I listened to a set of lectures from the Teaching Company a while back on the debates that occurred when the United States ratified its constitution. The opponents made all sorts of slippery-slope arguments: that there would be a standing army, that the federal government would grow past it's ability to pay (which the supporters actually acknowledged), that the Congress would become politicians for life, and so on.
At the time, these guys were dismissed as being totally wacko (my words, not the lecturer's). What kind of ridiculous slippery-slope arguments were these guys making, anyway?
Of course, all of these predictions did come true, it just took a long time. But when they were made it was all too easy to discount them as being far-fetched. This trend in public discourse continues to this day.
If a founding principal of the United States was that legislators shouldn't become politicians for life, the US Constitution could have included term limits for the legislative branch. How seriously are we to take the "debates that occurred when the United States ratified the Constitution"? The opinions expressed in those debates aren't laws.
> I listened to a set of lectures from the Teaching Company a while back on the debates that occurred when the United States ratified its constitution.
I'd like to listen to these lectures. Please try to remember what they're called. Thanks!
At the time, these guys were dismissed as being totally wacko (my words, not the lecturer's). What kind of ridiculous slippery-slope arguments were these guys making, anyway?
Of course, all of these predictions did come true, it just took a long time. But when they were made it was all too easy to discount them as being far-fetched. This trend in public discourse continues to this day.