• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Founding Fathers Were Libertarians

Do You Believe Our Founding Fathers Were Libertarians

  • Yes

    Votes: 14 34.1%
  • No

    Votes: 18 43.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 9 22.0%

  • Total voters
    41
  • Poll closed .
Hyperbole comes from both sides, though. And I could point out that the reason why we have a more powerful centralized government is because the weak centralized government we had during the Articles of Confederation was a failure. That's why we ratified the Constitution to form a more powerful centralized government, specifically with more powers to tax.

The progressive income tax gave congress powers that the founders never contemplated. The 16 and 17th amendments destroyed the balance and the country is going downhill because of that
 
The progressive income tax gave congress powers that the founders never contemplated. The 16 and 17th amendments destroyed the balance and the country is going downhill because of that

See what I mean?
 
See what I mean?

hardly hyperbole

playing off net tax consumers against net tax payers is a power that gives congress far far more control then every imagined. before there was an income tax the parties had to run on real differences rather than one saying we will take more from you to help our voters vs the other party saying we won't loot you as much as long as you vote for us

do you understand that the 17th amendment changed the senate from being advocates for their states to pandering to the voters of that state.
 
hardly hyperbole

playing off net tax consumers against net tax payers is a power that gives congress far far more control then every imagined. before there was an income tax the parties had to run on real differences rather than one saying we will take more from you to help our voters vs the other party saying we won't loot you as much as long as you vote for us

do you understand that the 17th amendment changed the senate from being advocates for their states to pandering to the voters of that state.

Yes I do. And I have no problem with that. And there's already a thread devoted to that, and I have provided the link for it below. So instead of hijacking this thread, I ask you to post about it there than here.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...-tea-partiers-want-repeal-17th-amendment.html
 
freedom scares the crap out of alot of sheeple

Actually analyzing the issues, instead of shrieking "let the market decide" as the solution to any given problem, scares the crap out of a lot of people. ;)
 
Um... why? Slave owners can't be libertarians?

Not really. It's difficult to believe in freedom from government coercion if you own another human being (with the government's blessing). Jefferson was pretty hypocritical in that regard.
 
Not really. It's difficult to believe in freedom from government coercion if you own another human being (with the government's blessing). Jefferson was pretty hypocritical in that regard.

He was hypocritical in many regards when it comes to slavery, but libertarianism isn't one of them. He didn't own slaves "with the government's blessing", he owned slaves without the government involvement necessary to tell him not to. In that sense slave owning is completely compatible with slavery; it takes government expansion into his private life to tell him not to own slaves. However, when it comes to his belief in fundamental rights, his slave owning made him hypocritical.

I frankly think it says a lot about your perspective of things if you think that something not being illegal means it is done "with the government's blessing", and acts of individual coercion not banned by the government is somehow an act of government coercion.
 
Last edited:
He was hypocritical in many regards when it comes to slavery, but libertarianism isn't one of them. He didn't own slaves "with the government's blessing", he owned slaves without the government involvement necessary to tell him not to. In that sense slave owning is completely compatible with slavery; it takes government expansion into his private life to tell him not to own slaves. However, when it comes to his belief in fundamental rights, his slave owning made him hypocritical.

I frankly think it says a lot about your perspective of things if you think that something not being illegal means it is done "with the government's blessing", and acts of individual coercion not banned by the government is somehow an act of government coercion.

I'm under the impression that protecting people from force is one of the few things that libertarians DO want the government to do. A truly libertarian government would be more concerned about protecting Sally Hemings' right to not be raped on a daily basis than it would with protecting Thomas Jefferson's "right" to own slaves.
 
I'm under the impression that protecting people from force is one of the few things that libertarians DO want the government to do. A truly libertarian government would be more concerned about protecting Sally Hemings' right to not be raped on a daily basis than it would with protecting Thomas Jefferson's "right" to own slaves.

But that's not a libertarian thing. Libertarians aren't exactly the only ones who want the government to protect people from force; pretty much only anarchists don't. Again, Jefferson was hypocritical in many ways, but not in his libertarianism.

Not sure why you felt the need to bring the subject up in the first place. Do you just automatically associate Thomas Jefferson with slaves? That's the only explanation I can think of for dedicating a post to bringing such a loosely related subject into this.

And I maintain what you ignored, which was your complete mis-characterization in saying that he owned slaves "with the government's blessing" and that for some reason legal individual coercion is synonymous with government coercion, and that this probably says something about your perspective. Your argument seemed to change pretty quickly from that to the above post.
 
Last edited:
But that's not a libertarian thing. Libertarians aren't exactly the only ones who want the government to protect people from force; pretty much only anarchists don't. Again, Jefferson was hypocritical in many ways, but not in his libertarianism.

The whole focus of libertarianism is an emphasis on personal freedom, and having a government that allows individuals to pursue whatever they want. That is incompatible with slavery.

Dav said:
Not sure why you felt the need to bring the subject up in the first place. Do you just automatically associate Thomas Jefferson with slaves? That's the only explanation I can think of for dedicating a post to bringing such a loosely related subject into this.

It's certainly one of the first things that comes to mind, yes. Especially when people say that Jefferson was a libertarian. Maybe in the government-stay-out-of-my-business sense, but certainly not in the government-protect-liberty sense.

Dav said:
And I maintain what you ignored, which was your complete mis-characterization in saying that he owned slaves "with the government's blessing" and that for some reason legal individual coercion is synonymous with government coercion, and that this probably says something about your perspective.

If the government allows people to blatantly infringe on one another's rights, then it is essentially government coercion. For example, Hugo Chavez probably doesn't directly ORDER his supporters to rough up journalists and vandalize newspapers who criticize him...but he allows it to happen, thus it's government coercion.
 
The whole focus of libertarianism is an emphasis on personal freedom, and having a government that allows individuals to pursue whatever they want. That is incompatible with slavery.

No, the focus of libertarianism is having a government that doesn't infringe on personal liberty, which is not the least bit incompatible with slavery, since it is individual citizens who own the slaves. Again, you are proving the top-down lens through which you look in which the government is responsible for all legal actions.


It's certainly one of the first things that comes to mind, yes. Especially when people say that Jefferson was a libertarian. Maybe in the government-stay-out-of-my-business sense, but certainly not in the government-protect-liberty sense.

Libertarianism in general places far more emphasis on the former than the latter. Government-protect-liberty is not a libertarian thing, since almost everyone else wants that too. Ideologies are defined by how they differ from the rest; libertarianism differs from the rest in the government-stay-out sense, not the government-protect-liberty sense. Hence, Jefferson may have been hypocritical, but not as a libertarian.


If the government allows people to blatantly infringe on one another's rights, then it is essentially government coercion. For example, Hugo Chavez probably doesn't directly ORDER his supporters to rough up journalists and vandalize newspapers who criticize him...but he allows it to happen, thus it's government coercion.

That is not government coercion in any way shape or form. Again you are showing your inclination to tie everything in with the government.
 
If the government allows people to blatantly infringe on one another's rights, then it is essentially government coercion. For example, Hugo Chavez probably doesn't directly ORDER his supporters to rough up journalists and vandalize newspapers who criticize him...but he allows it to happen, thus it's government coercion.

If I allow my kids to bully other kids at school, despite not explicitly ordering them to do so, am I coercing those kids that are getting bullied into giving me their lunch money?
 
Not really. Not like it matters in the grand plan anyway.
 
If I allow my kids to bully other kids at school, despite not explicitly ordering them to do so, am I coercing those kids that are getting bullied into giving me their lunch money?

Yes
1234567
 
No, the focus of libertarianism is having a government that doesn't infringe on personal liberty, which is not the least bit incompatible with slavery, since it is individual citizens who own the slaves. Again, you are proving the top-down lens through which you look in which the government is responsible for all legal actions.

Libertarianism in general places far more emphasis on the former than the latter. Government-protect-liberty is not a libertarian thing, since almost everyone else wants that too. Ideologies are defined by how they differ from the rest; libertarianism differs from the rest in the government-stay-out sense, not the government-protect-liberty sense. Hence, Jefferson may have been hypocritical, but not as a libertarian.

Libertarianism is simply a modern form of classical liberalism that places more emphasis on contractual and property rights. The function of government in a libertarian state, if any, is to protect negative individual freedom to do as one pleases without interference by anyone else. Generally a proviso is added in the form of the 'Harm Principle' as stated by J.S. Mill, that individuals can act as they please so long as they are not infringing upon others' rights in doing so. Suggesting that there is a divison between 'government-stay-out' and 'government-protect' is somewhat misleading in libertarian terms because the two function almost identically. The libertarian conception of government is one that functions to protect negative individual liberty by staying out of it. This is because libertarians generally dispute the notion of 'positive liberty' which is used by some to legitimise government involvement for the purposes of 'empowering' people etc.

This in isolation makes slavery immoral from a libertarian point of view. However, it is worth remembering that, so long as individuals have willingly contracted into a slave-owner relationship, of their own volition, such a relationship would be regarded as legitimate by some libertarians. Basically whether or not slavery is endorsed by libertarianism depends on the circumstances in which the slave-owner relationship has been created (that is, wilfully or coercively) and whether that respects proprietary and contractual rights as an function of 'individual liberty'.
 
Yes
1234567

Nope...

Coerce -

1.to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, esp. without regard for individual desire or volition: They coerced him into signing the document.

2.to bring about through the use of force or other forms of compulsion; exact: to coerce obedience.

3.to dominate or control, esp. by exploiting fear, anxiety, etc.: The state is based on successfully coercing the individual.


Without exerting influence of some type and disregarding personal desire it is not coercion.
 
Nope...

Coerce -

1.to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, esp. without regard for individual desire or volition: They coerced him into signing the document.

2.to bring about through the use of force or other forms of compulsion; exact: to coerce obedience.

3.to dominate or control, esp. by exploiting fear, anxiety, etc.: The state is based on successfully coercing the individual.


Without exerting influence of some type and disregarding personal desire it is not coercion.

If your kid is bullying other kids for their lunch money, he is coercing them. By extension, you are coercing them by not preventing it from happening. And any court in the country would agree if the kid's family sued you.
 
Last edited:
If your kid is bullying other kids for their lunch money, he is coercing them. By extension, you are coercing them by not preventing it from happening. And any court in the country would agree if the kid's family sued you.

This has nothing to do with your original assertion about government, but lets run with it as an example.

If your kids are shaking kids down for lunch money and you had nothing to do with it, you would be laughed out of court. Not that any lawyer worth his slat would take such a stupid case. :lol:

It is not coercion without some kind of force, period.

You can argue with the dictionary.
 
This has nothing to do with your original assertion about government, but lets run with it as an example.

Well, I wasn't the one who brought it up.

Blackdog said:
If your kids are shaking kids down for lunch money and you had nothing to do with it, you would be laughed out of court.

No, I would be ordered to repay the victims, because it's coercion.
 
My, my. Someone is in an argumentative mood tonight, ready to challenge ANYTHING. :roll:

Even more irrelevant comment.

Really? You want proof that I am legally liable if my kid robs someone? Really?

No real argument so now we change the goal posts, on the example no less!

A minor difference exists between robbery and a kid shaking down a kid for lunch money.

Either way you are still wrong legally, I notice no evidence from you either.

Coercion is NOT extortion. Coercion is not theft or robbery or anything else. It is using FORCE or AUTHORITY as FORCE to make someone do something they don't want to do or against their will.
 
Even more irrelevant comment.

Why'd you turn into an ass all of a sudden? Did you forget to take your meds?

Blackdog said:
No real argument so now we change the goal posts, on the example no less!

A minor difference exists between robbery and a kid shaking down a kid for lunch money.

And what would that difference be?

Blackdog said:
Either way you are still wrong legally, I notice no evidence from you either.

Coercion is NOT extortion. Coercion is not theft or robbery or anything else. It is using FORCE or AUTHORITY as FORCE to make someone do something they don't want to do or against their will.

If your kid is bullying other kids and taking their lunch money, he is using force, and therefore you are liable for his actions. But in any case, I thought you wanted to discuss legal principles, rather than argue legal semantics about coercion vs extortion. I have no interest in doing the latter. :2wave:
 
Last edited:
Why'd you turn into an ass all of a sudden? Did you forget to take your meds?

Now you resort to personal attacks, great.

And what would that difference be?

One is a criminal offense, the other is a spanking. Did I really have to explain that?

If your kid is bullying other kids and taking their lunch money, he is using force, and therefore you are liable for his actions.

I notice the parents of the kids (the school shooters in Colorado) were not held responsible for the deaths of all the other kids? I guess they just did not coerce them enough?

Come on man, you are making no sense.

But in any case, I thought you wanted to discuss legal principles, rather than argue legal semantics about coercion/extortion. I have no interest in doing the latter. :2wave:

You said...

Not really. It's difficult to believe in freedom from government coercion if you own another human being (with the government's blessing). Jefferson was pretty hypocritical in that regard.

Owning a slave has nothing at all to do with the government coercing anyone to do anything.

I can see why you are bowing out and I agree at this point it is a good idea.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom