It would be odd indeed, if a nation steeped in Calvinist doctrines of total depravity was not influenced by this.
I am fully aware that the 19th century argument for limited government was in part motivated by the Calvinist understanding of original sin. As you surely know, not all Founders shared this view, and to be sure, some fractions believed in it more than others did. Recall, in this vein, Cecilia Kenyon's
Men of Little Faith - one of the most seminal articles on the birth of the Constitution, and Akhil Reed Amar's monography on the Bill of Rights. To sum it up, here, the Federalists bought into this view to a greater extent than the opposition (some of the Anti-Federalists expressed doubts). To say Calvinist views of original sin dictated (rather than influenced) the formation of the Constitution would be stretching the historical truth.
Furthermore, classical-liberal thought continued to evolve after the Founders. Adam Smith and Edmond Spencer, for example, expressed a greater belief in the competence of individual men than the Founders did, and certainly much more than, say, Hamilton did (who was a truly creepy fellow).
But give a man ultimate power over another man (without, or sometimes even with, the bonds of paternal love or previous friendship), and the man's fallen nature becomes apparent in most cases.
I do not feel that I am inherently fallen. I feel that I am a good person and so are you.
Regardless, I feel that power offers man three kinds of corruption. The obvious kinds are there - the ability to rule over other men or to accept bribes or otherwise manipulate the office for one's own personal gain - but I feel the most insidious immorality occurs when men believe that they need more power to help other people, that other people need their help forced on them , not from these.
I studied with a young lady who volunteered with the Israeli equivalent of your Child Protection Services. She was convinced that her agency needed more and more power to seize children from their parents, that it was always better to remove a child from a family than otherwise. In fact, she thought the American notion of having to go before a court before seizing a child in all cases where a child was not in immediate danger of harm to be ridiculous. She did not understand at all when I pointed out that she may not be the best arbiter of what's good for other people's children.
[It is to be said here that where I live, this agency is a LOT more abusive than its American equivalent].
Was she evil? Was she corrupt? No, she genuinely wanted to help children. Yet in her desire to help those children she, and others like her, ruined many families too. Multiply it by thousands of people who genuinely want to help out, and a small fraction who are really evil or corrupt (who are surely few), and you get modern big government.
I apologize for not answering your and grampster's post in more detail. I am currently at Ben-Gurion Airport, waiting for 2swap to arrive from Germany, and my battery is running out. I will post more tomorrow or later today, and hopefully will be able to provide you with more detailed references and maybe even footnotes. :D
