Happy Independence Day

In a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. If this be not the case, there will be a constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other. This will retard the operations of government, and prevent such conclusions as will promote the public good. If we apply this remark to the condition of the United States, we shall be convinced that it forbids that we should be one government. The United States includes a variety of climates. The productions of the different parts of the union are very variant, and their interests, of consequence, diverse. Their manners and habits differ as much as their climates and productions; and their sentiments are by no means coincident. The laws and customs of the several states are, in many respects, very diverse, and in some opposite; each would be in favor of its own interests and customs, and, of consequence, a legislature, formed of representatives from the respective parts, would not only be too numerous to act with any care or decision, but would be composed of such heterogenous and discordant principles, as would constantly be contending with each other.
--"Brutus", 1787

 

To which I replied: "So, because most of us are ignoramuses, we will elect the best and brightest among us, who then will proceed to loot, terrorize, and murder us. There’s a premise wrong here somewhere. Or is the writer trying to say this: the masses are asses who will elect their own rapists? "

The first two sentences basically state: The "great" can easily outwit the masses, without explicitly defining what is meant by "the great", but implying it is the "the best and brightest" Or, as the next two sentences state, the idiots will choose a tyrant, (I say idiots, because why would the wise choose a tyrant), but seldom if ever, a wise man. Therefore, no matter what, the ultimate result will be oppression either by their betters or by a tyrant.

Now, if he isn't saying the masses can be out thought and are prone to political suicide, then words don't have meanings. And more: How this is an argument against the constitution, whose very purpose and structure are to prevent that exact horror from occurring, escapes me. It appears more to be against Jefferson's belief in the inherent goodness of the people. Perhaps you could enlighten me...well, at least give it a try.

Again, this is what he's saying: Under this constitution, the people will be murdered, raped and looted by their betters, or they will be murdered, raped, and looted by their chosen tyrant. No matter what, they are going to be looted, raped, and murdered, because of the constitution, which was designed to prevent such oppression. Where's the logic? What's his gripe? He doesn't accept that a federal government is necessary to prevent trade wars, copyright infringements, competing armies, competing judicial systems, competing police departments, competing taxes, property right battles, and on, and on, and on?

His fears, though understandable, are still best served by a federation, not a confederation.

 

He aptly named himself, and if read from a certain perspective, argues for a federation.

 

Jefferson didn't support illiberal and conservative means to achieve his political goals. How are you like Jefferson when you call for government to interfere in the lives of others and force others to pay for entitlements?

 

he used government force against england, that interfered in the lives of peaceful men

 

He was also a terrible President. That being said, while he supported a great deal of public access to various institutions, he never called for government to provide them. It is the modern thinking that has led people to conflate public with government.

 

Your interpretation of his words is torturous and fallacious.

 

The opponents of the constitution weren't opposed to a federation per se. They were opposed to a federation that didn't maintain the democratic character of State and local governments.

 

Just exposing the concretes hidden in the abstractions.

You can’t argue that the majority aren’t smart enough not to be exploited by the brilliant few, so therefore we can’t have one federal republican government, but instead we must have many democracies. What is democracy if not the masses being manipulated by populist demagogues, say like Putin, Maduro, Castro, Stalin, Hitler, and many others.

Let’s remember this, the purpose of government is to protect the rights of the individual, not feed the bellies of the masses.