8 votes

Founding Fathers of the Future

I’m working on a story which presents me with an opportunity to reflect on the founder’s intentions and ideals. What if a thousand years into the future another revolutionary war was fought? What if the people who fought it had the example of the founders AND the mistakes made along the way and were high-minded enough to attempt the grand experiment again?

To Put it simply, I’m trying to explore “What would the Founding Fathers have done differently, had they the ability to foresee the path that the country eventually took? ”

I already outlined a few questions and possible answers for myself. I’m curious if anyone else has more...

Continued at:

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Great book idea, this may be of help

it is like a new federalist papers (or maybe even anti-federalist papers) with lessons learned. It has specific things that ought to be done differently to keep power from being re-centralized. http://www.amazon.com/Localism-A-Philosophy-Government-ebook...

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)

Ooooh I'll definitely look

Ooooh I'll definitely look into it.

my thoughts

I would hope that next time, the right of secession is included in the bill of rights. All states, municipalities, individuals must have this right recognized by a restrained government.

I would like to see it forbidden for politicians to be afforded any measure of protection against harm while within our own borders, except what they purchase themselves. Perhaps if the risk of being shot were real, they would attempt to mitigate that risk by not pissing off the people so much.

No law passed that doesn't apply to politicians.

Police can not carry firearms while on duty, only permitted to store them inside the trunk of their car for times when necessary such as responding to a bank robbery.

All citizens allowed to carry and own firearms everywhere, any time, hy any means chosen, to include military-grade hardware and including minors with parent permission.

Central banks forbidden. Lobbyists forbidden. Receiving money from businesses while in office forbidden.


Thats an impressive list of

Thats an impressive list of restraints... what if we take it a step further... what if any law that a politician makes were to apply only to the governing class for the first year. So for example, want a tax hike? Fine but, you have to abide by it first and in fully disclosed view. Make their lives constantly scrutinized while in office.

That way they know exactly what they are inflicting on others before they confirm it for the rest of the populace.

There are a couple of points

There are a couple of points I would like to make:

1)For those who bother to look into it, slavery isn't an albatross around Jefferson's neck. Those who looked into it understand that Jefferson wasn't permitted by Virginia law to allow 'his' inherited slaves to go free. He was forced to keep his slaves or he would be going to jail.

2) Ben Franklin saw to it that both Jefferson and Adams where not even on the continent when the convention was being held to Amend the Articles of Confederation. Franklin promised the Anti-Federalists to be on their side, while he also promised that he would be on the side of the Federalists. To live up to his promises Mr. Franklin paved the way at the convention for the Federalists to propose the Virginia Plan, and then when the Anti-Federalists apposed the plan, Mr. Franklin would support their efforts leaving a divided congress. This afforded Mr. Franklin the situation to propose a compromise -a whole new document. A document which both Mr. Adams and Mr. Jefferson would have no control of the contents there of.

Franklin was quite the crafty

Franklin was quite the crafty devil it seems. Thanks for clarifying thingg a bit for me.

Bump 1 of 3 for more thoughts

Bump 1 of 3 for more thoughts and ideas!

Bump 2 of 3 for a bit of

Bump 2 of 3 for a bit of lovin'

Final Bump for any eyes that

Final Bump for any eyes that missed it and mouths that have a pertinent opinion.

This post

will look into it

will look into it


involuntary taxation. "Fair" taxation ultimately founded the efforts to undermine the constitution. The money has to be taken out of the system.

Please elaborate on your

Please elaborate on your statement its a bit too rushed to fully comprehend. Are you suggesting a different taxation method? I'd love to hear it more fleshed out.


I was taken by surprise by canucksforpaul2's further elaboration [the comment below], all good stuff but... The "fair" tax comment above was interesting, because Franklin was the fiat currency genius. The money question wasn't yet settled, and Franklin favored a fluctuating issue of paper bills. In the big picture, taxation is a means to extinguish bills and contract money supply.

The question though, is did

The question though, is did he see the result of the Continental and did it affect his belief in fiat currency?

yes and no

He certainly saw the results, but he deemed the currency's failings as legislative failure to enact a proper system of taxation [and/or bond market]. As such, he advocated for an adequate system of taxation and bond market. With this in mind, we can now understand The Philosopher's above comment, that he had one foot in the Federalist's [Hamilton's] camp and was happy to have Jefferson in France as they sorted these things out.

So he was in many ways an

So he was in many ways an unrepentant paper pusher... Well I guess nobody is perfect...

Ok. I'm not supper constitution savvy but,

I think fairly good restrictions were applied to the constitution to limit the ability of the government to raise revenue or buy stuff in the hopes that it wouldn't get out of hand. 2/3rds majorities, presidential approval, and separations of powers. Basically it was set up so that it would take considerable collusion before moneys could get relocated for anything that didn't have tremendous support. (article1, section 7). But, congress has the power to collect taxes. It was meant to be a limitation on the federal government, but where is the limitation on congress? A legal means to take wealth creates an atmosphere that favors collusion, even if a large majority of separate bodies have to fall in line, there's no rebuke from the people. Worst than that, once these cooperative and exploitative channels are open, then they can self fund their re-elections and enrich the system with more people willing to operate in the same fashion. So, I think you have to be able to withdraw funds completely. The involuntary nature of paying for services that you don't want, or that actually act against you, seems like the best way to curtail a system that ultimately just uses you as livestock on their tax farm. If a program or service isn't good or effective enough to raise voluntary support on its own, it is unlikely that it could genuinely be a net benefit for everyone, particularly if it requires force to get it done. So, even if there was good intent, involuntary taxation will tend towards over taxation and too big of a margin for using those exploits for bad.

Well I guess in the future it

Well I guess in the future it could be sold as a bill of goods in the literal sense rather then the current negate sense. You use water, you use power here are your taxes based on usages kind of scenario... Interesting...

It's a little more equitable too for people that might

come up short. If you voluntarily pay for serves, such as we do for telephone service or something, and you happen to go broke and can't make payment, you can stop the service, negotiate some sort of an agreement or just get cut off. The phone company stops providing a service you can't afford anymore and then comes after you for just what you owe. So, the losses get mitigated from both sides. The service provider stops taking a loss and the buyer gets to reorient their life and prioritize with what they can afford and only have to pay the debts already incurred. But when the government charges you taxes for services and you can't pay, because you lose your job or go senile with old age, you can't just cut off the services to help mitigate your damages. They just pile it on and compound it until they foreclose on your home or garnish your wages in perpetuity.

Very interestng point of

Very interestng point of view. A safety net of sorts.