Harmony Central Forums
Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Libertarians: Jefferson was NOT the only founder

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse









X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Libertarians: Jefferson was NOT the only founder

    Some of the political right needs a serious revision of their knowledge of the history of their own nation. You can believe in small government and oppose the state in whatever form you wish. Just please stop pretending...

    A. ...that all of the founders were unanimously in agreement with classical liberalism, believing in a small government. The Federalists led by Alexander Hamilton, were pro-business protectionists. They believed in developing the nation's export industry by protecting its own market from being outcompeted by British manufacturers, but also using the federal government to subsidise industry and improve the nation's infrastructure. He clashed with the Jeffersonians over this, and guess who won? Did America stay as a country of small farmers with minimal government as Jefferson envisioned? No, it became the foremost industrial superpower by the end of the century after almost a century of the highest tariffs in the world.

    B. ...that they were principled men that believed in civil liberties at all times. George Washington was primarily sympathetic to his Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton, over his Secretary of State, Jefferson. The cabinet was polarized between these two figures, and trusting Hamilton, he carried out the Whiskey excise tax as a means of paying off the national debt. He didn't cut spending, but he tried to raise tax revenues; a major violation of the free market.

    What did John Adams do? He violated the Bill of Rights by passing the Alien and Sedition Act. Democratic-Republicans in some of the states, who saw this as a violation of their civil liberties and sovereignty, refused to enforce this. Adams responded to that by threatening to send the army to them, so they had to capitulate. Again, another case of big government.

    What about Jefferson? Well not to mention his aggressive policies of federal-guided ethnic cleansing of Native American tribes, he also violated free trade by his embargo against Britain and France during the Napoleonic Wars. Before his presidency, every state was in charge of their military. Under Jefferson begun the effort to create a national armed forces, starting with the need to intervene against the Barbary pirates, leading to the creation of West Point. All of this shows that not even Mr. Libertarian actually principally carry out his ideologies, or so as he is portrayed as today as a blueprint of Ron Paul.

    Madison later capitulated to Congress by agreeing to the necessity of a national bank by rechartering the Bank of the United States 2.0. Interestingly, he was actually active in opposing efforts by those like Henry Clay to pass subsidies and public works on improving America's infrastructure. But he failed.

    C. ...that they were exceptional superhumans that has opinions that were so relevant, they applied to all periods. This, of course, is if you accept the premise that they were all in agreement with each other (which, as I demonstrated in A, they were not). The fact that they passed the second amendment is no indicator that the same principles should be applied now. If you advocate gun ownership, "it's in the goddamn Constitution" is not a real argument for that case. In the end, the founders were a bunch of wealthy intellectuals, a mixture of the early bourgeoisie and quasi-aristocratic slave owners. And the fact that they intended something does not make that opinion more relevant than anything. The original constitution has been violated over and over again by future governments, and just because you do so it doesn't mean Jefferson is going to rise up from the dead to choke you to death

     

     

     

     

     

    Originally Posted by Noam Chomsky


    Whenever you hear anything said very confidently, the first thing that should come to mind is, wait a minute is that true?

  • #2

    Most modern conservatives sadly have no real understanding of history and of the founding.

    The founding fathers were not of one mind and the Constitution was not a document born out of divine inspiration that they all agreed was magical and perfect.

    It was a document born out of political compromise.  The best that could be crafted so that all the colonies could agree to ratify.  Many of the founders refused to sign it because they didn't agree with it.

    Jefferson wasn't even around for the convention.  He was off in France at the time suffering from the liberal indoctrination the French subject everyone to.

    Most of the what passes of conservative accounting of the founding are greatly exageratted and idealized fictions.   Then again, they've almost completely re-written the history of Reagan and he's barely been out of office for 25 years.  They've had over 200 years to rewrite the founding.

    _________________________________________________
    band websites:
    http://www.JumpStartYourParty.com
    https://www.gigmasters.com/Rock/Jump-Start
    https://www.facebook.com/JumpStartYourParty
    http://www.weddingwire.com/biz/jumps...587fe5f12.html

    Comment


    • Alndln3
      Alndln3 commented
      Editing a comment

      Was Ted Nugent another one?


    • radomu
      radomu commented
      Editing a comment

      guido61 wrote:

      Most modern conservatives sadly have no real understanding of history and of the founding.

      The founding fathers were not of one mind and the Constitution was not a document born out of divine inspiration that they all agreed was magical and perfect.

      It was a document born out of political compromise.  The best that could be crafted so that all the colonies could agree to ratify.  Many of the founders refused to sign it because they didn't agree with it.

      Jefferson wasn't even around for the convention.  He was off in France at the time suffering from the liberal indoctrination the French subject everyone to.

      Most of the what passes of conservative accounting of the founding are greatly exageratted and idealized fictions.   Then again, they've almost completely re-written the history of Reagan and he's barely been out of office for 25 years.  They've had over 200 years to rewrite the founding.


      Indeed, when the French Third Republic allied with the autocratic Russian Empire against Germany in 1914, many radical democrats in France questioned the principled basis of a democratic France fighting alongside an absolutist agriarian superstate.

      No such consideration was made when America fought a Parliamentary Monarchy like Britain with France, which was ruled by an Absolute Monarchy. In the end, it's about opportunism, not principle. And the founders, like any other politician of any other time, were acting upon opportunity, and it became useful to completely plagerize the political philosophy of British Whigs like Locke and claim it as their own philsophy.


    • prolurkerguy
      prolurkerguy commented
      Editing a comment

      guido61 wrote:

      Most modern conservatives sadly have no real understanding of history and of the founding.



      Most Americans, I would venture to say.


  • #3

    radomu wrote:

    Some of the political right needs a serious revision of their knowledge of the history of their own nation. You can believe in small government and oppose the state in whatever form you wish. Just please stop pretending...

    A. ...that all of the founders were unanimously in agreement with classical liberalism, believing in a small government. The Federalists led by Alexander Hamilton, were pro-business protectionists. They believed in developing the nation's export industry by protecting its own market from being outcompeted by British manufacturers, but also using the federal government to subsidise industry and improve the nation's infrastructure. He clashed with the Jeffersonians over this, and guess who won? Did America stay as a country of small farmers with minimal government as Jefferson envisioned? No, it became the foremost industrial superpower by the end of the century after almost a century of the highest tariffs in the world.

    B. ...that they were principled men that believed in civil liberties at all times. George Washington was primarily sympathetic to his Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton, over his Secretary of State, Jefferson. The cabinet was polarized between these two figures, and trusting Hamilton, he carried out the Whiskey excise tax as a means of paying off the national debt. He didn't cut spending, but he tried to raise tax revenues; a major violation of the free market.

    What did John Adams do? He violated the Bill of Rights by passing the Alien and Sedition Act. Democratic-Republicans in some of the states, who saw this as a violation of their civil liberties and sovereignty, refused to enforce this. Adams responded to that by threatening to send the army to them, so they had to capitulate. Again, another case of big government.

    What about Jefferson? Well not to mention his aggressive policies of federal-guided ethnic cleansing of Native American tribes, he also violated free trade by his embargo against Britain and France during the Napoleonic Wars. Before his presidency, every state was in charge of their military. Under Jefferson begun the effort to create a national armed forces, starting with the need to intervene against the Barbary pirates, leading to the creation of West Point. All of this shows that not even Mr. Libertarian actually principally carry out his ideologies, or so as he is portrayed as today as a blueprint of Ron Paul.

    Madison later capitulated to Congress by agreeing to the necessity of a national bank by rechartering the Bank of the United States 2.0. Interestingly, he was actually active in opposing efforts by those like Henry Clay to pass subsidies and public works on improving America's infrastructure. But he failed.

    C. ...that they were exceptional superhumans that has opinions that were so relevant, they applied to all periods. This, of course, is if you accept the premise that they were all in agreement with each other (which, as I demonstrated in A, they were not). The fact that they passed the second amendment is no indicator that the same principles should be applied now. If you advocate gun ownership, "it's in the goddamn Constitution" is not a real argument for that case. In the end, the founders were a bunch of wealthy intellectuals, a mixture of the early bourgeoisie and quasi-aristocratic slave owners. And the fact that they intended something does not make that opinion more relevant than anything. The original constitution has been violated over and over again by future governments, and just because you do so it doesn't mean Jefferson is going to rise up from the dead to choke you to death

     

     

     

     

     


     

     

     

     

    You could have just said this:

     

     


    guido61 wrote:

     

    Jefferson wasn't even around for the convention.  He was off in France at the time suffering from the liberal indoctrination the French subject everyone to.

     


     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalism#Noted_Anti-Federalists

    Comment


  • #4
    ...

    Comment


    • #5
      Not only was Jefferson not the only founder, he also didn't actually say half of the **************** the gun nuts are quoting him as saying.


      "All gun owners jerk it to guns and ammo magazine and blow donkeys in their spare time. All of 'em"
      -Albert Schweitzer

      Comment


      • Floyd Rosenbomb
        Floyd Rosenbomb commented
        Editing a comment

        BA.Barcolounger wrote:
        Not only was Jefferson not the only founder, he also didn't actually say half of the **************** the gun nuts are quoting him as saying.


         

         

        I think the error rate was more like 15%, not half.

         

         

         


    • #6
      Rad: Whatever their individual ideas may have been, they created a Constitution which granted to the central government precious few powers and reserved most to the people and states.

      The Constitution has been turned on its head, and rather than limit the power of government, it is now used to limit the people and provides nearly. unlimited power to the government, usurping the powers reserved to the people and states.

      So prattle on about the founders.

      Comment


      • #7
        Jerry Fulwell also said that the constitution does not allow the government to give gays the right to marry. It's the same logic as the ones that you libertarians love to use.
        Originally Posted by Noam Chomsky


        Whenever you hear anything said very confidently, the first thing that should come to mind is, wait a minute is that true?

        Comment


        • mauser
          mauser commented
          Editing a comment

          radomu wrote:
          Jerry Fulwell also said that the constitution does not allow the government to give gays the right to marry. It's the same logic as the ones that you libertarians love to use.

          The Constitution grants to the central government no powers at all with regards to marriage, which means it's an issue for the states to deal with as they see fit.

          And the government doesn't give us rights.  It protects them, or at least, is supposed to.


      • #8

        radomu wrote:

        Some of the political right needs a serious revision of their knowledge of the history of their own nation. You can believe in small government and oppose the state in whatever form you wish. Just please stop pretending...

        A. ...that all of the founders were unanimously in agreement with classical liberalism, believing in a small government. The Federalists led by Alexander Hamilton, were pro-business protectionists. They believed in developing the nation's export industry by protecting its own market from being outcompeted by British manufacturers, but also using the federal government to subsidise industry and improve the nation's infrastructure. He clashed with the Jeffersonians over this, and guess who won? Did America stay as a country of small farmers with minimal government as Jefferson envisioned? No, it became the foremost industrial superpower by the end of the century after almost a century of the highest tariffs in the world.

        B. ...that they were principled men that believed in civil liberties at all times. George Washington was primarily sympathetic to his Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton, over his Secretary of State, Jefferson. The cabinet was polarized between these two figures, and trusting Hamilton, he carried out the Whiskey excise tax as a means of paying off the national debt. He didn't cut spending, but he tried to raise tax revenues; a major violation of the free market.

        What did John Adams do? He violated the Bill of Rights by passing the Alien and Sedition Act. Democratic-Republicans in some of the states, who saw this as a violation of their civil liberties and sovereignty, refused to enforce this. Adams responded to that by threatening to send the army to them, so they had to capitulate. Again, another case of big government.

        What about Jefferson? Well not to mention his aggressive policies of federal-guided ethnic cleansing of Native American tribes, he also violated free trade by his embargo against Britain and France during the Napoleonic Wars. Before his presidency, every state was in charge of their military. Under Jefferson begun the effort to create a national armed forces, starting with the need to intervene against the Barbary pirates, leading to the creation of West Point. All of this shows that not even Mr. Libertarian actually principally carry out his ideologies, or so as he is portrayed as today as a blueprint of Ron Paul.

        Madison later capitulated to Congress by agreeing to the necessity of a national bank by rechartering the Bank of the United States 2.0. Interestingly, he was actually active in opposing efforts by those like Henry Clay to pass subsidies and public works on improving America's infrastructure. But he failed.

        C. ...that they were exceptional superhumans that has opinions that were so relevant, they applied to all periods. This, of course, is if you accept the premise that they were all in agreement with each other (which, as I demonstrated in A, they were not). The fact that they passed the second amendment is no indicator that the same principles should be applied now. If you advocate gun ownership, "it's in the goddamn Constitution" is not a real argument for that case. In the end, the founders were a bunch of wealthy intellectuals, a mixture of the early bourgeoisie and quasi-aristocratic slave owners. And the fact that they intended something does not make that opinion more relevant than anything. The original constitution has been violated over and over again by future governments, and just because you do so it doesn't mean Jefferson is going to rise up from the dead to choke you to death

         

         

         

         

         

         

         

         

         

         

         

         

        you gonna educate us, japanese boy?

         

         

         


        Comment


        • #9
          Guido: Actually, you didn't. Lincoln had no legal basis upon which to end slavery, and he said as much.

          And there's nothing here that really matters, to be honest.

          Comment


          • guido61
            guido61 commented
            Editing a comment

            mauser wrote:
            Guido: Actually, you didn't. Lincoln had no legal basis upon which to end slavery, and he said as much.

            And there's nothing here that really matters, to be honest.

            How did Lincoln illegally end slavery?

            If you're talking about the Emancipation Proclamation, I already explained to you:  that didn't end slavery.  It was an executive order It instructed the US Army and others in the executive branch to treat blacks they came across during the course of the war while in the south as free men.   This would have been an obvious necessity during wartime, otherwise...what? Were they to treat blacks as confiscated property of the enemy?

            And it didn't apply to the 4 slave states that didn't seceed.  Or to Tennessee which had mostly returned to the Union by the time the EP was issued. Slavery remained legal in those states.

            If he said he knew he had no legal basis to end slavery, that's good because he didn't do it.    True, there is wording within the EP about declaring slavery being ended with the rebellion states but that obviously was just rhetoric.  We were at war with those states at the time.  That would have been has effective as Bush or Obama issuing a proclamation declaring all women have full rights under the Taliban.

            Or are you talking about something else you think Lincoln did to free the slaves?


          • splatbass
            splatbass commented
            Editing a comment

            mauser wrote:
            Guido: Actually, you didn't. Lincoln had no legal basis upon which to end slavery, and he said as much.

            And there's nothing here that really matters, to be honest.

            Lincoln didn't actually free any slaves until the constitution was amended. The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the states that had seceded, which he had no legal authority over at the time. So your point is ridiculous.


        • #10
          Mauser brings the lulz again.
          "Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."“Conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they will lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money.”― George Carlin"The founding fathers were well aware of rapid firing capabilities by the indians." - NormH

          Comment


          • sirfun
            sirfun commented
            Editing a comment

            LithiumZero wrote:
            Mauser brings the lulz again.

            Succession from the Union, violates the first sentence of The Constitution !!

             

            Mauser- What does Posterity mean ??


        • #11

          Henry\_Nestle.jpg

          Henri Nestl

          Attached Files

          Comment


          • #12
            It's a meaningless thing to associate any of the founders with any contemporary party.

            First, the issues were different back them. And second, this attempt to be an asskisser for past historical figures is pretty ridiculous.
            Originally Posted by Noam Chomsky


            Whenever you hear anything said very confidently, the first thing that should come to mind is, wait a minute is that true?

            Comment


            • #13
              Guido: The constitution neither granted to the government the power to prevent secession, nor did it prohibit the South from doing so.

              That being the case, rhe 10th Amendment applies, and itt is a right reserved to the states.

              Doesn't get much clearer.

              Comment


              • guido61
                guido61 commented
                Editing a comment

                mauser wrote:
                Guido: The constitution neither granted to the government the power to prevent secession, nor did it prohibit the South from doing so.

                That being the case, rhe 10th Amendment applies, and itt is a right reserved to the states.

                Doesn't get much clearer.

                "Clear" to you is that when the Constiution doesn't specifically mention something it defers to something else that doesn't specifically mention it either?

                The original Articles of Conferderation specifically mentioned a "perpetual union".   The Constitution speaks of a "more perfect union".   And in all of history, no government has ever existed without perpetuity implied. 

                "Clear" would have been the Constitution stating specifically one way or the other.  Anything short of that is open for interpretation.  

                While your interpretation seems clear to YOU, the other interpretation seems just as clear to others.  Which is why we went to war over the issue. 

                Your opinion is that Lincoln violated the constitution by going to war rather than letting the south secede. That's only your opinion and not a fact.  You shouldn't state it as such.

                 


            • #14
              Thankfully splatbass' right to remain an uninformed dolt is protected in the USA.

              Comment


              • Lord Elpus
                Lord Elpus commented
                Editing a comment
                Every thread in this ****************ehole is a competition to see which American can post the dumbest ****************e.

                There's a competition you idiots will always win.

              • splatbass
                splatbass commented
                Editing a comment

                prolurkerguy wrote:
                Thankfully splatbass' right to remain an uninformed dolt is protected in the USA.

                Really? So you think you are born with your rights? Are you aware that if you leave US territory you no longer have those rights?


            • #15
              Yes. I've already says that the government can restrict them and take them away. That doesn't mean we aren't, as human beings, simply born with them

              And MANY other governments guarantee many of the same rights for their people. The US is far from the only country.

              The people believing they are entitled and born with them are the only reason ANY government protects them. Otherwise, why would they?
              _________________________________________________
              band websites:
              http://www.JumpStartYourParty.com
              https://www.gigmasters.com/Rock/Jump-Start
              https://www.facebook.com/JumpStartYourParty
              http://www.weddingwire.com/biz/jumps...587fe5f12.html

              Comment



              Working...
              X