Madison: Who should vote?

By -
Madison said that if he thought it would be acceptable to the people when asked to ratify the Constitution, he would favor a freehold requirement [for the right to vote]. "The freeholders of the Country," he held, "would be the safest depositories of Republican liberty." Elaborating on this insight in a characteristically gloomy way, Madison went on: "In future times a great majority of the people will not only be without landed, but without any sort of, property. These will either combine under the influence of their common situation; in which case the rights of property & the public liberty, will not be secure in their hands: or which is more probable, they will become the tools of opulence & ambition, in which case there will be equal danger on another side." -- Kevin Gutzman, James Madison and the Making of America, p. 116

NOTE: when I dictated this passage, Siri wrote: "Elaborating on this insight in a Characteristically Gloomy Way..."

I guess she thought that "Characteristically Gloomy Way" was a street address. It is probably right next to "Morose Circle" and "Suicidal Depression Boulevard."

Comments

  1. Samson Corwell1:17 AM

    "In future times a great majority of the people will not only be without landed, but without any sort of, property."

    He was glaringly wrong there. I wonder what being without "any sort of property" would even look like.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah1:29 AM

      "He was glaringly wrong there."

      Nope. If he were alive today, he would be saying, "Yes, just as I predicted."

      If you can't try to sympathetically imagine what a writer is talking about, you will continually grossly misinterpret what they are saying.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous11:03 AM

      I would say that Madison is ultimately talking about rights, not property per se.

      Delete
  2. Samson Corwell8:47 AM

    "Nope. If he were alive today, he would be saying, 'Yes, just as I predicted.'"

    How so? Would he mean the corporations?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah4:13 PM

      You have to realize he is a classical republican. In classical republicanism, the key to being a solid citizen is independence. So property means property that supports you: a farm, a shop, a merchant vessel, or workshop. This made one independent, not beholden to a "master" (or employer) and capable of exercising citizenship.

      Madison knew everyone who have a shirt and a pair of trousers.

      Delete
    2. scineram2:46 AM

      Why can't an Exxon employee exercise citizenship?

      Delete
  3. gcallah11:41 AM

    Scineram, *I* I'm not saying that an Exxon employee could or couldn't. But Madison, as a classical republican, would not think he would do so well, as he lacks economic independence.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Samson Corwell10:32 PM

    You say that James Madison was a classical republican. Was he also a classical liberal?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more