If Jefferson founded the Republican Party what place do Democrats have in America?

[code1211]

These are both false statements.

Demonstrate what you say with an example.

Conservatives advocated the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, which centralized many police functions and increased the power of the federal government.

Liberals are in favor of allowing states to set their own rules w/r/t marijuana, e.g. allowing California to permit widespread use of marijuana for "medical" reasons.

Of course, examples may also be found going the other direction. Neither conservatives nor liberals favor or oppose a strong federal government or state authority across the board, as an end in itself -- only as a means to an end, and that may go either way, depending on specifics.

We are talking past each other on this.

If a person is a Conservative, he is against the intrusion into the private life of the government. You seem to be including the voting blocks of the respective parties to arrive at your definitions.

Liberalism demands this intrusion into private lives and Conservatism demands that this intrusion be severely limited. If your goal is to legislate that same sex relations be outlawed, that, to me, is a Liberal use of the government. If you believe that a private citizen can be compelled to sell his private property to another private individual by government, that, to me, is a Liberal position.

A Liberal generally "knows" what is best for me. That i disagree with most as to that condition puts me at odds with Liberals.

To me, any intrusion into my life by the government is to be discouraged. As government expands its reach and control of my life, my rights are diminished and my freedom eroded.

I think that both Democrats and Republicans are equally guilty of trying to exert control on what I may do or may elect to do in the future and I resent it.

If I want to own a gun, erect a cross, take a same sex partner or smoke dope, who should care if I do no harm to others?

All I ask is that I be left free to pursue my own happiness and I will, happily, afford that same courtesy to everyone else.

 

[regent]

same as Jefferson, freedom from big liberal government




same as modern Republicans



The Constitution. It is designed to strictly limit Federal governemnt to a few enumerated powers. Liberals are 100% opposed so should be made illegal



quasi sociialism!! why do you think the liberals spied for Stalin
and the CPUSA in fact supports BO??



what?????????????????????

That's it! Freedom from big liberal government, that's why we fought the Revolutionary war to be free of the big liberal government of George III? Jefferson sure goofed with all that life, liberty and pursuit of happiness stuff. I guess this is Wicki history?

Stay calm and try to think about this.

The revolutionaries wanted to bring the government rule closer to home and that meant out of London and onto our continent.

Conservatives, this does not particularly include Republicans, want to devolve the power of government from washington to much more local levels and reduce the power of Washington over the lives of the people.

Liberals in both parties strive mightily to increase the power and the intrusive reach of the government at the national level and remove the access to the seats of power from the common people.

How is that goal of the modern Conservative different from that goal of the American Revolutionary?

The conservatives during the Revolution were called Tories.

 

[Dragon]

The difference is that the authorization for a standing army, as you note, is in the Constitution.

That isn't a difference. What's more, a standing army MUCH more clearly violates the biases of many of the framers than aid to the poor. But the Constitution says what it does, not what the framers might individually have intended it to say.

 

[Dragon]

We are talking past each other on this.

Well, that's true, but the reason is that I am using definitions of the words "liberal" and "conservative" that are customary and normal for the way those words are used, while you are using them to mean something completely different.

I might even agree with you if you were to stop using words that don't really mean what you are trying to say.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Whoops. Been awhile lol

 

[Pheonixops]

You're right the two parties we are currently saddled with are Communist lite and Communist a little bit liter.

Every time the Government takes away a right and makes it a privilege, that right ceases to exist.

Our current government is changing the definition of entitlements to mean rights. Find for me healthcare or transportation or any of the New deal "rights" in the Bill of Rights or the Enumerated Powers.

Welfare is not welfare as understood by the Founders. It's charity. That does not particularly make it either bad or wrong. It's just not a part of the Founder's understanding of what a government is charged to do.

LOL, good points. It's nice to find some people here (you) who don't turn a debate into a "fuck you" contest.

I agree with your points above and respect your POV.

I appreciate your understanding. I grew up in a house where a raised voice was authorization to leave the room. There are a few opinions that are injurious on their face, but most are simply different.

If it costs me nothing for you to hold a belief and your belief injures nobody, go ahead.

I may try to show a better way and i may find your way to be better. If I stop listening, I learn nothing.

Thank you, the feeling is mutual. Have you ever read this, it yields a better explanation of some of my points more than I can:
The Libertarian Heritage: The American Revolution and Classical Liberalism - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Daily

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I certainly agree that many laws only serve to benefit many people who had no ability or desire to commit the acts that those laws identify as criminal. Your village example, however, doesn't contradict what I've said, which I still feel logically follows my premise to a T. Even if the law only serves to limit the individual rights of one man in the village because, for the sake of the argument, he's the only one capable of the force required to break the law, the law is still a limit to individual freedom and the government's scope is still to enforce that limit.

Let me make what I said a little clearer. It's not just that most people have no desire to do what the hypothetical petty tyrant would do, and therefore the law doesn't affect them. It's that most people are victims of the petty tyrant, their liberty is reduced by his activities, and therefore the law, by restraining him from these activities, augments the freedom of most of the people in the village.

Which is, to a liberal, the whole point of law.

I understand this, but it still doesn't contradict my point. Whether the end result is an overall increase in the freedom of the society as a whole, the government's scope is still the furthering of that overall freedom through the restriction of someone's individual freedom. If the law restricts a murderous potential petty tyrant from killing everyone in his village and therefore enforces their right to continue to live, it still restricts that murderous's tyrant from killing who he wants to kill. (And for those of you reading this, don't mistake this for my condoning of violence. I'm not an anarchist and I feel that a lot of laws are absolutely justified, including those against murder). Even when the end result is the enforcement of more overall freedom, governments still do this through laws which restrict everyone's freedom to impose on everyone else's. When I say a government's scope, I'm referring to what they -do-, not what results from those actions.

 

[code1211]

We are talking past each other on this.

Well, that's true, but the reason is that I am using definitions of the words "liberal" and "conservative" that are customary and normal for the way those words are used, while you are using them to mean something completely different.

I might even agree with you if you were to stop using words that don't really mean what you are trying to say.

Okay, I'll give you that.

Now, lets's change the words to represent these two basic concepts:

Grasshoppers and Ants.

Let's say the that the Grasshoppers are those who want to exert the control of government over the lives of the many and who want to collect taxes and spend the resulting treasure in ways that are defined and elected by them to enhance the greater good as they define good to be.

It is their goal to control the actions and the interactions of all around them to both control and equalize the outcomes of all endeavors and to assure that nobody is either allowed to profit unreasonably or to want too severely.

Grasshoppers view the government as the answer and the individual as a subservient supporter of government.

Let's say the Ants are those who want to limit the control of the government over the lives of the many and want to limit the amount of money taken by the government from the individual believing that the individual has the most intimate knowledge of what his goals and needs are and will most wisely spend money to satisfy these.

It is their goal to provide as much freedom and liberty as possible for all to allow the full realization of the dreams and hopes of the individual. Taxation is intended and used to fund the barest possible structure of government to assure the continuation of this freedom for the individual.

Ants view the individual as the answer and government as a subservient supporter of the individual.

In this definition of these two basic groups, knowing that you will take some of each to be happy, which most comfortably accommodates your beliefs as the basis on which to base a government?

 

[Dragon]

Code, I have no problem with your last post, but I would point out that only a handful of either grasshoppers or ants exist as you have described them.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

By lineage I mean actual lineage.

When it comes to political parties you cant be much more actual than name and philosophy. Jefferson's Party never disappeared it just split apart only to be reformed in 1865

I share most of Jefferson's ideals, but I can't rightly say that he was my ancestor when my mom's Hawaiian Chinese and my dad's Scotch Irish. Even if they had named me Thomas with J as my middle initial, the guy wouldn't suddenly cameo on my family tree.

actually people are not political parties you are comparing apples and oranges

The GOP isn't the same party as the Democratic-Republicans because they're not the same party as the Democratic-Republicans.

the philosophy is the same so in that very very important sense they are the same

Jefferson's Republicans fractured somewhere in the early 1800's, and one of the fragments actually evolved into what is today called the Democratic party, which is why that party -can- claim -actual- lineage back to Jefferson's Republicans.

they can claim it just not in terms of name and philosophy,... which are somewhat important, one might say. Of course it hugely dishonest to attach themselves to America's founding that way.

1. Even in terms of political parties, lineage -can- be more actual than name and philosophy. Lineage means lineal descent, by which measurement the current Democrats are more closely associated with the Democratic Republicans. Why's that? Because part of your second premise is correct. Jefferson's party didn't disappear, it split up. Part of it is still together. Apparently, these days they call themselves the Democrat party.

2. It's not apples and oranges. Literal lineage means what it means regardless of where you apply it. Your opinion that lineage means something different with political parties is exactly that: opinion. When I say, "actual lineage", that "actual" part should clue you in that I'm referring to fact, not opinion. Factually, lineage has a particular definition. Look it up.

3. I agree with you that the philosophy of the current Democrat party and the original premises of Jefferson's party have some massive fissures between them, but I can't sign off on the GOP and Jefferson having the same philosophy. Neither should you. Jefferson never would've approved of The Patriot Act, or of using government's authority to enforce morality (see gay marriage), or of long term military occupation and nation building. The GOP's rhetoric might be closer to Jeffersonian politics than the Democrats', but if you honestly believe GOP = Jeffersonian, then you either aren't paying attention to what Jefferson was about or you aren't paying attention to what the GOP does.

4. Once again, note my use of the word, "actual". I never meant to imply that the Dems can rightly claim that their views line up with those of Jefferson, only that the GOP isn't more of a descendant of Jefferson's Democratic Republicans than the Democratic party is. Especially in name. Democrats, Republicans. Democratic Republicans. Seems to me both parties have equal claim on whose name is more similar.

Unrelated to this exact argumentative crux, I also must say that the entire premise of your argument is anti-Jeffersonian. Saying people have no place in this country because their viewpoints differed from those of the original government is clearly in defiance of the entire philosophy behind the birth of a free society. If Jefferson and the founders felt that opposing viewpoints should be ousted, they probably wouldn't have included freedom of speech in the Bill of Rights, no?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Code, I have no problem with your last post, but I would point out that only a handful of either grasshoppers or ants exist as you have described them.

Haha, you're probably absolutely correct in this assumption. However. . . ant here.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Jefferson's party didn't disappear, it split up. Part of it is still together. Apparently, these days they call themselves the Democrat party.

Yes Jefferson's party, The 1792 Republican Party, split up only to be reformed and renamed the 1855 Republican Party. Since both have the same name and philosophy they are far more closely linked than modern Republicans and the 1824 Democratic-Republicans or 1826 Democrats who slowly evolved to have the opposite philosophy of modern Republicans.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

2. It's not apples and oranges. Literal lineage means what it means regardless of where you apply it. Your opinion that lineage means something different with political parties is exactly that: opinion. When I say, "actual lineage", that "actual" part should clue you in that I'm referring to fact, not opinion. Factually, lineage has a particular definition. Look it up.

literal and factual lineage is based on name and philosophy of both Jefferson and Greely,i.e., Republican. Greely used Republican specificially because of Jefferson's philosophy which was not represented by pro slavery Democrats

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Jefferson never would've approved of The Patriot Act,

Jefferson never would have approved of the secret purchase of Louisiana with greatly expanded presidential powers, but this and spying during war are very very trivial issues compared to the major issue of history: freedom from big liberal government. Here are some Jefferson quotes to serve as your first lesson in American History:

-That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.
"The path we have to pursue[when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature."

-The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

-The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.

" the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to grain ground; that the greater the government the stronger the exploiter and the weaker the producer; that , therefore, the hope of liberty depends upon local self-governance and the vigilance of the producer class."


-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 (read-taxes) and bread it has earned -- this is the sum of good government.

-Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

-History, in general, only informs us of what bad government is.

-I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.

-I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

-My reading of history convinces me that bad government results from too much government.

-Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.

-Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.

-The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.

-Most bad government has grown out of too much government.

-Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.

-Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

-I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious
"Agriculture, manufactures, commerce and navigation, the four
pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most
free to individual enterprise. Protection from casual
embarrassments, however, may sometimes be seasonably interposed."
--Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801.

"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens
free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."
--Thomas Jefferson to M. L'Hommande, 1787.

"[Ours is a] policy of not embarking the public in enterprises
better managed by individuals, and which might occupy as much
of our time as those political duties for which the public functionaries are particularly instituted. Some money could be
lent them [the New Orleans Canal Co.], but only on an assurance that it would be employed so as to secure the public objects."
--Thomas Jefferson to W. C. C. Claiborne, 1808.

"The rights of the people to the exercise and fruits of their own industry can never be protected against the selfishness of rulers
not subject to their control at short periods." --Thomas Jefferson
to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816.

"Our wish is that...[there be] maintained that state of property,
equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry
or that of his fathers." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural
Address, 1805.

"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to
others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of
association--the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." --Thomas Jefferson: Note
in Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816.

"Private enterprise manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal." --Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806.

"The merchants will manage [commerce] the better, the more they are left free to manage for themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1800.


"If ever this vast country is brought under a single government, it will be one of the most extensive corruption, indifferent and incapable of a wholesome care over so wide a spread of surface." --Thomas Jefferson to William T. Barry, 1822. ME 15:389


Some] seem to think that [civilization's] advance has brought on too complicated a state of society, and that we should gain in happiness by treading back our steps a little way. I think, myself, that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. I believe it might be much simplified to the relief of those who maintain it." --Thomas Jefferson to William Ludlow, 1824. ME 16:75

The parties of Whig and Tory are those of nature. They exist in all countries, whether called by these names or by those of Aristocrats and Democrats, Cote Droite and Cote Gauche, Ultras and Radicals, Serviles and Liberals. The sickly, weakly, timid man fears the people, and is a Tory by nature. The healthy, strong and bold cherishes them, and is formed a Whig by nature." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823. ME 15:492

"Agriculture, manufactures, commerce and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise. Protection from casual embarrassments, however, may sometimes be seasonably interposed." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:337

"The power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State (that is to say, of the commerce between citizen and citizen) which remain exclusively with its own legislature, but to its external commerce only; that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Bank, 1791. ME 3:147

"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. ." - Thomas Jefferson


"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-- Benjamin Franklin

"We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute."

-- Thomas Paine


When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-- Benjamin Franklin

"We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute."
-Thomas paine

"If the government robs Peter to pay Paul, it can always count on the support of Paul." [in America to bottom 45% pay no Federal taxes]
-Winston Churchhill

"The government of the United States [federal government] is a definite government confined to specified objects [powers]. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. CHARITY IS NO PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT."
-James madison
Jefferson: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."


Patrick Henry
Tell me when did liberty ever exist when the sword and the purse were given up?

Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."



I see,... and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that, too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power... It is but too evident that the three ruling branches of [the Federal government] are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1825. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson


James Madison: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions."

James Madison: "The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specific objectives. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

James Madison in Federalist paper NO. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."




I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." - Benjamin Franklin

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-Benjamin Franklin

"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." - Benjamin Franklin

One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Livingston, March 25, 1825
Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Wilson Nicholas, September 7, 1803


That these are our grievances which we have thus laid before his majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights as derived from the laws of nature, andnot as the gift of their chief magistrate.

Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America,
1774

The Constitution... is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge Spencer Roane, September 6, 1819


The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Taylor, May 28, 1816

They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.

Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on National Bank, 1791

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

a descendant of Jefferson's Democratic Republicans

why would you say Democratic Republicans when I have bet you $10000 that there is no known use of that term in the 18th Century. Are you slow?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If Jefferson and the founders felt that opposing viewpoints should be ousted, they probably wouldn't have included freedom of speech in the Bill of Rights, no?

speech is one thing, being 100% opposed to the basic principle of the Constitution and then subverting the Constitution is another. Of course if they had known what would happen they would have been even clearer that liberals are the opposite of Americans.

It was a catch 22 for them. They had to allow all speech because evil governemnt could not be trusted to regulate it but that then opened the door to treasonous liberal speech.

 

[code1211]

Code, I have no problem with your last post, but I would point out that only a handful of either grasshoppers or ants exist as you have described them.

Of course not. We all live on a continuum between those two points and there are people in both political parties on either end of that continuum.

It is a very personal thing to determine if you are either a Grasshopper or an Ant and why you think you are.

I would argue that if you are a grasshopper, you don't care if there are other grasshoppers or not, but if you are an Ant, you are committed to a missionary lifestyle.

 

[Dragon]

Code, I have no problem with your last post, but I would point out that only a handful of either grasshoppers or ants exist as you have described them.

Of course not. We all live on a continuum between those two points and there are people in both political parties on either end of that continuum.

What you are doing here is equivalent to putting people who are mostly atheists on a "spectrum" between Protestant and Catholic. It's not that most people fall somewhere in between those extremes, it's that most people don't even think in those terms. For most people, the size and scope of government is neither something to be desired nor something to be feared, but something of no particular importance.

 

[code1211]

Code, I have no problem with your last post, but I would point out that only a handful of either grasshoppers or ants exist as you have described them.

Of course not. We all live on a continuum between those two points and there are people in both political parties on either end of that continuum.

What you are doing here is equivalent to putting people who are mostly atheists on a "spectrum" between Protestant and Catholic. It's not that most people fall somewhere in between those extremes, it's that most people don't even think in those terms. For most people, the size and scope of government is neither something to be desired nor something to be feared, but something of no particular importance.

That may have been true of people when we were growing up. Now the size of government and particularly the cost will haunt our succeeding generations. 15 trillion in debt is nothing to sneeze at.

We are currently borrowing 40 cents for every sixty cents we actually have to spend a dollar.

The size of government is an albatross around our collective neck.

The scope of government is the ugly step sister of the glass slipper wearing Cinderalla of the give aways that are costing so much. A perfect example is the lady who believes in her heart that someone who is not her needs to pay for her contraception devices.

The time to pay the piper is coming and those of us who have always paid our own way will have to pay as much, probably more, than the leeches who ran up the bills.

You'e probably right that nobody cares and they won't until the well runs dry.

We are about a half a decade away from being Greece.

 

[code1211]

Code, I have no problem with your last post, but I would point out that only a handful of either grasshoppers or ants exist as you have described them.

Based on your posts, I thought that one of the descriptions fit you rather closely.