Greetings from one of the greatest influences on the American revolution.

[mal]

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/whatisclassicalliberalism.pdf

Prior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United States. It was the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence and it permeates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government. Many of the emancipationists who opposed slavery were essentially classical liberals, as were the suffragettes, who fought for equal rights for women.

Basically, classical liberalism is the belief in liberty. Even today, one of the clearest statements of this philosophy is found in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. At that time, as is the case today, most people believed that rights came from government. People thought they only had such rights as government elected to give them. But following the British philosopher John Locke, Jefferson argued that it's the other way around. People have rights apart from government, as part of their nature. Further, people can form governments and dissolve them. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights.

People who call themselves classical liberals today tend to have the basic view of rights and role of government that Jefferson and his contemporaries had. Moreover, they do not tend to make any important distinction between economic liberties and civil liberties.

The problem with today's so called "liberals" is they have absolutely no belief in economic liberty. The belief is that the government should relieve us of an ever larger portion of our incomes so as to regulate our lives on every level.

Amen... Choich.



peace...

 

[Neser Boha]

Then, you're not Liberalism.Dodging the question. How nice to see.Deflecting and again, not answering the question.

Hint for you: The Liberals you represent in your avatar weren't progressives, weren't Marxists, and weren't far-left loons.

He/she knows that MM, but one thing liberals hate, and that's for you to expose them. That makes them very uncomfortable. Ask him/her why it is they've chosen to obviously dodge your question, but don't hold your breath for an answer to that either.

I think the person is simply inviting debate on the issue which is, after all, what this board is all about. If s/he doesn't give you the precise answer that would make YOU happy, the poster shouldn't just be summarily dismissed.

Well, I think it's up to each of us whether we will 'summarily dismiss' a newbie that already made the hilariously imbecilic faux pas of calling himself 'liberalism'. I'd 'summarily dismiss' anyone with an idiotic screen name like that ... whether it'd be 'conservatism', 'neo-conservatism', 'marxism', etc. How DUMB do you have to be to assume that anyone will take you seriously when you enter a political forum with a nick like that? This guy (or gal) will have to earn his (her) respect because when it comes to the 'first impression thinger' - this person flat out failed.



I mean, seriously ... 'liberalism'?

 

[MaggieMae]

He/she knows that MM, but one thing liberals hate, and that's for you to expose them. That makes them very uncomfortable. Ask him/her why it is they've chosen to obviously dodge your question, but don't hold your breath for an answer to that either.

I think the person is simply inviting debate on the issue which is, after all, what this board is all about. If s/he doesn't give you the precise answer that would make YOU happy, the poster shouldn't just be summarily dismissed.

Well, I think it's up to each of us whether we will 'summarily dismiss' a newbie that already made the hilariously imbecilic faux pas of calling himself 'liberalism'. I'd 'summarily dismiss' anyone with an idiotic screen name like that ... whether it'd be 'conservatism', 'neo-conservatism', 'marxism', etc. How DUMB do you have to be to assume that anyone will take you seriously when you enter a political forum with a nick like that? This guy (or gal) will have to earn his (her) respect because when it comes to the 'first impression thinger' - this person flat out failed.



I mean, seriously ... 'liberalism'?

I'm sure s/he will get his dues when visiting other topics, but this is the INTRODUCTION area, so to climb all over the person at this stage isn't fair. For all we know, he's a satirist. Only time will tell if he sticks around. After all "Rightwinger" is hardly a right winger.

 

[Ringel05]

I'm still not quite sure what you are getting at, but one thing is for sure: I did not list any enemies of mine.

Ahh yes, you said "perceived" enemies and "what some say" are enemies.

Yet you continue to dodge my questions.

Is today's far-left Progressivism one of your enemies?

How about Marxism?

You think Liberalism and far-left Progressivism are the same?

Let's start with these.

I clearly state "They are not our enemies." and that "They are only our darker side: slow, soft, insubstantial, diffuse, cold, wet, and tranquil." So I fail to get what you are attempting to say, but I will answer a few of your questions.

1) "Is today's far-left Progressivism one of your enemies?"
The answer is: Nope.

2) "How about Marxism?"
answer: I thought Marxism died with Karl.

3) "You think Liberalism and far-left Progressivism are the same?"
answer: Considering they are two distinctly different terms, you continue to leave me wondering what it is you are attempting to convey. Would you ask if John Locke were a far-left Progressive?

Soooooo. When you were playing dodge ball in gym did you actually think it was a debate class?

 

[Neser Boha]

I think the person is simply inviting debate on the issue which is, after all, what this board is all about. If s/he doesn't give you the precise answer that would make YOU happy, the poster shouldn't just be summarily dismissed.

Well, I think it's up to each of us whether we will 'summarily dismiss' a newbie that already made the hilariously imbecilic faux pas of calling himself 'liberalism'. I'd 'summarily dismiss' anyone with an idiotic screen name like that ... whether it'd be 'conservatism', 'neo-conservatism', 'marxism', etc. How DUMB do you have to be to assume that anyone will take you seriously when you enter a political forum with a nick like that? This guy (or gal) will have to earn his (her) respect because when it comes to the 'first impression thinger' - this person flat out failed.



I mean, seriously ... 'liberalism'?

I'm sure s/he will get his dues when visiting other topics, but this is the INTRODUCTION area, so to climb all over the person at this stage isn't fair. For all we know, he's a satirist. Only time will tell if he sticks around. After all "Rightwinger" is hardly a right winger.

Yeah, you're right ...

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Hello, I am Liberalism. I am one of the greatest influences on the political minds behind the American revolution. I happen to be absent of late due to the influences of corruption. Corruption's attempt to take over the republic from time to time can be quite unsettling, but rest assured dear people that what some view as the enemies of liberalism and the American republic: conservatism, and populism, will eventually be beaten back as they always have been. They serve a role that is not always obvious.

The perceived enemies of liberalism and her child America, will always rear their suffocating heads from time to time as they are the polar opposites of liberalism. They are the yin of Liberty's yang.

Fear not conservative principles as they are nothing but a part of the dual nature that is American independence, freedom and liberty. They are not our enemies. They are only our darker side: slow, soft, insubstantial, diffuse, cold, wet, and tranquil.

So you consider the men below to be your enemies.

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. -Thomas Jefferson

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. -John Adams

All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse. -Benjamin Franklin

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" - Benjamin Franklin

If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of Almighty God, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave. -samual adams

The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. -Samuel Adams

Wow. Does anyone really have time to post specific quotes from the Federalist Papers, etc., that make their case for them? I know I don't.

I like to read .

 

[Meister]

I think the person is simply inviting debate on the issue which is, after all, what this board is all about. If s/he doesn't give you the precise answer that would make YOU happy, the poster shouldn't just be summarily dismissed.

Well, I think it's up to each of us whether we will 'summarily dismiss' a newbie that already made the hilariously imbecilic faux pas of calling himself 'liberalism'. I'd 'summarily dismiss' anyone with an idiotic screen name like that ... whether it'd be 'conservatism', 'neo-conservatism', 'marxism', etc. How DUMB do you have to be to assume that anyone will take you seriously when you enter a political forum with a nick like that? This guy (or gal) will have to earn his (her) respect because when it comes to the 'first impression thinger' - this person flat out failed.



I mean, seriously ... 'liberalism'?

I'm sure s/he will get his dues when visiting other topics, but this is the INTRODUCTION area, so to climb all over the person at this stage isn't fair. For all we know, he's a satirist. Only time will tell if he sticks around. After all "Rightwinger" is hardly a right winger.

Maggie, it really sounded like he was inviting a debate with his introduction. This board relishes the challenge with any post like that.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

to climb all over the person at this stage isn't fair.

Who ever said anything about anything being "fair" here?

Please.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Conservatives were the Tories that supported England during the American revoloution.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Hello, I am Liberalism. I am one of the greatest influences on the political minds behind the American revolution. I happen to be absent of late due to the influences of corruption. Corruption's attempt to take over the republic from time to time can be quite unsettling, but rest assured dear people that what some view as the enemies of liberalism and the American republic: conservatism, and populism, will eventually be beaten back as they always have been. They serve a role that is not always obvious.

The perceived enemies of liberalism and her child America, will always rear their suffocating heads from time to time as they are the polar opposites of liberalism. They are the yin of Liberty's yang.

Fear not conservative principles as they are nothing but a part of the dual nature that is American independence, freedom and liberty. They are not our enemies. They are only our darker side: slow, soft, insubstantial, diffuse, cold, wet, and tranquil.

Your post here shows you are lacking in properly conveying any meaningful point. Your post also indicates that you haven't done any meaningful study on the American Revolution and its causes. Otherwise, you wouldn't have said what you did.

 

[Si modo]

I think the person is simply inviting debate on the issue which is, after all, what this board is all about. ....

That sure would be nice, but then you go and admit to this.

So you consider the men below to be your enemies.

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. -Thomas Jefferson

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. -John Adams

All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse. -Benjamin Franklin

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" - Benjamin Franklin

If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of Almighty God, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave. -samual adams

The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. -Samuel Adams

Wow. Does anyone really have time to post specific quotes from the Federalist Papers, etc., that make their case for them? I know I don't.

[Emphasis added]

That sort of sums up what you're idea of debate is.

 

[Sidestreamer]

I love it when somebody tries to imply what the Founding Fathers would think of today's world based on what they were dealing with back then, trying to found a new government free of the English monarchy back when they were fighting with muskets and a calvary that consisted of actual horses instead of anything motorized. The Communist Manifesto hasn't even been written back then; they were weighing a democracy and republican government against a crown. Indentured servitude and slavery were still acceptable back then. You needed to be a free property-owning man to vote, even after the Bill of Rights... WHY THE FUCK DO WE CARE WHAT THEY WOULD THINK OF OUR STATE OF AFFAIRS NOW???

Of course liberalism during the revolution is nothing like today's liberalism, or conservatism for that matter. They never had telecommunications back then, and the wind-sailed galleons of their time can't carry the kind of merch today's barges and cargo ships can carry. Can we really extrapolate their ideas with today's technology and the current global economy?

 

[Sidestreamer]

Hello, I am Liberalism. I am one of the greatest influences on the political minds behind the American revolution. I happen to be absent of late due to the influences of corruption. Corruption's attempt to take over the republic from time to time can be quite unsettling, but rest assured dear people that what some view as the enemies of liberalism and the American republic: conservatism, and populism, will eventually be beaten back as they always have been. They serve a role that is not always obvious.

The perceived enemies of liberalism and her child America, will always rear their suffocating heads from time to time as they are the polar opposites of liberalism. They are the yin of Liberty's yang.

Fear not conservative principles as they are nothing but a part of the dual nature that is American independence, freedom and liberty. They are not our enemies. They are only our darker side: slow, soft, insubstantial, diffuse, cold, wet, and tranquil.

From the "USA America (United States of America, America)..."

...

Welcome to your annihilation.

 

[007]

Of course liberalism during the revolution is nothing like today's liberalism, or conservatism for that matter.

Really... so very interesting... can you show me an example of "revolution era liberalism," or "conservatism?"

 

[Sidestreamer]

Of course liberalism during the revolution is nothing like today's liberalism, or conservatism for that matter.

Really... so very interesting... can you show me an example of "revolution era liberalism," or "conservatism?"

If you read the rest of the post you'd see where that was coming from. Do I really need to reiterate that they weren't dealing with any of the same issues we're dealing with today? I mean, they didn't even have electricity.

 

[mal]

I'm sure s/he will get his dues when visiting other topics, but this is the INTRODUCTION area, so to climb all over the person at this stage isn't fair. For all we know, he's a satirist. Only time will tell if he sticks around. After all "Rightwinger" is hardly a right winger.

This is one of the More Polite Welcomes I've Witnessed...

You've been here Long enough, Maggles.



peace...

 

[MaggieMae]

to climb all over the person at this stage isn't fair.

Who ever said anything about anything being "fair" here?

Please.

Yes, sometimes I forget. My bad.

 

[MaggieMae]

I think the person is simply inviting debate on the issue which is, after all, what this board is all about. ....

That sure would be nice, but then you go and admit to this.

So you consider the men below to be your enemies.

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. -Thomas Jefferson

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. -John Adams

All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse. -Benjamin Franklin

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" - Benjamin Franklin

If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of Almighty God, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave. -samual adams

The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. -Samuel Adams

Wow. Does anyone really have time to post specific quotes from the Federalist Papers, etc., that make their case for them? I know I don't.

[Emphasis added]

That sort of sums up what you're idea of debate is.

Your point? I know what mine was, and so did Pilgrim. Attempting a tit-for-tat over the lengthy discussions among the framers of the Constitution would be a lengthy thread indeed. For every point made by, say, Madison, can be countered with a point made by Jefferson. A no-brainer. So why bother?

 

[MaggieMae]

I love it when somebody tries to imply what the Founding Fathers would think of today's world based on what they were dealing with back then, trying to found a new government free of the English monarchy back when they were fighting with muskets and a calvary that consisted of actual horses instead of anything motorized. The Communist Manifesto hasn't even been written back then; they were weighing a democracy and republican government against a crown. Indentured servitude and slavery were still acceptable back then. You needed to be a free property-owning man to vote, even after the Bill of Rights... WHY THE FUCK DO WE CARE WHAT THEY WOULD THINK OF OUR STATE OF AFFAIRS NOW???

Of course liberalism during the revolution is nothing like today's liberalism, or conservatism for that matter. They never had telecommunications back then, and the wind-sailed galleons of their time can't carry the kind of merch today's barges and cargo ships can carry. Can we really extrapolate their ideas with today's technology and the current global economy?

That's why I can never agree with strict constitutionalists who deny that the Constitution is a living document.

 

[Si modo]

I love it when somebody tries to imply what the Founding Fathers would think of today's world based on what they were dealing with back then, trying to found a new government free of the English monarchy back when they were fighting with muskets and a calvary that consisted of actual horses instead of anything motorized. The Communist Manifesto hasn't even been written back then; they were weighing a democracy and republican government against a crown. Indentured servitude and slavery were still acceptable back then. You needed to be a free property-owning man to vote, even after the Bill of Rights... WHY THE FUCK DO WE CARE WHAT THEY WOULD THINK OF OUR STATE OF AFFAIRS NOW???

Of course liberalism during the revolution is nothing like today's liberalism, or conservatism for that matter. They never had telecommunications back then, and the wind-sailed galleons of their time can't carry the kind of merch today's barges and cargo ships can carry. Can we really extrapolate their ideas with today's technology and the current global economy?

That's why I can never agree with strict constitutionalists who deny that the Constitution is a living document.

A strict constitutionalist would never deny it lives through the amendment process. Your point?