all liberals aren't wrong, just the modern ones.
The effort to separate classical from modern liberalism is nothing more than reactionary BS.
allow the individual to be who and what he or she is without interference.
What about Charlie Manson?
The founders of the DOI and the constituional convention had no authority to end slavery
Where'd ya get that idea?
Actually, it is better to think for yourself.
How does being either liberal or conservative interfere with that?
True liberalism was the search for more freedom and more independence.
Freedom and independence are in no way inconsistent with liberalism in today's world.
>>not reliance or dependence on government.
RW BS. Did we "rely on gubmint" to defeat the Nazis? Do we rely on it to prosecute those charged with crimes and to enforce the laws in general? You were a prosecutor, right? Didn't those in yer jurisdiction rely and depend upon you to help protect them?
>>The current "liberal" philosophy …shows evidence of reactionary parasitic statism in others.
Associating the expression "reactionary parasitic statism" with liberalism clearly points to yer confusion regarding political philosophy. How are liberals reactionary? What's parasitic about their views? How do they support statism? The definition of "statism" has changed over the past century, but today its associated with a strong element of socialism, not liberalism.
The more informed I became, the faster I ran to the right!
Have you reached fascism yet?
The Founders pretty much to a man opposed slavery on principle
A bit of an exaggeration, but generally correct. Otoh, they were willing to allow it to continue in practice.
>>The first U.S. Congress did see to it that the slave trade ended; i.e. no new slaves could be brought from other countries.
Incorrect. The Constitution allowed for it to be ended in twenty years, and that's what happened, through legislation enacted in the 10th Congress.
>>Also, states carved out of territories controlled by the U.S. were to be non slave states.
This applied to the Northwest Territory, but we acquired more over the years through the Louisiana Purchase and the Texas and the Mexican Cession that were not wholly subject to that restriction.
I'd say we should consider
why some Southern congressmen went along with the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves in 1807. Four million slaves allowed for a self-sustaining population. No need to pay the political price for importing more when you could simply victimise the children of those already held in bondage.
>>The U.S. Constitution did not prohibit women's rights in any way
In
any way? They were certainly left out when it came to suffrage.
>>Libertarianism as the Founder's practiced it allowed people to be who and what they chose to be and the government had no say in that whatsoever.
What about enslaved blacks who wanted to be free and women who wanted to vote?
the federal government is not over the states
Ever hear of the Supremacy Clause?
>>article 1 section 8 clause 17, you will see the federal government has to ask for the states consent
Laughable teabugger BS. That clause simply enables Congress to govern the District of Columbia.
>>delegate Mr. Gerry of the convention makes it clear … that the federal government only has authority over things with are federal inside a state and nothing else.
When I move to the United States of Gerry, I'll give that its due consideration.
I have studied the founding documents extensively.
Doesn't seem to have helped.
>>And I have taught them.
At Trump U?
Ideology is the enemy of rational thought.
I disagree. I figure it's just a way of organising thoughts. That doesn't mean it can't be abused.
Liberals tend to be afraid.
I'm a liberal, and I'm afraid yer full of ****.
Everyone is a Progressive Liberal when they are young and stupid.
So what are you —
old and stupid?
>>Only truly stupid or dishonest ideologues stay that way.
Where do we get all the RW morons? Are they former liberals?
