The prescience of James Madison

[KingOrfeo]

"In every political society, parties are unavoidable. A difference of interests, real or supposed, is the most natural and fruitful source of them. The great object should be to combat the evil: 1. By establishing a political equality among all. 2. By withholding unnecessary opportunities from a few, to increase the inequality of property, by an immoderate, and especially an unmerited, accumulation of riches. 3. By the silent operation of laws, which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort. 4. By abstaining from measures which operate differently on different interests, and particularly such as favor one interest at the expence of another. 5. By making one party a check on the other, so far as the existence of parties cannot be prevented, nor their views accommodated. If this is not the language of reason, it is that of republicanism." -- James Madison

 

[KingOrfeo]

"Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784.

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

An individual who is observed to be inconstant to his plans, or perhaps to carry on his affairs without any plan at all, is marked at once, by all prudent people, as a speedy victim to his own unsteadiness and folly. His more friendly neighbors may pity him, but all will decline to connect their fortunes with his; and not a few will seize the opportunity of making their fortunes out of his. One nation is to another what one individual is to another...;
The want of confidence in the public councils damps every useful undertaking, the success and profit of which may depend on a continuance of existing arrangements. What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not but that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed? What farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for the encouragement given to any particular cultivation or establishment, when he can have no assurance that his preparatory labors and advances will not render him a victim to an inconstant government?
Madison, Federalist 62.

What bitter anguish would not the people of Athens have often escaped if their government had contained so provident a safeguard against the tyranny of their own passions? Popular liberty might then have escaped the indelible reproach of decreeing to the same citizens the hemlock on one day and statues on the next.
Madison Federalist 63

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

A bad cause seldom fails to betray itself.
Madison, Federalist 41.

They [the citizens and members of the Constitutional Convention] have seen, too, that one legislative interference is but the first link of a long chain of repetitions, every subsequent interference being naturally produced by the effects of the preceding.
Madison, Federalist 44

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security.
Madison, Federalist 45

As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn.
Madison Federalist 63

EVERY GOVERNMENT OUGHT TO CONTAIN IN ITSELF THE MEANS OF ITS OWN PRESERVATION.
Madison Federalist 59

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It is evident that the Senate must be first corrupted before it can attempt an establishment of tyranny. Without corrupting the State legislatures, it cannot prosecute the attempt, because the periodical change of members would otherwise regenerate the whole body. Without exerting the means of corruption with equal success on the House of Representatives, the opposition of that coequal branch of the government would inevitably defeat the attempt; and without corrupting the people themselves, a succession of new representatives would speedily restore all things to their pristine order.
Madison Federalist 63


Hello Harry "Just Say No to Everything" Reid.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Meanwhile, the Democrats conspire to establish tyranny:

On the surface this seems to buck the conventional wisdom. One would expect the chief executive to be proposing this idea over the screaming opposition of Congress. But the tables are turned. “I have talked to my lawyers,” Barack Obama said calmly in 2011, and “they are not persuaded that that is a winning argument.”

This position apparently remains unchanged. In December of 2012, Jay Carney confirmed to reporters that the White House “does not believe that the 14th Amendment gives the president the power to ignore the debt ceiling — period.” As recently as last month, National Economic Council director Gene Sperling explained that the administration has “never found that there was such extraordinary authority.”

Members of Congress, meanwhile, seem to be thrilled by the idea of having their roles usurped. “I think the 14th Amendment covers it,” a blasé Nancy Pelosi told reporters in late September. “The president and I have a disagreement in that regard, I guess!” In 2011, Harry Reid made it clear that he has a “disagreement,” too. “We believe you must be willing to take any lawful steps to ensure that America does not break its promises and trigger a global economic crisis,” Reid wrote — and “without congressional approval, if necessary.” Among a host of other members of Congress who think that the 14th Amendment is “an option that should seriously be considered” is retiring Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus.

Given this president’s shaky commitment to the constitutional limits on his power, it is difficult to believe that he is here demonstrating a virtuous restraint. Instead, one suspects, he is playing political hardball, adding publicly to the sense that the stakes are real and lending credibility to the suspicion that a grave crisis is brewing. After all, to imply that he could just step in if necessary would be to take the pressure off Congress.

Charles C. W. Cooke, NRO

 

[Dazzle1]

"In every political society, parties are unavoidable. A difference of interests, real or supposed, is the most natural and fruitful source of them. The great object should be to combat the evil: 1. By establishing a political equality among all. 2. By withholding unnecessary opportunities from a few, to increase the inequality of property, by an immoderate, and especially an unmerited, accumulation of riches. 3. By the silent operation of laws, which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort. 4. By abstaining from measures which operate differently on different interests, and particularly such as favor one interest at the expence of another. 5. By making one party a check on the other, so far as the existence of parties cannot be prevented, nor their views accommodated. If this is not the language of reason, it is that of republicanism." -- James Madison

James Madison may have been the best example of the leader of a political hit machine.

What he did to a great man like John Adams through the press was reprehensible.

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

Meanwhile, the Democrats conspire to establish tyranny:


Charles C. W. Cooke, NRO

When the right wingnuts invoke "tyranny" "freedom" "totalitarian" or "liberty" in a post, you've won.
-RobDownSouth

 

[JohnnySavage]

“Sometimes the questions are complicated and the answers are simple.”
― Dr. Seuss

 

[Byron In Exile]

“Sometimes the questions are complicated and the answers are simple.”
― Dr. Seuss

Lol...

 

[KingOrfeo]

What we can take away from reading Madison is encapsulated in this little quote:

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

James Madison

Exactly. Madison was no biggummint socialist. Neither was Jefferson. But even they saw the value of redistributive taxation and the danger of concentrations of wealth.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Exactly. Madison was no biggummint socialist. Neither was Jefferson. But even they saw the value of redistributive taxation and the danger of concentrations of wealth.

Y'know, I actually got that point. I was wondering if anyone else did, and reading the subsequent comments, I doubt that very much.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Y'know, I actually got that point. I was wondering if anyone else did, and reading the subsequent comments, I doubt that very much.

Probably not. But, at least we can save this to throw in the contards' faces next time one quotes/invokes Madison or Jefferson.

 

[KingOrfeo]

“Sometimes the questions are complicated and the answers are simple.”
― Dr. Seuss

For instance, America's health-funding problems are complicated, and the best answer would be something much simpler than the ACA, to wit, Canuckistani-style single-payer.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Thomas Paine:

"Every proprietor, therefore, of cultivated lands, owes to the community ground-rent (for I know of no better term to express the idea) for the land which he holds; and it is from this ground-rent that the fund prod in this plan is to issue.
"The property owners owe rent to those who do not own property for the privilege of cultivating the land, and taking away the natural ownership that all people have."

"Cultivation is at least one of the greatest natural improvements ever made by human invention. It has given to created earth a tenfold value. But the landed monopoly that began with it has produced the greatest evil. It has dispossessed more than half the inhabitants of every nation of their natural inheritance, without providing for them, as ought to have been done, an indemnification for that loss, and has thereby created a species of poverty and wretchedness that did not exist before."

"In advocating the case of the persons thus dispossessed, it is a right, and not a charity, that I am pleading for. But it is that kind of right which, being neglected at first, could not be brought forward afterwords till heaven had opened the way by a revolution in the system of government. Let us then do honor to revolutions by justice, and give currency to their principles by blessings."

"Taking it then for granted that no person ought to be in a worse condition when born under what is called a state of civilization, than he would have been had he been born in a state of nature, and that civilization ought to have made, and ought still to make, provision for that purpose, it can only be done by subtracting from property a portion equal in value to the natural inheritance it has absorbed.
"Various methods may be proposed for this purpose, but that which appears to be the best is at the moment that property is passing by the death of one person to the possession of another. In this case, the bequeather gives nothing: the receiver pays nothing. The only matter to him is that the monopoly of natural inheritance, to which there never was a right, begins to cease in his person. A generous man would not wish it to continue, and a just man will rejoice to see it abolished."

"It is not charity but a right, not bounty but justice, that I am pleading for. The present state of civilization is as odious as it is unjust. It is absolutely the opposite of what it should be, and it is necessary that a revolution should be made in it. The contrast of affluence and wretchedness continually meeting and offending the eye, is like dead and living bodies chained together. Though I care as little about riches as any man, I am a friend to riches because they are capable of good."

"There are, in every country, some magnificent charities established by individuals. It is, however, but little that any individual can do, when the whole extent of the misery to be relieved is considered. He may satisfy his conscience, but not his heart. He may give all that he has, and that all will relieve but little. It is only by organizing civilization upon such principles as to act like a system of pulleys, that the whole weight of misery can be removed."

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Not anywhere to the point where they would support the taxing and redistribution schemes of Democrats today.

You know this because of your close personal relationship with him or because that's how YOU THINK he would feel?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Not anywhere to the point where they would support the taxing and redistribution schemes of Democrats today.

No, they would be dissatisfied with our present tax system, because it does not "reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity" nor "raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort."

 

[KingOrfeo]

You know this because of your close personal relationship with him or because that's how YOU THINK he would feel?

Only RWs are psychic enough to channel the Founding Fathers, you know that.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

interesting

 

[KingOrfeo]

They'd hang your socialist ass in about two minutes.

Only Adams. Less said of him the better.