Our Founding Fathers' Ideas

Southern Man said:

It was funny, but TD's comments are spot-on.

Click to expand...

Libs bash the founders but break out the kneepads for FDR and LBJ

Groucho said:

"Gee, Ma, why has political debate in America deteriorated so much lately?"

Click to expand...

Probably because the politicians stink to high heaven

Arch Enemy said:

Private property did not exist until the Enlightened thinkers made it up.
"Fruits of the labor" had no meaning in the times predating Adam Smith.

Click to expand...

Private property has existed since the dawn of mankind and the creation of tools.
It may not have been formally called private property but it sure existed as such.

Arch Enemy said:

Going to argue that slavery wasn't part of the Founding Father's world? And continued even when they had the ability to build a Government from scratch?

Click to expand...

I didn't say that but you're arguing that because they owned slaves that they couldn't be better thinkers than modern people.

There is no proof to suggest that is true.

Arch Enemy said:

Can't wait to see how you suppose limited resources should be rationed... and by whom

Click to expand...

The market has no equal in rationing.
Those with the greatest need get and those that don't get less or none.

Arch Enemy said:

What happened to those who voice their opinions against the Founding Fathers? Ask those from Shay's Rebelling and the Whiskey Rebellion.

Click to expand...

They weren't perfect but those situations caused the changes in the right direction.

Your thinking is totally alien to me.
I have honestly never understood it when put into proper context.

We have a clear, recorded history of consistent government mismanagement, corruption, abuse of power and cronyism.
It isn't an occasional occurrence, it happens daily.

Why in the world would you support giving them more power over your life and the lives of others?

TurtleDude said:

Libs bash the founders but break out the kneepads for FDR and LBJ

Click to expand...

And Clinton, Obama....

Harry Guerrilla said:

Private property has existed since the dawn of mankind and the creation of tools.
It may not have been formally called private property but it sure existed as such.

Click to expand...

That is not true. It only existed when there became a class capable of being, in essence, of both worlds. The middle-class could see the serfs, and the lords, and could then idealize that what the producer should make should be that of the producers.
It was all the middle-classes desire to take power from nobility some knowingly and some with the real desire to do good for the most.

We look back and scoff at the ideas that predated the Enlightenment as if they were so absurd that we could barely believe they were even humans. The idea of Divine Right and Noble Right for the producing class and for the royal class was without doubt.
The French nobility could "prove" that they were of a different caliber human than the 3rd estate. They would own documents and "facts" that showed how related they were to the Franks. Whereas, the serfs were Gauls... The conquerors and the conquered.

I didn't say that but you're arguing that because they owned slaves that they couldn't be better thinkers than modern people.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't look toward a slave owner for moral justice.



[quote
The market has no equal in rationing.
Those with the greatest need get and those that don't get less or none.[/quote]

The market is, once again, another construction of the Enlightenment. The underlying human nature analyzed is greed, and the Market is to apologize greed.

At best Adam Smith's ideal capitalist society was a representation of a system long sense dead.

Your thinking is totally alien to me.
I have honestly never understood it when put into proper context.

We have a clear, recorded history of consistent government mismanagement, corruption, abuse of power and cronyism.
It isn't an occasional occurrence, it happens daily.

Click to expand...

We sure do.

Why in the world would you support giving them more power over your life and the lives of others?

Click to expand...

I've never said that.
You're getting my belief about 41 individuals on historical record.

I continue to be amazed by the insistence on judging the Founders, and/or other historical figures, by modern standards.

People are born into the society they are born in; they grow up with certain things as norms. It is the rare person who rises above that at all; to hammer them because they didn't rise quite far enough to suit our modern sensibilities is a bit ridiculous.

Future generations may judge us as harshly, deciding that by their standards, we were a bunch of hateful barbarians.

You have to judge historical figures within the context of the society they lived in. IMO when you do so, the Founders come out as being well ahead of their times... just not quite AS far ahead of their times as some might wish, who wish to use that against them.

The slavery compromise was forced on them by the slaveholding states as the only way to preserve the nation as a union; they still feared Britain enough to accept the need to keep things together. Anyone recall the War of 1812? Occurred to anyone that they might have put unity against the ongoing threat of Brit/European attempts at reconquest as a high enough priority that they let the slavery issue "ride for the time being"?

The solid foundation built for this country by the founders should not be weakened by weak minds.

They put into the Constitution important checks and balances, but they also left it so that changes could be made.

We should not weaken the foundation, instead it should be strengthened by our brightest minds, not politicians.

Blackdog said:

The solid foundation built for this country by the founders should not be weakened by weak minds.

They put into the Constitution important checks and balances, but they also left it so that changes could be made.

We should not weaken the foundation, instead it should be strengthened by our brightest minds, not politicians.

Click to expand...

You mean like me?

Southern Man said:

Oh really? Where's the clause for Obamacare?

Click to expand...

Show me the clause where Obamacare is outlawed. It should read something to the effect, "Obamacare is outlawed..." The Constitution does NOT include everything... the founders knew this, which is why it is still perfectly useful today.

Oh, and make sure you include a link with your evidence.

Goshin said:

I continue to be amazed by the insistence on judging the Founders, and/or other historical figures, by modern standards.

People are born into the society they are born in; they grow up with certain things as norms. It is the rare person who rises above that at all; to hammer them because they didn't rise quite far enough to suit our modern sensibilities is a bit ridiculous.

Future generations may judge us as harshly, deciding that by their standards, we were a bunch of hateful barbarians.

You have to judge historical figures within the context of the society they lived in. IMO when you do so, the Founders come out as being well ahead of their times... just not quite AS far ahead of their times as some might wish, who wish to use that against them.

The slavery compromise was forced on them by the slaveholding states as the only way to preserve the nation as a union; they still feared Britain enough to accept the need to keep things together. Anyone recall the War of 1812? Occurred to anyone that they might have put unity against the ongoing threat of Brit/European attempts at reconquest as a high enough priority that they let the slavery issue "ride for the time being"?

Click to expand...

No, you got it all wrong.

We are modern, which translates to perfection.
We don't separate people based on arbitrary means like they did, except when it comes to gender, race, income, nationality.

We are supreme in our actions, except when we want private gain and public loss.

No we are perfect. :doh

Southern Man said:

I don't see how you logically contend that. Again here's what Hamilton wrote:

"That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot."

How do welfare, public housing, affirmative action, and any "earmark" program meet Hamilton's restriction?

Click to expand...

I would agree with you that earmarks do not fit his criteria, and I believe most anyone you would talk to opposes them.

Welfare, affirmative action, and public housing are all things that were available throughout the union. How do you logically contend that they are not. Has the federal government gone out and said, only chicago can apply for food stamps? No, anyone in the US can apply for food stamps.

The only criteria I can see you going after is that these programs go to benefit a certain group of people within the united states. I don't see how this is inconsistant with the rest of the powers in the consitution. The federal government can build roads, so only people with cars benefit. The federal government can deliver mail, so only people who write letters will benefit. These things target a specific set of individuals, but their effects are hardely local. How is this different than if the federal government finances homes through the FHA, or provides a scholarship to a certain minority group, or provides cash assistance to families with children as long as the service is available in all 50 states?

Harry Guerrilla said:

No, you got it all wrong.

We are modern, which translates to perfection.
We don't separate people based on arbitrary means like they did, except when it comes to gender, race, income, nationality.

We are supreme in our actions, except when we want private gain and public loss.

No we are perfect. :doh

Click to expand...

You are over-reacting. No one is saying that there is no credence in what the founders did nor that what they did wasn't great and monumental... at least I'm not. However, one MUST recognize that they were a product of their time and that in current times there are things that they could not have conceived of... yet the Constitution can still apply to them.

1069 said:

I was told that to compare my "sacrifices"- or those of anyone else alive today- to the "sacrifices" of the Founding Fathers was "pathetic".
There is no greater sacrifice one can make for one's country than to give one's life for it- or one's child's life. Or even to allow oneself or one's child to be put at risk, for the noble cause of freedom.

What the hell did the Founding Fathers ever sacrifice beside which such sacrifices as people make today look "pathetic"?
What did they sacrifice? A slave? Their wooden teeth? Their stupid-looking grandma wigs?
I can't think of a single sacrifice they ever made, frankly. They seemed to deny themselves little.

Click to expand...

It ought to be pointed out that the Founding Fathers were traitors to the British crown. Had the Revolution been crushed (by no means a stretch of the imagination) and they been captured, they would have been put on trial, convicted of treason and sentenced to death.

Harry Guerrilla said:

I think this is the most pertinent part.
We should be under a rule of strictly interpreted law.

Not the rule of man whose wants and whims change with the wind.

The Constitution has been a great source of the rule of law for a long time.
It can be changed as needed through the amendment process.

No living interpretations needed.

Click to expand...

This is the assessment that I completely disagree with. We should NOT be under a rule of strictly interpreted law... originalist position, so to speak. It makes the Constitution irrelevant to today's world. Interpretation is absolutely necessary because all information needed to decide specific situations is there, or at least mostly there. I would also submit that all voting rights amendments were unnecessary. Since the Constitution, as far as I know, does not specify who can or cannot vote, all that need to happen was a black, or a women try to vote, be denied, and for SCOTUS to rule on it. Since there is no stated restriction, SCOTUS could have easily interpreted that as meaning that there is no reason to restrict these people from voting.

CaptainCourtesy said:

You are over-reacting. No one is saying that there is no credence in what the founders did nor that what they did wasn't great and monumental... at least I'm not. However, one MUST recognize that they were a product of their time and that in current times there are things that they could not have conceived of... yet the Constitution can still apply to them.

Click to expand...

Not to be rude cap but this entire thread has been filled with all sorts of hyperbole.
The constant rehashing of slavery, like we haven't heard it before, is getting incredibly annoying.

The Constitution purposefully limited what the Federal government could do.
It was pretty blatant within the whole writing of the document and now people are trying to feed me this nonsense that it doesn't limit it.

Or they are telling me that the we should change it to allow them to do more, which is pretty disturbing.
Consider all the corruption, cronyism, purposeful manipulation, scandals, the crazy amounts of debt.

It's like asking you drug addicted, alcoholic, felon brother to manage your bank account while you're away.
It doesn't flow logically.

Harry Guerrilla said:

Not to be rude cap but this entire thread has been filled with all sorts of hyperbole.
The constant rehashing of slavery, like we haven't heard it before, is getting incredibly annoying.

The Constitution purposefully limited what the Federal government could do.
It was pretty blatant within the whole writing of the document and now people are trying to feed me this nonsense that it doesn't limit it.

Or they are telling me that the we should change it to allow them to do more, which is pretty disturbing.
Consider all the corruption, cronyism, purposeful manipulation, scandals, the crazy amounts of debt.

It's like asking you drug addicted, alcoholic, felon brother to manage your bank account while you're away.
It doesn't flow logically.

Click to expand...

This makes the assumption that the states or business are any more drug addicted, alcoholic, or felonious than the federal government. They're not.

CaptainCourtesy said:

This makes the assumption that the states or business are any more drug addicted, alcoholic, or felonious than the federal government. They're not.

Click to expand...

Come on now, I know you do enough research to know that these guys who run the show, are some of the most spineless, greedy, self serving individuals.

They consistently lie in order to bait people into following them.

(Shouldn't have said the drug addict, alcohol stuff. Was to quick to judge and went a bit overboard.
Should of said kleptomaniac or something similar which signifies an untrustworthy person, would of made more sense.)

Harry Guerrilla said:

Come on now, I know you do enough research to know that these guys who run the show, are some of the most spineless, greedy, self serving individuals.

They consistently lie in order to bait people into following them.

Click to expand...

Who, the feds or those who run multi-national corporations? I'd say they're about equal.

State officials are slightly lower on the corrupt scale, though not by much. Think about it. Why would anyone vote for someone who's main purpose is to get elected? If you really examine that statement, it is clear why corruption in practically unavoidable.

(Shouldn't have said the drug addict, alcohol stuff. Was to quick to judge and went a bit overboard.
Should of said kleptomaniac or something similar which signifies an untrustworthy person, would of made more sense.)

Click to expand...

Eh, either way, I got what you were saying.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Who, the feds or those who run multi-national corporations? I'd say they're about equal.

State officials are slightly lower on the corrupt scale, though not by much. Think about it. Why would anyone vote for someone who's main purpose is to get elected? If you really examine that statement, it is clear why corruption in practically unavoidable.

Click to expand...

You understand my position, that's why I want the least amount of power in their hands.
No matter if it is trivial or major things.

That does not exclude corporations, I want them to have less power as well.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Eh, either way, I got what you were saying.

Click to expand...

Yea but not all drug addicts, alcoholics and felons are completely bad people.

Harry Guerrilla said:

You understand my position, that's why I want the least amount of power in their hands.
No matter if it is trivial or major things.

That does not exclude corporations, I want them to have less power as well.

Click to expand...

I understand that. However, reality is that these two groups having power is unavoidable. Which is why there must be some significant checks and balances between the two. A tightrope between the "free market" and regulation.

Yea but not all drug addicts, alcoholics and felons are completely bad people.

Click to expand...

True. Nor are all kleptomaniacs. I got what you were getting at. No harm, no foul.

CaptainCourtesy said:

I understand that. However, reality is that these two groups having power is unavoidable. Which is why there must be some significant checks and balances between the two. A tightrope between the "free market" and regulation.

Click to expand...

Then our definition of regulation needs to be clarified.
I think all transactions between people/businesses are covered under contract law, which is/was pretty comprehensive since the beginning of the U.S.

Often though, it doesn't get enforced by regulators and they consequently turn a blind eye to definite infractions.

Harry Guerrilla said:

Then our definition of regulation needs to be clarified.
I think all transactions between people/businesses are covered under contract law, which is/was pretty comprehensive since the beginning of the U.S.

Often though, it doesn't get enforced by regulators and they consequently turn a blind eye to definite infractions.

Click to expand...

I'm talking more about larger regulatory issues, such as pollution, monopolies, and unethical practices. Health care, for example, needs a hell of a lot of regulation.

CaptainCourtesy said:

I'm talking more about larger regulatory issues, such as pollution, monopolies, and unethical practices. Health care, for example, needs a hell of a lot of regulation.

Click to expand...

Pollution- There are no technicalities in regards to pollution.
It can be regulated by the feds, since a lot of it crosses state lines.

Monopoly- There is a lot of BS in our current monopoly laws.
The exemptions for health insurance companies and unions is one of them.
In my studies thus far, 99% of monopolies arise because of actions taken by the government.
The one exception so far is DeBeers.

I'm fine with monopoly laws as long as they cover everything, not just pet businesses.

Unethical Practices- Definitely covered in basic contract law.
It just has to be enforced.

Medical Care- It is plagued by so many favorisms and garbage that the laws would need to be repealed and reconsidered , to properly fix it for real.

Harry Guerrilla said:

Pollution- There are no technicalities in regards to pollution.
It can be regulated by the feds, since a lot of it crosses state lines.

Monopoly- There is a lot of BS in our current monopoly laws.
The exemptions for health insurance companies and unions is one of them.
In my studies thus far, 99% of monopolies arise because of actions taken by the government.
The one exception so far is DeBeers.

I'm fine with monopoly laws as long as they cover everything, not just pet businesses.

Unethical Practices- Definitely covered in basic contract law.
It just has to be enforced.

Medical Care- It is plagued by so many favorisms and garbage that the laws would need to be repealed and reconsidered , to properly fix it for real.

Click to expand...

I would say that I can basically agree with what you said here.

I'll remember this when I become President, An advisory position or Cabinet Post will be yours. :mrgreen:

CaptainCourtesy said:

I would say that I can basically agree with what you said here.

I'll remember this when I become President, An advisory position or Cabinet Post will be yours. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

Dag nabit, we're supposed to disagree.

Umm ummm :think: Freud was a loon! Ha! :tomato: