.
@39 Quality of living by Country:
Rank Country Inquality Adjusted (HDI)
1 Norway 0.88
2 Australia 0.86
3 Sweden 0.82
4 Netherlands 0.82
5 Germany 0.81
6 Switzerland 0.81
7 Ireland 0.81
8 Canada 0.81
9 USA 0.8
10 South Korea 0.73
http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-quality-of-life-map.html
Huh, I see a few socialist countries ahead of US. Go figure.
39 Yep, that’s what I said. I did a typo. I do a lot of them. You’re still seething after the “nickle’ debacle. I understand. I’ve let it go. Can you?
BTW, “Forever” is one word; not two.
Looks like the pro-socialism folks have run out of gas. Dave Gresham can’t even defend his comments. He’s sort of like Al Gore; Makes ridiculous easily disproven claims, then ducks out of all debates.
“Girl doesn’t make spelling mistakes.”
This is a “typo” for “Girl has no remote idea how to spell “Guadaloupe” and is apparently too lazy to use the Google machine to find out.”
And no, I have zero intention of letting this go. What I might do is keep from reposting it right up until the next time you get on someone else for a typo. And then you’ll see it again.
In the future, you might want to talk about saints from places more easily spelled. Paris. Rome. Idaho.
And no, I have zero intention of letting this go. What I might do is keep from reposting it right up until the next time you get on someone else for a typo. And then you’ll see it again.
Yeah, I confess, I typed too fast and got the u and a switched. You caught me red-handed in a typo.
Huh, I see a few socialist countries ahead of US. Go figure.
Not this idiocy again.
“BTW, “Forever” is one word; not two.”
Uhh, it’s certainly permissible to separate it when you’re emphasizing each syllable for effect either in text or speech. I’m sorry you’re not bright enough to see what Kristen was doing.
BTW, I’m also still willing to explain irony to you.
“Not this idiocy again.”
Nothing idiotic. You’ve demanded that people show you socialist countries that work or that have a good standard of living. There they are. No phony justifications from you accepted.
Nothing idiotic. You’ve demanded that people show you socialist countries that work or that have a good standard of living. There they are.
Yawn. For the 100th time, these homogeneous WHITE countries of mostly cool climates and relatively small population are not comparable to our enormous racially mixed geographically large country. Just like you people saying Utah can’t be compared with California. Apples and oranges.
Uhh, it’s certainly permissible to separate it when you’re emphasizing each syllable for effect either in text or speech.
Who says it’s permissible? You? Show us that rule in the Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation.
IMO…socialism does not equate to Christianity. The relationship with God is an individualistic matter; socialism, however, focuses on the collective.
The facts bear Suzie out economically and culturally. We are individuals and by our individual actions either improve our society, or not. Christianity is an example of how one individual man can affect the whole.
The constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights have a focus on the individual. Socialism, communism, or tyranny all put the collective or state first. Capitalism is not perfect but it’s focus is on
the individual making a difference which works…far better than any other
economic model. Freedom of individual action is facilitated by capitalism and thwarted by other economic engines. Freedom, IMO, outweighs any lofty standard of living…oddly…only Capitalism offers both and…also provides more for the collective!
Nothing idiotic. You’ve demanded that people show you socialist countries that work or that have a good standard of living. There they are.
The WHO criteria contains a bunch of gobbledygook that they use to determine “quality of life”, such as a country’s environmental policy. I’m talking about relative wealth, not worthless crap like a country’s global warming policy. My challenge was to cite a country in which the poor have more than our “poor”. You can’t do it.
And since the Stop Suzie Summit has decreed only correct names can be used, my name is Suzie. Not SuzieQ.
I normally wouldn’t care, but since I am not allowed even the slightest variation on the alleged president’s name, you people aren’t allowed to change mine. Violations will be reported and removed. Thanks.
The constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights have a focus on the individual.
Comment by Leon — December 16, 2012 @ 8:12 am
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Don’t see to many indiviudalistic references here, Leon, in the Preamble to the US Constitution. In fact, I see several references to the good of the collective – you know, We the People, perfect Union, common defence, general Welfare.
Could it be, Leon, that our country is great because it fuses, or tries to do so, the best of individualism and socialism?
Nosaj@53. . .think. While the purpose of the constitution is to form a union it would never had been ratified save for the bill of rights which are individual rights. The SC recently affirmed the 2nd amendment as an individual right. The founding fathers had the right perspective.
Suzie@51. . .Suzie is correct. In fact, for WHO researchers, it’s a problem because I have discussed the issue with them. The differences in
poverty in the USA versus other countries in the world are very great to the extent comparing such or studying such is like comparing apples to oranges.
“Suzie is correct. In fact, for WHO researchers, it’s a problem because I have discussed the issue with them. The differences in
poverty in the USA versus other countries in the world are very great to the extent comparing such or studying such is like comparing apples to oranges.”
–Comment by Leon
The U.S. must never be compared to ANY other country; all such comparisons are apples and oranges. Especially we must never compare ourselves to other major industrialized nations in the area of gun deaths.
Leon has discussed the variants of poverty with WHO researchers? Really? Please do explain their methodology and how they determine any nation’s poverty statistics. You having discussed it with them and all.
54.Nosaj@53. . .think. While the purpose of the constitution is to form a union it would never had been ratified save for the bill of rights which are individual rights. The SC recently affirmed the 2nd amendment as an individual right. The founding fathers had the right perspective.
Comment by Leon — December 16, 2012 @ 5:22 pm
Let me see if I can “think” this through, Leon. In order to form a union of United States, our founding fathers saw it necessary to protect the individual rights of the citizens of those United States. In other words, to form a fair and balanced collective, we need to respect certain individual rights. Let me see if I can think of another way to describe this? Hmmmm ….
“Could it be, Leon, that our country is great because it fuses, or tries to do so, the best of individualism and socialism?”
Comment by nosaj — December 16, 2012 @ 4:51 pm
The U.S. must never be compared to ANY other country; all such comparisons are apples and oranges. Especially we must never compare ourselves to other major industrialized nations in the area of gun deaths.
Comment by Dan Casey — December 16, 2012 @ 6:59 pm
Correct
Could it be, Leon, that our country is great because it fuses, or tries to do so, the best of individualism and socialism?”
Comment by nosaj — December 16, 2012 @ 4:51 pm
Comment by nosaj — December 16, 2012 @ 11:06 pm
Not, the USA is not about socialism.
Leon has discussed the variants of poverty with WHO researchers? Really? Please do explain their methodology and how they determine any nation’s poverty statistics. You having discussed it with them and all.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — December 16, 2012 @ 7:06 pm
Is S for Snob your middle initial?
Leon@5:22
Just for your information, the Constitution was written, ratified, adopted, and in effect two years before the first ten amendments known as the Abill of Rights were added. So clearly your statement that the Constitution would never have been ratified without them is incorrect and shows how much of a student of history and the Conmsrtituion you are.
from wikipedia
The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and ratified by conventions in eleven states. It went into effect on March 4, 1789.[2] The first ten constitutional amendments ratified by three-fourths of the states in 1791 are known as the Bill of Rights. The Constitution has been amended seventeen additional times (for a total of 27 amendments) and its principles are applied in courts of law by judicial review.
“Leon,
Just for your information, the Constitution was written, ratified, adopted, and in effect two years before the first ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights were added. So clearly your statement that the Constitution would never have been ratified without them is incorrect and shows how much of a student of history and the Conmsrtituion you are.”
–Comment by dave
This problem is rife on this blog and many others. Just yesterday, a pro-gun guy on Roundtable was putting words in Thomas Jefferson’s mouth that he never uttered or wrote — somebody made them up in 1993.
There are a lot of RWers who make the stuff up as they go along, and then there are many other RWers who swallow that BS hook, line and sinker.
I predict Leon’s false meme that, “OUR FOREFATHERS NEVER WOULD HAVE RATIFIED THE CONSTITUTION WITHOUT THE BILL OF RIGHTS!” is going to grow louder and louder in the future. People such as Leon don’t care whether it’s true or not. It serves their purpose, and there are plenty of stupid people out there who will believe it. This is all part of the Big Lie strategy.
Going out on a limb here, but I think that is why they are called “Amendments”! Wow! Just Wow!
Do you imagine they know when the first gun control measures went into effect?
If only “Snobs” ask for the truth from those hiding in the safety of anonymity and telling less than the truth Leon, then yes, it is.
Leon, forget the tough stuff we have asked you to look at, name ONE, just ONE, industrialized free nation that has no form of socialism in it whatsoever?
I predict Leon’s false meme that, “OUR FOREFATHERS NEVER WOULD HAVE RATIFIED THE CONSTITUTION WITHOUT THE BILL OF RIGHTS!” is going to grow louder and louder in the future. People such as Leon don’t care whether it’s true or not. It serves their purpose, and there are plenty of stupid people out there who will believe it. This is all part of the Big Lie strategy.
Comment by Dan Casey — December 17, 2012 @ 12:48 pm
Dan,
The first ten amendments to the constitution are commonly called the bill of rights. Mass. would not ratify the constitution, as well a number of other states, until amendments were passed to the document. A compromise was reached promising the amendments and resulting in Mass. ratification as well as several other key holdout states. The compromise was called the Mass. Compromise. The amendments were adopted in September 1789 which
resulted in two other holdout states ratifying the constitution.
In summary; my point was true. You are author of the “big lie”.
Understanding that selfish Leon probably still eats holiday meals at the folding table, he is correct, in a way, about the Constitution and Bill of Rights…
Although the Bill of Rights was not formally established until a couple of years after the Constitution was ratified, there was, in fact, a gentleman’s agreement among most of the legislators that a Bill of Rights would follow the Constitution as soon as possible. Had they not done this, the Constitution would not have gotten enough support for passage.
The delay in having a Bill of Rights was caused by some of the finer points still being argued over, even though the bulk of its ideas had been generally agreed on. However, due to the difficulty of travelling in that period, taking the proposed changes back and forth between states for reviewing would have delayed the Constitution’s unveiling by a couple of years. Therefore, they made promises to each other to keep working on, and then pass the Bill of Rights as soon as possible… and they kept their word.
In short, technically, the Bill of Rights came later, but in reality, it was agreed to have one before the Constitution was passed.