Hello from a discontented American

[ShackledNation]

Welcome.

I'm a chimpanzee.

Ah, thank goodness. Humans are not nearly as smart as apes.

 

[Bfgrn]

Hi everyone,

Hope you guys aren't all statists, because that will be a problem for a libertarian like me who believes in a limited constitutional Republic. I am a college student studying in Southern California who loves politics, computers, and music. Unforunately, I hate the way this country is heading and I fear for my future. I am one of those kids and grandkids whose future you old folks claim you are saving

In short, I support free market Austrian economics, advocate noninterventionist foreign policies, appreciate high skepticism of government, and demand liberty across the board. But we need to be practical about how we go about doing it.nLooking forward to debating all that with everyone here!

Welcome. I am a JFK liberal who has lived long enough to know how great America was when liberals ran the country. But, your beliefs seem to be in vogue these days.

Please tell me why America should follow the ideology of 19th century German, and Austro-Hungary rather than the 18th century Anglo-American ideas our founding fathers left as their legacy?

Free market really sounds great, too bad there is no such thing. All markets are constructed.

I see you quote Hayek. Here is an enlightening article he wrote.

Why I Am Not a Conservative
By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

Interesting article. Here is a quote from it:

The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions.

More Hayek. BTW, his assessment supports my premise that conservatives always build some form of an aristocracy.

"The conservative feels safe and content only if he is assured that some higher wisdom watches and supervises change, only if he knows that some authority is charged with keeping the change "orderly."

This fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces is closely related to two other characteristics of conservatism: its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of economic forces. Since it distrusts both abstract theories and general principles,[6] it neither understands those spontaneous forces on which a policy of freedom relies nor possesses a basis for formulating principles of policy. Order appears to the conservative as the result of the continuous attention of authority, which, for this purpose, must be allowed to do what is required by the particular circumstances and not be tied to rigid rule. A commitment to principles presupposes an understanding of the general forces by which the efforts of society are co-ordinated, but it is such a theory of society and especially of the economic mechanism that conservatism conspicuously lacks. So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal. Macaulay, Tocqueville, Lord Acton, and Lecky certainly considered themselves liberals, and with justice; and even Edmund Burke remained an Old Whig to the end and would have shuddered at the thought of being regarded as a Tory.

Let me return, however, to the main point, which is the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened rather than that its power be kept within bounds. This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty. In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules."

 

[Bfgrn]

Hi everyone,

Hope you guys aren't all statists, because that will be a problem for a libertarian like me who believes in a limited constitutional Republic. I am a college student studying in Southern California who loves politics, computers, and music. Unforunately, I hate the way this country is heading and I fear for my future. I am one of those kids and grandkids whose future you old folks claim you are saving

In short, I support free market Austrian economics, advocate noninterventionist foreign policies, appreciate high skepticism of government, and demand liberty across the board. But we need to be practical about how we go about doing it.nLooking forward to debating all that with everyone here!

Welcome. I am a JFK liberal who has lived long enough to know how great America was when liberals ran the country. But, your beliefs seem to be in vogue these days.

Please tell me why America should follow the ideology of 19th century German, and Austro-Hungary rather than the 18th century Anglo-American ideas our founding fathers left as their legacy?

Free market really sounds great, too bad there is no such thing. All markets are constructed.

I see you quote Hayek. Here is an enlightening article he wrote.

Why I Am Not a Conservative
By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

Hence why I am a libertarian, like Hayek and Jefferson, and not a conservative. Do you even know what Austrian economics is? I am not talking about an economic system that was once followed in Austria and Hungary. The reason the school of thought is called Austrian economics is because that is where the originators were born (and the most prominent ones ended up living in America, like Hayek, Rothbard, Mises, etc.)

My beliefs? In vogue? Are you kidding? Do you even know what libertarianism is?

Our founding fathers were not libertarians. How can 18th century Anglo-Americans be labeled with beliefs whose genesis was 19th century German? Do you own a calendar?

 

[ShackledNation]

Welcome. I am a JFK liberal who has lived long enough to know how great America was when liberals ran the country. But, your beliefs seem to be in vogue these days.

Please tell me why America should follow the ideology of 19th century German, and Austro-Hungary rather than the 18th century Anglo-American ideas our founding fathers left as their legacy?

Free market really sounds great, too bad there is no such thing. All markets are constructed.

I see you quote Hayek. Here is an enlightening article he wrote.

Why I Am Not a Conservative
By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

Hence why I am a libertarian, like Hayek and Jefferson, and not a conservative. Do you even know what Austrian economics is? I am not talking about an economic system that was once followed in Austria and Hungary. The reason the school of thought is called Austrian economics is because that is where the originators were born (and the most prominent ones ended up living in America, like Hayek, Rothbard, Mises, etc.)

My beliefs? In vogue? Are you kidding? Do you even know what libertarianism is?

Our founding fathers were not libertarians. How can 18th century Anglo-Americans be labeled with beliefs whose genesis was 19th century German? Do you own a calendar?

I do own a calendar, but nowadays calendar's only represent one year, so it would do me little good in this case. Anyway, I specifically referred to Jefferson, not all the founders, so your argument right off the bat is not really addressing my statement, but I would also argue that generally the founders were more libertarian than not.

As for libertarianism originating from the Germans...hogwash. John Stuart Mill was German? Thomas Jefferson was a founding father and part of an early libertarian movement in America. When did you get the idea that advancing liberty in all spheres was a purely 19th century German idea? Austrian economics is merely an expansion of libertarian economic principles.

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him. "
Libertarian principle of nonaggression, as stated by Thomas Jefferson himself. That the law should only restrain man from doing something that violates the rights of others is an inherently libertarian idea.

More Jefferson quotes:

"I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others. "

"If there is one principle more deeply rooted in the mind of every American, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest. " (noninterventionist foreign policy)

"It is better to tolerate that rare instance of a parent’s refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings by a forcible transportation and education of the infant against the will of his father. " (against government education)

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature. "
Many libertarians do not like organized religion (although, as a Catholic, I am obviously not one of them).

Of course the founders' views were not identical to how every libertarian would describe his views. But they were more predecessors of modern libertarianism than anything else.

What modern ideology do you think the founding father's more closely represent, if not libertarianism?

 

[KSigMason]

Welcome to this Board.

 

[idb]

Welcome. I am a JFK liberal who has lived long enough to know how great America was when liberals ran the country. But, your beliefs seem to be in vogue these days.

Please tell me why America should follow the ideology of 19th century German, and Austro-Hungary rather than the 18th century Anglo-American ideas our founding fathers left as their legacy?

Free market really sounds great, too bad there is no such thing. All markets are constructed.

I see you quote Hayek. Here is an enlightening article he wrote.

Why I Am Not a Conservative
By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

Interesting article. Here is a quote from it:

The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions.

More Hayek. BTW, his assessment supports my premise that conservatives always build some form of an aristocracy.

"The conservative feels safe and content only if he is assured that some higher wisdom watches and supervises change, only if he knows that some authority is charged with keeping the change "orderly."

This fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces is closely related to two other characteristics of conservatism: its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of economic forces. Since it distrusts both abstract theories and general principles,[6] it neither understands those spontaneous forces on which a policy of freedom relies nor possesses a basis for formulating principles of policy. Order appears to the conservative as the result of the continuous attention of authority, which, for this purpose, must be allowed to do what is required by the particular circumstances and not be tied to rigid rule. A commitment to principles presupposes an understanding of the general forces by which the efforts of society are co-ordinated, but it is such a theory of society and especially of the economic mechanism that conservatism conspicuously lacks. So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal. Macaulay, Tocqueville, Lord Acton, and Lecky certainly considered themselves liberals, and with justice; and even Edmund Burke remained an Old Whig to the end and would have shuddered at the thought of being regarded as a Tory.

Let me return, however, to the main point, which is the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened rather than that its power be kept within bounds. This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty. In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules."

I agree with many 'conservative' principles, but why do they generally seem to be (at least the prominent ones anyway) wild-eyed, frothy-mouthed, hyperbole-spouting, intellectual-hating, knee-jerking, conspiracy-theorising, fundamentalist maniacs?

Where are the measured, reasoning voices on the Right...they must be there somewhere?


...or is it just me...?

 

[editec]

Hi everyone,

Hope you guys aren't all statists, because that will be a problem for a libertarian like me who believes in a limited constitutional Republic. I am a college student studying in Southern California who loves politics, computers, and music. Unforunately, I hate the way this country is heading and I fear for my future. I am one of those kids and grandkids whose future you old folks claim you are saving

In short, I support free market Austrian economics, advocate noninterventionist foreign policies, appreciate high skepticism of government, and demand liberty across the board. But we need to be practical about how we go about doing it.nLooking forward to debating all that with everyone here!

The evidence of what you really support will be found in the policy decisions you propose.

My point here is that saying that you want something good but vague is rather meaningless.

Everybody wants freedom, prosperity and good government.

Where the debate lives is how to get that.

 

[Bfgrn]

Hence why I am a libertarian, like Hayek and Jefferson, and not a conservative. Do you even know what Austrian economics is? I am not talking about an economic system that was once followed in Austria and Hungary. The reason the school of thought is called Austrian economics is because that is where the originators were born (and the most prominent ones ended up living in America, like Hayek, Rothbard, Mises, etc.)

My beliefs? In vogue? Are you kidding? Do you even know what libertarianism is?

Our founding fathers were not libertarians. How can 18th century Anglo-Americans be labeled with beliefs whose genesis was 19th century German? Do you own a calendar?

I do own a calendar, but nowadays calendar's only represent one year, so it would do me little good in this case. Anyway, I specifically referred to Jefferson, not all the founders, so your argument right off the bat is not really addressing my statement, but I would also argue that generally the founders were more libertarian than not.

As for libertarianism originating from the Germans...hogwash. John Stuart Mill was German? Thomas Jefferson was a founding father and part of an early libertarian movement in America. When did you get the idea that advancing liberty in all spheres was a purely 19th century German idea? Austrian economics is merely an expansion of libertarian economic principles.

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him. "
Libertarian principle of nonaggression, as stated by Thomas Jefferson himself. That the law should only restrain man from doing something that violates the rights of others is an inherently libertarian idea.

More Jefferson quotes:

"I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others. "

"If there is one principle more deeply rooted in the mind of every American, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest. " (noninterventionist foreign policy)

"It is better to tolerate that rare instance of a parent’s refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings by a forcible transportation and education of the infant against the will of his father. " (against government education)

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature. "
Many libertarians do not like organized religion (although, as a Catholic, I am obviously not one of them).

Of course the founders' views were not identical to how every libertarian would describe his views. But they were more predecessors of modern libertarianism than anything else.

What modern ideology do you think the founding father's more closely represent, if not libertarianism?

You are one mixed up ideologue. You have decided to mix and match what you believe, call it a name (libertarian) that was never uttered by Thomas Jefferson and was never uttered by anyone until William Belsham (1752–1827), an English political writer and historian, and supporter of the Whig Party coined the term libertarian in a discussion of free will and in opposition to "necessitarian" (or determinist) views.

You profess support for free market Austrian economics which didn't exist in Jefferson's day and would never be supported by Jefferson or any of the founding fathers.

The Austrian School is a heterodox school of economic thought that emphasizes the spontaneous organizing power of the price mechanism. Its name derives from the identity of its founders and early supporters, who were citizens of the old Austrian Habsburg Empire, including Carl Menger, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises, and Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek.

In the case of Thomas Jefferson, his ideology most closely represents a liberal. So again, I will ask the question:

Please tell me why America should follow the ideology of 19th century German, and Austro-Hungary rather than the 18th century Anglo-American ideas our founding fathers left as their legacy?

BTW, Hayek didn't call himself a libertarian. He found it singularly unattractive and believed it carried too much the flavor of a manufactured term and of a substitute for his taste.

"Whiggism is historically the correct name for the ideas in which I believe. The more I learn about the evolution of ideas, the more I have become aware that I am simply an unrepentant Old Whig - with the stress on the "old."
F.A. Hayek

Also, Hayek considered Thomas Jefferson a radical.

John Stuart Mill was not a contemporary of Jefferson. Their lives overlapped by 20 years. The year Jefferson died, Mill had a nervous breakdown. Mill studied Adam Smith and David Ricardo.

That being said, there are many libertarian beliefs I agree with in regards to civil liberties and the right to privacy. Libertarians like Barry Goldwater and Harry Browne come to mind. But I don't agree with libertarian economic beliefs. They are naive at best and radical at worst. They open the door to fascism in the form of corporatism.

Also, if you are going to quote Jefferson you need to provide documentation and context. TJ is probably the most misquoted of our founders.

And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
President John F. Kennedy

 

[Sunni Man]

Say "Hi" to Ron Paul next time you see him.

 

[California Girl]

Welcome Shack.

 

[techieny]

Hello people. New here and looking forward to contributing!

techieny

 

[ShackledNation]

You are one mixed up ideologue.

Oh yes more ad hominem arguments.

You have decided to mix and match what you believe, call it a name (libertarian) that was never uttered by Thomas Jefferson

Mix and match what I believe? What does that even mean? It is irrelevant what Jefferson called his ideology in the context of the discussion. Liberalism had a different meaning in the time of Jefferson that is contrary to the American usage of the word to day. If you look at actual beliefs, libertarianism is closer to the founding ideology than modern day liberalism.

and was never uttered by anyone until William Belsham (1752–1827), an English political writer and historian, and supporter of the Whig Party coined the term libertarian in a discussion of free will and in opposition to "necessitarian" (or determinist) views.

So now libertarian originated in England. Didn't you say earlier that libertarians held beliefs whose genesis was 19th century Germany? Define libertarianism for me, and then define the beliefs of the founders. Then tell me how they are so far apart.

You profess support for free market Austrian economics which didn't exist in Jefferson's day and would never be supported by Jefferson or any of the founding fathers.

You can read Jefferson and all of the founding fathers' minds and tell me they would never support another defense of free market economics? Jefferson was very critical of central banks, and saw them as threats to liberty. Austrian economists only expanded on that topic. Ideas grow and develop. People grow and develop along with them.

The Austrian School is a heterodox school of economic thought that emphasizes the spontaneous organizing power of the price mechanism. Its name derives from the identity of its founders and early supporters, who were citizens of the old Austrian Habsburg Empire, including Carl Menger, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises, and Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek.

Exactly how does that run contrary to anything I am saying? I was the one who explained to you how the Austrian school got its name, which is the same reason you just quoted.

In the case of Thomas Jefferson, his ideology most closely represents a liberal.

Define liberal. You know as well as I that in America liberal means something very different than what it used to mean. Classic liberalism is more like what in America is called libertarianism. If by liberal you mean classic liberals (limited government) then you are correct. Libertarianism is a modern form of classical liberalism. Here is a wiki link for you:
Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In the late 19th century, classical liberalism developed into neo-classical liberalism, which argued for government to be as small as possible in order to allow the exercise of individual freedom. In its most extreme form, it advocated Social Darwinism. Libertarianism is a modern form of neo-classical liberalism."

So again, I will ask the question:

Please tell me why America should follow the ideology of 19th century German, and Austro-Hungary rather than the 18th century Anglo-American ideas our founding fathers left as their legacy?

I thought you said libertarianism was coined by an Anglo named William Belsham? And have you ever heard of John Stuart Mill?

BTW, Hayek didn't call himself a libertarian. He found it singularly unattractive and believed it carried too much the flavor of a manufactured term and of a substitute for his taste.

You should have put that in quotes. Here is the full quote:
"In the United States, where it has become almost impossible to use "liberal" in the sense in which I have used it, the term "libertarian" has been used instead. It may be the answer; but for my part I find it singularly unattractive. For my taste it carries too much the flavor of a manufactured term and of a substitute. What I should want is a word which describes the party of life, the party that favors free growth and spontaneous evolution. But I have racked my brain unsuccessfully to find a descriptive term which commends itself."

Hayek did not like the term libertarian because he would have preferred to use the term liberal. He is not talking about the libertarian ideology, he is talking about how that philosophy is named.

"Whiggism is historically the correct name for the ideas in which I believe. The more I learn about the evolution of ideas, the more I have become aware that I am simply an unrepentant Old Whig - with the stress on the "old."
F.A. Hayek

The whig party was German? I guess it looks like Hayek's views are American after all. On the one hand you say Libertarianism developed in Germany. Then you say the term was first coined by an Englishman. And then you point to Hayek, who was an Austrian, talk about how Austrian economics is not American, and then quote Hayek saying how he got his beliefs from a former American political party. You are all over the place.

Also, Hayek considered Thomas Jefferson a radical.

ES Corwin said that, and Hayek agreed. Did he say that in a negative way? I don't think so. Here is the rest of the quote you are referring to. "[we] must remember what E. S. Corwin has called Madison's later "surrender to the overwhelming influence of Jefferson.""

John Stuart Mill was not a contemporary of Jefferson. Their lives overlapped by 20 years. The year Jefferson died, Mill had a nervous breakdown. Mill studied Adam Smith and David Ricardo.

The point was libertarianism is not a solely German based ideology, as you would try to claim.

That being said, there are many libertarian beliefs I agree with in regards to civil liberties and the right to privacy. Libertarians like Barry Goldwater and Harry Browne come to mind. But I don't agree with libertarian economic beliefs. They are naive at best and radical at worst. They open the door to fascism in the form of corporatism.

What on earth to you think libertarian economic beliefs are? Libertarians argue incredibly strongly against fascism and corporatism. Your problem is that you have no idea what libertarian economic beliefs are. They are very similar to what the founders would have said. Jefferson was strongly against central banking (as our libertarians) believed money should be gold or determined by the market, not government or banks (sounds pretty libertarian) and believed in a strict interpretation of the constitution. He would never support any of the economic policies of Obama and Bush. He would be disgusted that we have fiat money, a central bank, welfare, minimum wage, subsidies, etc.

And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.
President John F. Kennedy

Exactly. Yet you are the one who keeps saying "why should we listen to what Germans say over Anglo-Americans?" If you believe that quote, you shouldn't be trying to discredit an ideology because you think it is not American or English.

You say libertarianism is German, not English, and then you point to an Englishman as the first man to coin the term libertarian.

You insinuate we should listen to Anglo-Americans over Germans (by asking why should we listen to Germans over Anglo Americans) and then quote JFK who says we cannot only listen to Americans.

You, my friend, are incredibly inconsistent.

 

[Bfgrn]

You are one mixed up ideologue.

Oh yes more ad hominem arguments.

You have decided to mix and match what you believe, call it a name (libertarian) that was never uttered by Thomas Jefferson

Mix and match what I believe? What does that even mean? It is irrelevant what Jefferson called his ideology in the context of the discussion. Liberalism had a different meaning in the time of Jefferson that is contrary to the American usage of the word to day. If you look at actual beliefs, libertarianism is closer to the founding ideology than modern day liberalism.


So now libertarian originated in England. Didn't you say earlier that libertarians held beliefs whose genesis was 19th century Germany? Define libertarianism for me, and then define the beliefs of the founders. Then tell me how they are so far apart.


You can read Jefferson and all of the founding fathers' minds and tell me they would never support another defense of free market economics? Jefferson was very critical of central banks, and saw them as threats to liberty. Austrian economists only expanded on that topic. Ideas grow and develop. People grow and develop along with them.


Exactly how does that run contrary to anything I am saying? I was the one who explained to you how the Austrian school got its name, which is the same reason you just quoted.


Define liberal. You know as well as I that in America liberal means something very different than what it used to mean. Classic liberalism is more like what in America is called libertarianism. If by liberal you mean classic liberals (limited government) then you are correct. Libertarianism is a modern form of classical liberalism. Here is a wiki link for you:
Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In the late 19th century, classical liberalism developed into neo-classical liberalism, which argued for government to be as small as possible in order to allow the exercise of individual freedom. In its most extreme form, it advocated Social Darwinism. Libertarianism is a modern form of neo-classical liberalism."

So again, I will ask the question:

I thought you said libertarianism was coined by an Anglo named William Belsham? And have you ever heard of John Stuart Mill?


You should have put that in quotes. Here is the full quote:
"In the United States, where it has become almost impossible to use "liberal" in the sense in which I have used it, the term "libertarian" has been used instead. It may be the answer; but for my part I find it singularly unattractive. For my taste it carries too much the flavor of a manufactured term and of a substitute. What I should want is a word which describes the party of life, the party that favors free growth and spontaneous evolution. But I have racked my brain unsuccessfully to find a descriptive term which commends itself."

Hayek did not like the term libertarian because he would have preferred to use the term liberal. He is not talking about the libertarian ideology, he is talking about how that philosophy is named.


The whig party was German? I guess it looks like Hayek's views are American after all. On the one hand you say Libertarianism developed in Germany. Then you say the term was first coined by an Englishman. And then you point to Hayek, who was an Austrian, talk about how Austrian economics is not American, and then quote Hayek saying how he got his beliefs from a former American political party. You are all over the place.


ES Corwin said that, and Hayek agreed. Did he say that in a negative way? I don't think so. Here is the rest of the quote you are referring to. "[we] must remember what E. S. Corwin has called Madison's later "surrender to the overwhelming influence of Jefferson.""


The point was libertarianism is not a solely German based ideology, as you would try to claim.

That being said, there are many libertarian beliefs I agree with in regards to civil liberties and the right to privacy. Libertarians like Barry Goldwater and Harry Browne come to mind. But I don't agree with libertarian economic beliefs. They are naive at best and radical at worst. They open the door to fascism in the form of corporatism.

What on earth to you think libertarian economic beliefs are? Libertarians argue incredibly strongly against fascism and corporatism. Your problem is that you have no idea what libertarian economic beliefs are. They are very similar to what the founders would have said. Jefferson was strongly against central banking (as our libertarians) believed money should be gold or determined by the market, not government or banks (sounds pretty libertarian) and believed in a strict interpretation of the constitution. He would never support any of the economic policies of Obama and Bush. He would be disgusted that we have fiat money, a central bank, welfare, minimum wage, subsidies, etc.

And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.
President John F. Kennedy

Exactly. Yet you are the one who keeps saying "why should we listen to what Germans say over Anglo-Americans?" If you believe that quote, you shouldn't be trying to discredit an ideology because you think it is not American or English.

You say libertarianism is German, not English, and then you point to an Englishman as the first man to coin the term libertarian.

You insinuate we should listen to Anglo-Americans over Germans (by asking why should we listen to Germans over Anglo Americans) and then quote JFK who says we cannot only listen to Americans.

You, my friend, are incredibly inconsistent.

Nice job of obfuscation. A simple scan of Hayek's bio provides explanation. He was born in Vienna, studied at the University of Vienna and became a British subject in 1938 because of Nazi occupation. The Whig party Hayek refers to is not the American political party, it was an 18th- and 19th-century British political party that was opposed to the Tories.

You profess a support for free market Austrian economics. So AGAIN I must ask: "Please tell me why America should follow the ideology of 19th century German, and Austro-Hungary rather than the 18th century Anglo-American ideas our founding fathers left as their legacy?"

In your opening salvo, you started with 'Hope you guys aren't all statists'. Didn't our founding fathers create a 'state'? Their seminal achievement was creating an entity to address the issues and needs of We, the People. It was not a private entity, it was not a corporation, it was a government. So wouldn't our founding fathers be 'statists'?

Arguments over size and scope of government and interpretation of documents our founders authored has been raging for over 200 years by the best minds and scholars of every generation. And yet, we are still at an impasse. It seems that each generation has a group of people who say they KNOW our founder's intent.

Here is something to consider:

The Boston Tea Party was a revolt against corporate tax cuts for the largest transnational corporation in existence in those days. It would have lowered the price of tea for the colonists, but it would undermine the local colonialist's small businesses.

The word 'corporation' appears nowhere in the Constitution. Our founding fathers had no desire to give corporations any power or control over their new government or We, the People.

Our founding fathers outlived the documents they authored and actually governed. Do you know how the treated corporations? Do you know if they believed in a hands off or strict control and regulation of corporations?

I suggest you find out. You can profess any ideology you choose. But don't try to hijack people like Jefferson to add legitimacy to that ideology.

The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.

 

[AquaAthena]

Hi everyone,

Hope you guys aren't all statists, because that will be a problem for a libertarian like me who believes in a limited constitutional Republic. I am a college student studying in Southern California who loves politics, computers, and music. Unforunately, I hate the way this country is heading and I fear for my future. I am one of those kids and grandkids whose future you old folks claim you are saving

In short, I support free market Austrian economics, advocate noninterventionist foreign policies, appreciate high skepticism of government, and demand liberty across the board. But we need to be practical about how we go about doing it.nLooking forward to debating all that with everyone here!

***WELCOME*** ShackledNation. Sending reps your way for an awesome avi and introduction. I, long ago, disabled the option to view signatures but read by a poster here that you have quoted a famed economist I have long respected; F.A. Hayek. I found his book, Road to Serfdom very informative and an interesting read. I am a fan. He spoke much of Markism and the failure of such an ideology.

Karl Marx was a college educated man who never worked, only theorized. His own mother said of him, "If Karl, instead of writing a lot about capital, made a lot of capital, it would have been much better."

"From the book "The End of Money" by Richard W. Rahn 1999:

 

[Bfgrn]

Hi everyone,

Hope you guys aren't all statists, because that will be a problem for a libertarian like me who believes in a limited constitutional Republic. I am a college student studying in Southern California who loves politics, computers, and music. Unforunately, I hate the way this country is heading and I fear for my future. I am one of those kids and grandkids whose future you old folks claim you are saving

In short, I support free market Austrian economics, advocate noninterventionist foreign policies, appreciate high skepticism of government, and demand liberty across the board. But we need to be practical about how we go about doing it.nLooking forward to debating all that with everyone here!

***WELCOME*** ShackledNation. Sending reps your way for an awesome avi and introduction. I, long ago, disabled the option to view signatures but read by a poster here that you have quoted a famed economist I have long respected; F.A. Hayek. I found his book, Road to Serfdom very informative and an interesting read. I am a fan. He spoke much of Markism and the failure of such an ideology.

Karl Marx was a college educated man who never worked, only theorized. His own mother said of him, "If Karl, instead of writing a lot about capital, made a lot of capital, it would have been much better."

"From the book "The End of Money" by Richard W. Rahn 1999:

What jobs did Hayek hold?

 

[ShackledNation]

Nice job of obfuscation. A simple scan of Hayek's bio provides explanation. He was born in Vienna, studied at the University of Vienna and became a British subject in 1938 because of Nazi occupation. The Whig party Hayek refers to is not the American political party, it was an 18th- and 19th-century British political party that was opposed to the Tories.

Read your own source:
It was the ideals of the English Whigs that inspired what later came to be known as the liberal movement in the whole of Europe[15] and that provided the conceptions that the American colonists carried with them and which guided them in their struggle for independence and in the establishment of their constitution.

The founders were influenced by the English Whigs, as was Hayek.

You profess a support for free market Austrian economics. So AGAIN I must ask: "Please tell me why America should follow the ideology of 19th century German, and Austro-Hungary rather than the 18th century Anglo-American ideas our founding fathers left as their legacy?"

Refer to your own JFK quote for that answer. Are you saying we should only follow 18th century Anglo-American ideologies? Why does that even matter? Also, your statement contains incorrect assumptions.
1. It is not a purely German/Austro-Hungarian ideology. Many (most?) of the modern Austrians are Americans. The Mises Institute is located in Alabama, not Austria or Germany, and is considered the current leader in Austrian economics.
2. It is not a 19th century ideology. The ideology has been expanded on by many scholars, and many of the most famous did their writings in the 20th century. People like Thomas E. Woods, Ron Paul, and others are not only American citizens, but 21st century writers.
3. Hayek said his ideology most closely resembled the Whig party of Britain. The whig pary was a 18th century Anglo party whose ideals were carried over to America and heavily influenced the founding fathers. Hayek therefore believes in an Anglo-American ideology.

In your opening salvo, you started with 'Hope you guys aren't all statists'. Didn't our founding fathers create a 'state'? Their seminal achievement was creating an entity to address the issues and needs of We, the People. It was not a private entity, it was not a corporation, it was a government. So wouldn't our founding fathers be 'statists'?

No, they would not. Look up the definition of statism.
statist - definition of statist by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
"The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy."
The founders believed in a laissez-faire hands off economic approach and a decentralized government, not statism. Statism does not mean having a government.

Our founding fathers outlived the documents they authored and actually governed. Do you know how the treated corporations? Do you know if they believed in a hands off or strict control and regulation of corporations?

Considered they believed in economic liberalism (classical liberalism, not modern american) and laissez-faire capitalism, it would be logical to assume they would not want strict control of corporations, which runs contrary to those ideals. They also would not want the subsidization of corporations by government like we have today.

I suggest you find out. You can profess any ideology you choose. But don't try to hijack people like Jefferson to add legitimacy to that ideology.

How did I hijack Jefferson by pointing out he was against central banking like Austrian economists? That isn't hijacking, that is called evidence. Evidence which you can't refute, so you resort to the above demagoguery instead.

The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.

Is that what you are doing? I am simply pointing to what the founders actually said and believed, and comparing it to modern American political ideologies. The ideology I have found to be most similar to the founders is libertarianism. You say liberalism, but libertarianism is the modern successor of liberalism (in the classic sense). American liberals are not classical liberals, neither are conservatives. You do realize how we in America confuse the term liberal, do you not? Liberal used to mean limited government (economic and social liberalism). Libertarians believe in limited government.

You have provided nothing to prove the contrary.

 

[Bfgrn]

Nice job of obfuscation. A simple scan of Hayek's bio provides explanation. He was born in Vienna, studied at the University of Vienna and became a British subject in 1938 because of Nazi occupation. The Whig party Hayek refers to is not the American political party, it was an 18th- and 19th-century British political party that was opposed to the Tories.

Read your own source:
It was the ideals of the English Whigs that inspired what later came to be known as the liberal movement in the whole of Europe[15] and that provided the conceptions that the American colonists carried with them and which guided them in their struggle for independence and in the establishment of their constitution.

The founders were influenced by the English Whigs, as was Hayek.

You profess a support for free market Austrian economics. So AGAIN I must ask: "Please tell me why America should follow the ideology of 19th century German, and Austro-Hungary rather than the 18th century Anglo-American ideas our founding fathers left as their legacy?"

Refer to your own JFK quote for that answer. Are you saying we should only follow 18th century Anglo-American ideologies? Why does that even matter? Also, your statement contains incorrect assumptions.
1. It is not a purely German/Austro-Hungarian ideology. Many (most?) of the modern Austrians are Americans. The Mises Institute is located in Alabama, not Austria or Germany, and is considered the current leader in Austrian economics.
2. It is not a 19th century ideology. The ideology has been expanded on by many scholars, and many of the most famous did their writings in the 20th century. People like Thomas E. Woods, Ron Paul, and others are not only American citizens, but 21st century writers.
3. Hayek said his ideology most closely resembled the Whig party of Britain. The whig pary was a 18th century Anglo party whose ideals were carried over to America and heavily influenced the founding fathers. Hayek therefore believes in an Anglo-American ideology.


No, they would not. Look up the definition of statism.
statist - definition of statist by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
"The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy."
The founders believed in a laissez-faire hands off economic approach and a decentralized government, not statism. Statism does not mean having a government.


Considered they believed in economic liberalism (classical liberalism, not modern american) and laissez-faire capitalism, it would be logical to assume they would not want strict control of corporations, which runs contrary to those ideals. They also would not want the subsidization of corporations by government like we have today.

I suggest you find out. You can profess any ideology you choose. But don't try to hijack people like Jefferson to add legitimacy to that ideology.

How did I hijack Jefferson by pointing out he was against central banking like Austrian economists? That isn't hijacking, that is called evidence. Evidence which you can't refute, so you resort to the above demagoguery instead.

The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.

Is that what you are doing? I am simply pointing to what the founders actually said and believed, and comparing it to modern American political ideologies. The ideology I have found to be most similar to the founders is libertarianism. You say liberalism, but libertarianism is the modern successor of liberalism (in the classic sense). American liberals are not classical liberals, neither are conservatives. You do realize how we in America confuse the term liberal, do you not? Liberal used to mean limited government (economic and social liberalism). Libertarians believe in limited government.

You have provided nothing to prove the contrary.

My God man...Alabama, the epicenter of Austrian ideology...LOL

Ludwig Heinrich Edler von Mises (German pronunciation: [ˈluːtvɪç fɔn ˈmiːzəs]; September 29, 1881 – October 10, 1973) was an Austrian-American economist, historian, philosopher, author, and classical liberal who had a significant influence on the modern free-market libertarian movement and the Austrian School.

Early life

Ludwig von Mises was born to wealthy, Jewish parents, in the city of Lwów, in Galicia, Austria-Hungary (now Lviv in Ukraine). The family of his father Arthur Edler von Mises, had been elevated to the Austrian nobility in the 19th century, and was involved in building and financing railroads. Ludwig's mother, Adele (née Landau), was a niece of Dr. Joachim Landau, a Liberal Party deputy to the Austrian Parliament.[1] Arthur was stationed there as a construction engineer with Czernowitz railway company. At the age of twelve Ludwig spoke fluent Yiddish, German, Polish, and French, read Latin, and could understand Ukrainian.[2] Mises was the older brother of the famous applied physicist Richard von Mises, a member of the Vienna Circle. Another brother, Karl von Mises, had died in infancy from scarlet fever. When Ludwig and Richard were children, his family moved back to their ancestral home of Vienna.

In 1900, he attended the University of Vienna,[3] becoming influenced by the works of Carl Menger. Mises' father died in 1903, and in 1906 Mises was awarded his doctorate from the school of law.

Professional life

In the years from 1904 to 1914, Mises attended lectures given by the prominent Austrian economist Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk. There, he developed friendships not only with Menger and Böhm-Bawerk, but also prominent sociologist Max Weber.[4] Mises taught as a Privatdozent at the Vienna University in the years from 1913 to 1934 while formally serving as secretary at the Vienna Chamber of Commerce from 1909 to 1934. In these roles, he became one of the closest economic advisers of Engelbert Dollfuss, the "austrofascist" but strongly anti-Nazi Austrian Chancellor,[5] and later to Otto von Habsburg, the Christian democratic politician and claimant to the throne of Austria (which had been legally abolished in 1918).[6] Friends and students of Mises in Europe included Wilhelm Röpke and Alfred Müller-Armack (influential advisors to German chancellor Ludwig Erhard), Jacques Rueff (monetary advisor to Charles de Gaulle), Lord Lionel Robbins (of the London School of Economics), and President of Italy, Luigi Einaudi.[7]

Economist and political theorist F. A. Hayek first came to know Mises while working as Mises' subordinate at a government office dealing with Austria's post-World War I debt.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I gave you an opportunity to research how our founding fathers treated corporations. You chose to assume they would agree with Austrian and German ideologues...WRONG

Ever hear of the saying, actions speak louder than words? So HOW they actually governed is how THEY actually interpreted the documents they authored.

Our founding fathers believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.

Nineteenth-century laws regulating corporations in America

*Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.

*Corporations’ licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).

*The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved.

*The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.

*As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn’t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were “just doing their job” when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

*State (not federal) courts heard cases where corporations or their agents were accused of breaking the law or harming the public.

*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

*Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice).

*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

*Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

*Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

*State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

*All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents

BTW, JFK's quote is about non intervention.


Education is the cheap defense of nations.
Edmund Burke

 

[editec]

Hence why I am a libertarian, like Hayek and Jefferson, and not a conservative. Do you even know what Austrian economics is? I am not talking about an economic system that was once followed in Austria and Hungary. The reason the school of thought is called Austrian economics is because that is where the originators were born (and the most prominent ones ended up living in America, like Hayek, Rothbard, Mises, etc.)

My beliefs? In vogue? Are you kidding? Do you even know what libertarianism is?

Our founding fathers were not libertarians. How can 18th century Anglo-Americans be labeled with beliefs whose genesis was 19th century German? Do you own a calendar?

I do own a calendar, but nowadays calendar's only represent one year, so it would do me little good in this case. Anyway, I specifically referred to Jefferson, not all the founders, so your argument right off the bat is not really addressing my statement, but I would also argue that generally the founders were more libertarian than not.

As for libertarianism originating from the Germans...hogwash. John Stuart Mill was German? Thomas Jefferson was a founding father and part of an early libertarian movement in America. When did you get the idea that advancing liberty in all spheres was a purely 19th century German idea? Austrian economics is merely an expansion of libertarian economic principles.

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him. "
Libertarian principle of nonaggression, as stated by Thomas Jefferson himself. That the law should only restrain man from doing something that violates the rights of others is an inherently libertarian idea.

More Jefferson quotes:

"I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others. "

"If there is one principle more deeply rooted in the mind of every American, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest. " (noninterventionist foreign policy)

"It is better to tolerate that rare instance of a parent’s refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings by a forcible transportation and education of the infant against the will of his father. " (against government education)

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature. "
Many libertarians do not like organized religion (although, as a Catholic, I am obviously not one of them).

Of course the founders' views were not identical to how every libertarian would describe his views. But they were more predecessors of modern libertarianism than anything else.

What modern ideology do you think the founding father's more closely represent, if not libertarianism?

Ah yes those Flounding Father LIBERTARIANS of ourss, The SAME LIBERTARIANS who decided that SLAVERY wasn't in any way in opposition to the concept of LIBERTY that you modern libertairans hold so dear.

Yeah, those FFs certainly were good libertairaians, weren't they?

 

[Douger]

Hi everyone,

Hope you guys aren't all statists, because that will be a problem for a libertarian like me who believes in a limited constitutional Republic. I am a college student studying in Southern California who loves politics, computers, and music. Unforunately, I hate the way this country is heading and I fear for my future. I am one of those kids and grandkids whose future you old folks claim you are saving

In short, I support free market Austrian economics, advocate noninterventionist foreign policies, appreciate high skepticism of government, and demand liberty across the board. But we need to be practical about how we go about doing it.nLooking forward to debating all that with everyone here!

You get to keep the A. Study your ass off, learn a couple languages and get out.
I'm getting to be and old man and thought like you when younger. It's not going to change( for the better). You are surrounded by people too stupid to vote.

 

[ShackledNation]

Nice job of obfuscation. A simple scan of Hayek's bio provides explanation. He was born in Vienna, studied at the University of Vienna and became a British subject in 1938 because of Nazi occupation. The Whig party Hayek refers to is not the American political party, it was an 18th- and 19th-century British political party that was opposed to the Tories.

Read your own source:
It was the ideals of the English Whigs that inspired what later came to be known as the liberal movement in the whole of Europe[15] and that provided the conceptions that the American colonists carried with them and which guided them in their struggle for independence and in the establishment of their constitution.

The founders were influenced by the English Whigs, as was Hayek.


Refer to your own JFK quote for that answer. Are you saying we should only follow 18th century Anglo-American ideologies? Why does that even matter? Also, your statement contains incorrect assumptions.
1. It is not a purely German/Austro-Hungarian ideology. Many (most?) of the modern Austrians are Americans. The Mises Institute is located in Alabama, not Austria or Germany, and is considered the current leader in Austrian economics.
2. It is not a 19th century ideology. The ideology has been expanded on by many scholars, and many of the most famous did their writings in the 20th century. People like Thomas E. Woods, Ron Paul, and others are not only American citizens, but 21st century writers.
3. Hayek said his ideology most closely resembled the Whig party of Britain. The whig pary was a 18th century Anglo party whose ideals were carried over to America and heavily influenced the founding fathers. Hayek therefore believes in an Anglo-American ideology.


No, they would not. Look up the definition of statism.
statist - definition of statist by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
"The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy."
The founders believed in a laissez-faire hands off economic approach and a decentralized government, not statism. Statism does not mean having a government.


Considered they believed in economic liberalism (classical liberalism, not modern american) and laissez-faire capitalism, it would be logical to assume they would not want strict control of corporations, which runs contrary to those ideals. They also would not want the subsidization of corporations by government like we have today.


How did I hijack Jefferson by pointing out he was against central banking like Austrian economists? That isn't hijacking, that is called evidence. Evidence which you can't refute, so you resort to the above demagoguery instead.

The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.

Is that what you are doing? I am simply pointing to what the founders actually said and believed, and comparing it to modern American political ideologies. The ideology I have found to be most similar to the founders is libertarianism. You say liberalism, but libertarianism is the modern successor of liberalism (in the classic sense). American liberals are not classical liberals, neither are conservatives. You do realize how we in America confuse the term liberal, do you not? Liberal used to mean limited government (economic and social liberalism). Libertarians believe in limited government.

You have provided nothing to prove the contrary.

My God man...Alabama, the epicenter of Austrian ideology...LOL

Ludwig Heinrich Edler von Mises (German pronunciation: [ˈluːtvɪç fɔn ˈmiːzəs]; September 29, 1881 – October 10, 1973) was an Austrian-American economist, historian, philosopher, author, and classical liberal who had a significant influence on the modern free-market libertarian movement and the Austrian School.

Early life

Ludwig von Mises was born to wealthy, Jewish parents, in the city of Lwów, in Galicia, Austria-Hungary (now Lviv in Ukraine). The family of his father Arthur Edler von Mises, had been elevated to the Austrian nobility in the 19th century, and was involved in building and financing railroads. Ludwig's mother, Adele (née Landau), was a niece of Dr. Joachim Landau, a Liberal Party deputy to the Austrian Parliament.[1] Arthur was stationed there as a construction engineer with Czernowitz railway company. At the age of twelve Ludwig spoke fluent Yiddish, German, Polish, and French, read Latin, and could understand Ukrainian.[2] Mises was the older brother of the famous applied physicist Richard von Mises, a member of the Vienna Circle. Another brother, Karl von Mises, had died in infancy from scarlet fever. When Ludwig and Richard were children, his family moved back to their ancestral home of Vienna.

In 1900, he attended the University of Vienna,[3] becoming influenced by the works of Carl Menger. Mises' father died in 1903, and in 1906 Mises was awarded his doctorate from the school of law.

Professional life

In the years from 1904 to 1914, Mises attended lectures given by the prominent Austrian economist Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk. There, he developed friendships not only with Menger and Böhm-Bawerk, but also prominent sociologist Max Weber.[4] Mises taught as a Privatdozent at the Vienna University in the years from 1913 to 1934 while formally serving as secretary at the Vienna Chamber of Commerce from 1909 to 1934. In these roles, he became one of the closest economic advisers of Engelbert Dollfuss, the "austrofascist" but strongly anti-Nazi Austrian Chancellor,[5] and later to Otto von Habsburg, the Christian democratic politician and claimant to the throne of Austria (which had been legally abolished in 1918).[6] Friends and students of Mises in Europe included Wilhelm Röpke and Alfred Müller-Armack (influential advisors to German chancellor Ludwig Erhard), Jacques Rueff (monetary advisor to Charles de Gaulle), Lord Lionel Robbins (of the London School of Economics), and President of Italy, Luigi Einaudi.[7]

Economist and political theorist F. A. Hayek first came to know Mises while working as Mises' subordinate at a government office dealing with Austria's post-World War I debt.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I gave you an opportunity to research how our founding fathers treated corporations. You chose to assume they would agree with Austrian and German ideologues...WRONG

Ever hear of the saying, actions speak louder than words? So HOW they actually governed is how THEY actually interpreted the documents they authored.

Our founding fathers believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.

Nineteenth-century laws regulating corporations in America

*Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.

*Corporations’ licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).

*The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved.

*The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.

*As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn’t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were “just doing their job” when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

*State (not federal) courts heard cases where corporations or their agents were accused of breaking the law or harming the public.

*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

*Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice).

*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

*Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

*Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

*State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

*All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents

BTW, JFK's quote is about non intervention.


Education is the cheap defense of nations.
Edmund Burke

Thanks for the irrelevant history lesson on Ludwig von Mises. What the hell are you talking about "German Ideologies"? I am talking about Hayek, a prominent Austrian economist (as opposed to Keynesian or supply-side). He said he would consider himself a whig. The Whig party was a British political party that heavily influenced the founders. So yes, Hayek does have a similar ideology to the founders.

Also, I highly reccomend reading your own sources. Marshall was considered the nemesis of Jefferson. Here is Jefferson's comments on Marshall's judicial activism (from your own source) which he highly condemned.

"Jefferson continued in full fury,
The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law. My construction of the Constitution is very different from that you quote. It is that each department is truly independent of the others, and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the Constitution in the cases submitted to its action; and especially, where it is to act ultimately and without appeal...."

James Madison on business regulations:
"I own myself the friend to a very free system of commerce, and hold it as a truth, that commercial shackles are generally unjust, oppressive and impolitic—it is also a truth, that if industry and labour are left to take their own course, they will generally be directed to those objects which are the most productive, and this in a more certain and direct manner than the wisdom of the most enlightened legislature could point out."

Madison then continued to say he would regulate monopolies, not corporations. So you are incorrect in your assumptions.

As for your laws regulating corporations...WRONG. FAIL. You are either lying or too lazy to read your own sources, mean you skimmed over google results hoping to find something to counter me with. Time to read your own source in context.

Far from being "radical," harsh criticism of corporations has a long, respectable, and mainstream political lineage. Now that you know you're in good company, let's dream a little. Imagine what grassroots environmental activism would be like if corporations were restructured to be responsive to the people and to serve the public interest.

What if...

* corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.
* corporations' licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).
* the state legislature could revoke a corporation's charter for a particular reason, or for no reason at all.
* the act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.
* as a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents could be held criminally liable for violating the law.
* state (not federal) courts heard cases where corporations or their agents were accused of breaking the law or harming the public.
* directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.
* corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.
* corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, like 20 or 30 years (instead of being granted "in perpetuity," as is now the practice.)
* corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations in order to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.
* corporations' real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).
* corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.
* corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.
* state legislatures set the rates that corporations could charge for their products or services.
* all corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

WHAT IF. Those are not 19th century regulations. The author has no evidence of 19th century regulations nor what the founding fathers believed about corporations. Those are regulations the author is dreaming about. You really are something else...misquoting articles out of context and making stuff up. Libertarianism is modern day classical liberalism, which is the ideology the founders generally held. I am not sure what all your confusion is about.