Empire of Liberty Chs 10-16

Pratt remarks on the self interestedness of the founders, especially the interplay between Hamilton and Jefferson. It is interesting because it shows the internal contradictions we each experience at times. The debate between Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans was very vitriolic during the late 18th Century. But, it is a debate that has continued until today when we have the tea party versus the progressives. I suspect there will always be those who believe they are especially enlightened and should dictate how others behave. Will there always be those who believe in individual liberty?

Pratt mentions that he did not realize the importance of the non-aggression provision; it is along with private property rights the basis of morality. It is crucial. Both Jewish and Christian faiths are based on the non aggression principal -- consider the Golden Rule and the comparable statement in the Torah.

Chapters 11-13 are crucial reads. They lay out the idea of judicial review and how it came about. Perhaps the worst Supreme Court Chief Justice was Marshall -- he established and created the idea of judicial review. As Pratt noted, neither Jefferson nor Hamilton thought much of an independent judiciary; they surely had not idea of what judicial review would mean.

p. 467 "...many Americans retained a republican faith in the power of government to promote the public good."
"Individuals may have had rights but the public had rights as well -- rights that grew out of the sovereignty of the state and its legitimate power to police the society."
This is Wood's interpretation of the results of the expansion of corporate charters and local government. I do not see where he obtains the view that many americans had this faith in government and I definitely do not see how this is a republican view.

p. 471 "Americans knew that the mode of government in any nation will alwyas be moulded by the state of education."...."If Americans were to sustain their republican experiment and remain a free and independent people, tey must be taught not just their rights but also their duties as citizens. They must be educated in their moral obligations to the community." This seems to be Wood's view; I do not see it justified by stateements of founders. What is the moral obligation to the community -- isn't it the non-aggression principle?

p. 473 "Most of the educational reformers in these years were less interested in releasing the talents of individuals than, as Benjamin Rush put it, in rendering 'the mass of the people more homogeneous' in order 'fit them more easily for uniform and peaceable government.'" Sounds like brainwashing to me. Sounds like socialsim as well as Mao, Stalin, and Hitler youth training organizations.

The pp 485-end of chapter are very interesting. They detail the private nature of roads and canals and the rent seeking that went on to gain corporate charters. They also detail how the private voluntary charitable societies emerged. In The Voluntary City, there is a great chapter on the friendly societies and how government took them over. The history of penitentiaries is also interesting.

I find the chapter on slavery rather boring.