The Second Greatest Political Lie

[bripat9643]

2. The 'Greatest Lie" is the one that the modern Liberals tell. They claim that those called Liberals today are the liberals who founded this great nation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Founders were 'classical liberals,' whose vision included . individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government. That's why they wrote out a detailed Constitution.

.

You post THAT lie over and over. The founders did not support free markets. They were protectionist.

False.

Tariffs were a tax to pay for government.

The Civil War produced the first tax on personal income: the Revenue Act of 1861.

The founders cannot be said to have supported free markets. You lie.

Of course they can.

 

[bripat9643]

3. "What is awful about liberalism?"
It is based on the supremacy of the collective, and the destruction of any who disagree.
In Thoreau’s On the duty of Civil Disobedience, he states: “ There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all of its own power and authority are derived.”

You should read it sometime.

What is awful is the way you keep stepping it while you're shoveling your ignorant bullshit!

Chica, Thoreau was a bloody ANARCHIST! You're the one who should be doing the reading and study of On the duty of Civil Disobedience! That is clearly displayed in the first few sentences of his essay:

"I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, — "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have." [Emphasis Added]

You really should have read ABOUT Thoreau before implying he was an INDIVIDUALIST according to your definition and misguided understanding. You will, no doubt dance around, disavow any fault, sling ad hominem and deflect from the point proven above to avoid all responsibility for your error, but that will not only show your unsavory side and abhorrence to critical thinking and the naked truth, but again show your penchant for dishonesty and lack of any reasoned sense of ethical conduct!

Were you self-taught?

I'm also an anarchist, but I'm also a capitalist who believes in private property and free exchange.

You need a government to protect private property, so you can't be both.

Somehow, a small mind imagines that the question is whether to have a government, or no government.

One would imagine that even a grade school grad would understand that there are a myriad version of 'government.'

The quote often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, '"That government is best which governs least,' fits my concept best.

Classical liberals....called conservatives today, saw government as a necessary evil, of simply a benign but voluntary social contract for free men to enter into willingly,...as our Founders did.


Progressives/Liberals have the belief that the entire society was one organic whole left no room for those who didn’t want to behave, let alone ‘evolve' into the welfare state.


Please don't make such an egregious error again.

Classical liberals learned their lesson, or at least some of them did, when confronted with the Industrial Revolution. That's when it became clear that powerful governments were needed to rein in capitalism.

The Founders were all dead by the time the industrial revolution was in full swing. There's nothing about industrialization that requires a powerful government. Capitalism doesn't need to be "reigned in." Government does.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In political parlance, a lie is not just something that is not true, but something that is untrue, but serves the purpose of advancing a political agenda.


1. Georges Eugène Sorel (2 November 1847 in Cherbourg – 29 August 1922 in Boulogne-sur-Seine) was a French philosopher and theorist of revolutionary syndicalism. His notion of the power of myth in people's lives inspired Marxists and Fascists, it is, together with his defense of violence, the contribution for which he is most often remembered. Georges Sorel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a. His identification of the need for a deliberately-conceived "myth" to sway crowds into concerted action was put to use by the Fascist and Communist movements of the 1920s and after. http://homepage.newschool.edu/het//profiles/sorel.htm

b. "For Sen. [Hillary] Clinton, something is true if it validates the myth of her striving and her "greatness" (her overweening ambition in other words) and only ceases to be true when it no longer serves that limitless purpose. "
The case against Hillary Clinton. - By Christopher Hitchens - Slate Magazine]




2. The 'Greatest Lie" is the one that the modern Liberals tell. They claim that those called Liberals today are the liberals who founded this great nation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Founders were 'classical liberals,' whose vision included . individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government. That's why they wrote out a detailed Constitution.

a. Communist John Dewey, the one who corrupted education in this country, convinced the Socialist Party to change its name to 'Liberal.' And it's values and doctrines formed those called Liberals today.


The benefit to them, of course, is that the uninformed attribute the greatness of the Founders, of America, to them.




3. The "Second Greatest Lie" is also designed to benefit Leftists. It is that the political spectrum has communists on the left, and the Nazis on the right. It is a conscious and carefully crafted lie. And it is because the Left controls the schools and the media that it has been allowed to survive.

This is what a careful study of history shows:
When the worldwide recession, known as the Great Depression, caused many to believe that capitalism had failed, big government command and control economies took control, promising solutions.

The economic plans of Mussolini, Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Franklin Roosevelt were all variations on the same theme.

a. Many government school grads have been trained to see FDR as a demigod.
"Comparisons of the New Deal with totalitarian ideologies were provided from all sides. A Republican senator described the NRA as having gone “too far in the Russian direction,” and a Democrat accused FDR of trying “to transplant Hitlerism to every corner of this country.” Wolfgang Schivelbusch, “Three New Deals,” p. 27.



This thread will expound on that "Second Greatest Lie."
By doing so, it will explain why Leftist government schools won't teach real history.

Excellent and in detailed FACTS. but with the low info citizens in this day and age. that is too much for them to take in. and secondly they don't what to believe the cold ugly facts about the party they belong. dumbing down in our education has worked wonders for the Progressive/commie/socialist/democrat party. that's why I think we are too far gone to be saved as a free country and free people. we are starting to see it on our college campuses as we speak. it's just so sad to watch it, but I have over the last 50 years. I feel bad for what my and all our children is going to have to live with. I tell mine I fought as hard as I could to save them a free country and not give them a Tyrant Government.

Sadly....I must agree with your entire post.

We're basking in the afterglow of a once great nation.

 

[bripat9643]

Do ya? Now you're basing this upon what Gilligan?

I'm basing it on common sense logic and reason that are concepts alien to the humanoids on your planet.

OH! So you have absolutely no basis for your assertion... .

LOL!

Color me SHOCKED!

Gilligan you're helpless.

So you think the right to claim ownership of private property has no need of government enforcement?

2. Perhaps some know that before it became “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in our Declaration of Independence,John Locke wrote that man has a right to “life, liberty, and property.”
Property Rights Have Personal Parallels - Forbes


.

And to what Locke said, what did our founders say?

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from theconsent of the governed,"

So according to the Founders, YES, the right of owning private property does have the need of government enforcement.

I'm right. You're wrong. Thanks for helping me prove that.

That was their theory, but it's false.

 

[Searcher44]

Here, summarized, is PoliticalChic's style of argument:

Hitler was a Nazi. Hitler loved dogs.

FDR loved dogs.

Therefore, FDR was a Nazi.

It always is....

I challenged her to put some totally unrelated song lyrics in the middle of one of her marathon OPs just once and see if any of her "followers" notice it. She's not brave enough to do it.

The perfect lyrics to sum up her 'reasoning', from Tori Amos...

"...By the way I don't believe you're leaving
Cause me and Charles Manson like the same ice cream..."

You guys have nailed it. It's fun sometimes though, eh?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And to what Locke said, what did our founders say?

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from theconsent of the governed,"

Reader... It is a great day at the USMB.

As we have today forced Gilligan; who has as a matter of routine rejected each and every reference to the Charter of American Principle... to CITE that Charter... albeit poorly and bassackwards.

ROFL! Gilligan... "Governments are instituted among Men..."

Men are what?

They're a collective of individuals... .

So what you missed entirely, is that To Secure one's rights,the first requirement is > A < MAN who KNOWS WHAT A RIGHT IS, FROM WHERE IT COMES, AND WHAT IT TAKES TO SUSTAIN THE MEANS TO EXERCISE IT... and most importantly ... a man who recognizes that HE HAS THE RIGHT.

You see, 'the just powers' of government... are the same powers justly possessed by the right bearing individual.

Government possesses no right which is not possessed by the individual and it possesses therefore no power beyond that of the individual... the only distinction being that 'Right' is neither divisible, nor can it be multiplied; meaning that a collective of 1 billion people has the same right as the least individual of that collective.

But a billion people have at least a billion times the power of the least of their number.

Now... with that said, there is nothing in the Charter of American Principle that requires Government for the Right to Private Property. There is only the principle that says that the only means for a man to exercise his rights is for his government to recognize his rights, ya fuckin' dumbass.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I'm basing it on common sense logic and reason that are concepts alien to the humanoids on your planet.

OH! So you have absolutely no basis for your assertion... .

LOL!

Color me SHOCKED!

Gilligan you're helpless.

So you think the right to claim ownership of private property has no need of government enforcement?

2. Perhaps some know that before it became “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in our Declaration of Independence,John Locke wrote that man has a right to “life, liberty, and property.”
Property Rights Have Personal Parallels - Forbes


.

And to what Locke said, what did our founders say?

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from theconsent of the governed,"

So according to the Founders, YES, the right of owning private property does have the need of government enforcement.

I'm right. You're wrong. Thanks for helping me prove that.

That was their theory, but it's false.

LOL! No it wasn't Breity... Not even close man. Come on now. Gilligan was wrong... But in fairness to Gilligan, that is what it does best.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

You post THAT lie over and over. The founders did not support free markets. They were protectionist.

False.

Tariffs were a tax to pay for government.

The Civil War produced the first tax on personal income: the Revenue Act of 1861.

Tariffs are not protectionist? Pardon my French but WTF!!!!! lolol

The Constitution did not allow direct taxation of individuals.

You should read it sometime.

You're in error again, Chica! The enumeration tax of Article I, Section 2 was a direct tax, which was made moot with the adoption of Amendment XVI (1913).

Will you admit your error or ????

I'm never wrong.

Take notes:

1. Through the early 20th century, taxes tended to be low. And higher taxes designed to pay war debts would be paid down quickly and temporary taxes eliminated.

[. Hylton vs United States, 1796...on the constitutionality of a federal carriage tax. "United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a tax on carriages did not violate the Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 respectively the Article I, Clause 9 requirement for the apportioning of direct taxes. It found the carriage tax was an "excise" instead of a "direct tax" requiring apportionment among the states by population". Hylton v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While earlier decision (Ware v. Hylton) had nullified a state statute, in this case the court refused to nullify a federal statute, in effect giving Congress greater discretion in levying taxes than the ratifiers of the Constitution had intended. So much for federalism.]

1. As is usual with government policy, taxes crept up over time.
2. The Civil War produced the first tax on personal income: the Revenue Act of 1861. Interestingly, it was called an ‘indirect’ tax, defined as taxing an ‘event:’ a tax on the event of receiving income….therefore it didn’t have to be ‘apportioned,’ merely imposed uniformly throughout all areas “not in rebellion.”
   1. The tax was moderately progressive, 3% on all income over $800. This meant that most workers didn’t have to pay any tax. Revenue Act of 1861 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3. The following year, due to a greater need, Congress increased both the rates and the progressivity. The exemption was lowered to $600 @ 3%, and a new 5% on income over $10,000. This, then was the first “progressive,” not flat tax. The law also imposed a duty on paymasters to deduct and withhold the income tax, and to send the withheld tax to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Revenue Act of 1862 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
   1. After the war exemptions were increased, and rates lowered, and in 1872, the tax was abolished.
   2. But, having had a taste of taking and using free money, politicians passed more than 60 bills designed to reinstate the income tax over the next 20 years. David G. Davies, “United States Taxes and Tax Policy,” p. 22.
4. Socialist, Populist, and Progressive movements paralleled this move, and this desire based on “taxing the rich.” In 1894, the Democrat-controlled Congress passed a bill that included a flat income tax…but part included taxes on income from real estate and personal property, and this triggered a court challenge as a direct tax infracting the Constitution’s apportionment rule,…
   1. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157U.S.429(1895),aff'd on reh'g, 158U.S.601(1895), with a ruling of 5–4, was a landmark case in which theSupreme Court of the United Statesruled that the unapportionedincome taxesoninterest,dividendsandrentsimposed by the Income Tax Act of 1894 were, in effect,direct taxes, and were unconstitutional because they violated the provision that direct taxes be apportioned. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
   2. Interesting decision, since the same principles had been upheld vis-à-vis the 1861 Revenue Act…. Springer v. United States,102 U.S. 586(1881),[1]was a case in which theUnited States Supreme Courtupheld the Federalincome taximposed under theRevenue Act of 1864. Springer v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
   3. 
      
   4. 
      
5. The Progressives were horrified! They had been focused on forcing the “money class” to pay “in proportion to their ability to pay…’ which, essentially was the first half of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
   1. The Progressives launched a campaign designed to reverse this decision, and that culminated with the ratification of the 16th Amendment, in 1913.

You claimed, "The Constitution did not allow direct taxation of individuals."

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, U.S. Constitution:
"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." [Emphasis Added]

Article 1, Section9, Clause 4, U.S. Constitution:
"No capitation, or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken." [Emphasis Added]

Capitation Tax - "One which is levied upon the person simply, without any reference to his property, real or personal, or to any business in which he may be engaged, or to any employment which he may follow. Gardner v. Ilall, G1 N. C. 22; Leedy v. Bourbon, 12 Ind. App. 4S6, 40 N. E. C40; llead- Money Cases (C. C.) 18 Fed. 139. A tax or imposition raised on each person in consideration jt his labor, industry, office, rank, etc. It is a very ancient kind of tribute, and answers to what the Latins called "tributum," by which taxes on persons are distinguished from taxes on merchandise, called "vcctigalia." Wharton."
< What is CAPITATION TAX? definition of CAPITATION TAX (Black's Law Dictionary) >

In spite of your claim to the contrary, and your typical idiotic C&P's to baffle with bullshit to cover your perfidy, you have simply doubled down in your error! The enumeration tax was, in part, a capitation tax, a head tax, a poll tax permitted under the US Constitution and collected from the several States.

You're fucking wrong Chica! Think my language is vulgar? Tough shit you ignorant, lying twit! Your dishonesty and constant ad hominem to so many I find much more vulgar and disgusting!

 

[bripat9643]

2. The 'Greatest Lie" is the one that the modern Liberals tell. They claim that those called Liberals today are the liberals who founded this great nation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Founders were 'classical liberals,' whose vision included . individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government. That's why they wrote out a detailed Constitution.

.

You post THAT lie over and over. The founders did not support free markets. They were protectionist.

False.

Tariffs were a tax to pay for government.

The Civil War produced the first tax on personal income: the Revenue Act of 1861.

Tariffs are not protectionist? Pardon my French but WTF!!!!! lolol

The Constitution did not allow direct taxation of individuals.

You should read it sometime.

You're in error again, Chica! The enumeration tax of Article I, Section 2 was a direct tax, which was made moot with the adoption of Amendment XVI (1913).

Will you admit your error or ????

That article says that taxes must be directly proportional to population. That would automatically rule out an income tax.

 

[bripat9643]

OH! So you have absolutely no basis for your assertion... .

LOL!

Color me SHOCKED!

Gilligan you're helpless.

So you think the right to claim ownership of private property has no need of government enforcement?

2. Perhaps some know that before it became “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in our Declaration of Independence,John Locke wrote that man has a right to “life, liberty, and property.”
Property Rights Have Personal Parallels - Forbes


.

And to what Locke said, what did our founders say?

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from theconsent of the governed,"

So according to the Founders, YES, the right of owning private property does have the need of government enforcement.

I'm right. You're wrong. Thanks for helping me prove that.

That was their theory, but it's false.

LOL! No it wasn't Breity... Not even close man. Come on now. Gilligan was wrong... But in fairness to Gilligan, that is what it does best.

Prove they were correct.

 

[Searcher44]

2. The 'Greatest Lie" is the one that the modern Liberals tell. They claim that those called Liberals today are the liberals who founded this great nation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Founders were 'classical liberals,' whose vision included . individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government. That's why they wrote out a detailed Constitution.

.

You post THAT lie over and over. The founders did not support free markets. They were protectionist.

False.

Tariffs were a tax to pay for government.

The Civil War produced the first tax on personal income: the Revenue Act of 1861.

The founders cannot be said to have supported free markets. You lie.

Of course they can.

Pat Buchanan said "“Behind a tariff wall built by Washington, Hamilton, Clay, Lincoln, and the Republican presidents who followed, the United States had gone from an agrarian coastal republic to become the greatest industrial power the world had ever seen — in a single century. Such was the success of the policy called protectionism that is so disparaged today.” From his book "The Great Betrayal: How American Sovereignty and Social Justice Are Being Sacrificed to the Gods of the Global Economy" Ideologies clash and history is open to interpretation.

Caveat: I'm not endorsing Buchanan of course, just saying.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Prove they were correct.

I already did...

But I will repost it again here... because it's brilliant, and I love to re-read my stuff:

And to what Locke said, what did our founders say?

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from theconsent of the governed,"

Reader... It is a great day at the USMB.

As we have today forced Gilligan; who has as a matter of routine rejected each and every reference to the Charter of American Principle... to CITE that Charter... albeit poorly and bassackwards.

ROFL! Gilligan... "Governments are instituted among Men..."

Men are what?

They're a collective of individuals... .

So what you missed entirely, is that To Secure one's rights,the first requirement is > A < MAN who KNOWS WHAT A RIGHT IS, FROM WHERE IT COMES, AND WHAT IT TAKES TO SUSTAIN THE MEANS TO EXERCISE IT... and most importantly ... a man who recognizes that HE HAS THE RIGHT.

You see, 'the just powers' of government... are the same powers justly possessed by the right bearing individual.

Government possesses no right which is not possessed by the individual and it possesses therefore no power beyond that of the individual... the only distinction being that 'Right' is neither divisible, nor can it be multiplied; meaning that a collective of 1 billion people has the same right as the least individual of that collective.

But a billion people have at least a billion times the power of the least of their number.

Now... with that said Gilligan, there is nothing in the Charter of American Principle that requires Government for the Right to Private Property. There is only the principle that says that the only means for a man to exercise his rights is for his government to recognize his rights, ya fuckin' dumbass.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

You post THAT lie over and over. The founders did not support free markets. They were protectionist.

False.

Tariffs were a tax to pay for government.

The Civil War produced the first tax on personal income: the Revenue Act of 1861.

Tariffs are not protectionist? Pardon my French but WTF!!!!! lolol

The Constitution did not allow direct taxation of individuals.

You should read it sometime.

You're in error again, Chica! The enumeration tax of Article I, Section 2 was a direct tax, which was made moot with the adoption of Amendment XVI (1913).

Will you admit your error or ????

That article says that taxes must be directly proportional to population. That would automatically rule out an income tax.

IDIOT! In 1913, Amendment XVI was adopted and the Constitution was amended. Damn you're ignorant!

Are you enrolled in Chica's Constitution study program by any chance?

 

[bripat9643]

2. The 'Greatest Lie" is the one that the modern Liberals tell. They claim that those called Liberals today are the liberals who founded this great nation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Founders were 'classical liberals,' whose vision included . individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government. That's why they wrote out a detailed Constitution.

.

You post THAT lie over and over. The founders did not support free markets. They were protectionist.

False.

Tariffs were a tax to pay for government.

The Civil War produced the first tax on personal income: the Revenue Act of 1861.

The founders cannot be said to have supported free markets. You lie.

Of course they can.

Pat Buchanan said "“Behind a tariff wall built by Washington, Hamilton, Clay, Lincoln, and the Republican presidents who followed, the United States had gone from an agrarian coastal republic to become the greatest industrial power the world had ever seen — in a single century. Such was the success of the policy called protectionism that is so disparaged today.” From his book "The Great Betrayal: How American Sovereignty and Social Justice Are Being Sacrificed to the Gods of the Global Economy" Ideologies clash and history is open to interpretation.

Caveat: I'm not endorsing Buchanan of course, just saying.

Pat Buchanan has always been a protectionist. Neither Clay or Lincoln can properly be called a "Founding Father." Hamilton supported tariffs, but most of the other Founding Fathers didn't.

The theory that tariffs are beneficial for an economy has been debunked time after time after time. David Ricardo was the first to point out the flaw in the theory.

 

[bripat9643]

False.

Tariffs were a tax to pay for government.

The Civil War produced the first tax on personal income: the Revenue Act of 1861.

Tariffs are not protectionist? Pardon my French but WTF!!!!! lolol

The Constitution did not allow direct taxation of individuals.

You should read it sometime.

You're in error again, Chica! The enumeration tax of Article I, Section 2 was a direct tax, which was made moot with the adoption of Amendment XVI (1913).

Will you admit your error or ????

That article says that taxes must be directly proportional to population. That would automatically rule out an income tax.

IDIOT! In 1913, Amendment XVI was adopted and the Constitution was amended. Damn you're ignorant!

Are you enrolled in Chica's Constitution study program by any chance?

Yes, I'm well aware of the 16th Amendment. We were discussing the Constitution before it was flushed down the toilet with the Marxist amendments.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Prove they were correct.

I already did...

But I will repost it again here... because it's brilliant, and I love to re-read my stuff:

And to what Locke said, what did our founders say?

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from theconsent of the governed,"

Reader... It is a great day at the USMB.

As we have today forced Gilligan; who has as a matter of routine rejected each and every reference to the Charter of American Principle... to CITE that Charter... albeit poorly and bassackwards.

ROFL! Gilligan... "Governments are instituted among Men..."

Men are what?

They're a collective of individuals... .

So what you missed entirely, is that To Secure one's rights,the first requirement is > A < MAN who KNOWS WHAT A RIGHT IS, FROM WHERE IT COMES, AND WHAT IT TAKES TO SUSTAIN THE MEANS TO EXERCISE IT... and most importantly ... a man who recognizes that HE HAS THE RIGHT.

You see, 'the just powers' of government... are the same powers justly possessed by the right bearing individual.

Government possesses no right which is not possessed by the individual and it possesses therefore no power beyond that of the individual... the only distinction being that 'Right' is neither divisible, nor can it be multiplied; meaning that a collective of 1 billion people has the same right as the least individual of that collective.

But a billion people have at least a billion times the power of the least of their number.

Now... with that said Gilligan, there is nothing in the Charter of American Principle that requires Government for the Right to Private Property. There is only the principle that says that the only means for a man to exercise his rights is for his government to recognize his rights, ya fuckin' dumbass.

There is no such thing as the Charter of American Principle.

 

[bripat9643]

Prove they were correct.

I already did...

But I will repost it again here... because it's brilliant, and I love to re-read my stuff:

And to what Locke said, what did our founders say?

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from theconsent of the governed,"

Reader... It is a great day at the USMB.

As we have today forced Gilligan; who has as a matter of routine rejected each and every reference to the Charter of American Principle... to CITE that Charter... albeit poorly and bassackwards.

ROFL! Gilligan... "Governments are instituted among Men..."

Men are what?

They're a collective of individuals... .

So what you missed entirely, is that To Secure one's rights,the first requirement is > A < MAN who KNOWS WHAT A RIGHT IS, FROM WHERE IT COMES, AND WHAT IT TAKES TO SUSTAIN THE MEANS TO EXERCISE IT... and most importantly ... a man who recognizes that HE HAS THE RIGHT.

You see, 'the just powers' of government... are the same powers justly possessed by the right bearing individual.

Government possesses no right which is not possessed by the individual and it possesses therefore no power beyond that of the individual... the only distinction being that 'Right' is neither divisible, nor can it be multiplied; meaning that a collective of 1 billion people has the same right as the least individual of that collective.

But a billion people have at least a billion times the power of the least of their number.

Now... with that said Gilligan, there is nothing in the Charter of American Principle that requires Government for the Right to Private Property. There is only the principle that says that the only means for a man to exercise his rights is for his government to recognize his rights, ya fuckin' dumbass.

All you did is restate the theory. You haven't proved it to be correct.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You post THAT lie over and over. The founders did not support free markets. They were protectionist.

False.

Tariffs were a tax to pay for government.

The Civil War produced the first tax on personal income: the Revenue Act of 1861.

The founders cannot be said to have supported free markets. You lie.

Of course they can.

Pat Buchanan said "“Behind a tariff wall built by Washington, Hamilton, Clay, Lincoln, and the Republican presidents who followed, the United States had gone from an agrarian coastal republic to become the greatest industrial power the world had ever seen — in a single century. Such was the success of the policy called protectionism that is so disparaged today.” From his book "The Great Betrayal: How American Sovereignty and Social Justice Are Being Sacrificed to the Gods of the Global Economy" Ideologies clash and history is open to interpretation.

Caveat: I'm not endorsing Buchanan of course, just saying.

Pat Buchanan has always been a protectionist. Neither Clay or Lincoln can properly be called a "Founding Father." Hamilton supported tariffs, but most of the other Founding Fathers didn't.

The theory that tariffs are beneficial for an economy has been debunked time after time after time. David Ricardo was the first to point out the flaw in the theory.

Wrong. The 1st major legislation of the 1st Congress was the tariff bill of 1789.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What is awful is the way you keep stepping it while you're shoveling your ignorant bullshit!

Chica, Thoreau was a bloody ANARCHIST! You're the one who should be doing the reading and study of On the duty of Civil Disobedience! That is clearly displayed in the first few sentences of his essay:

"I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, — "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have." [Emphasis Added]

You really should have read ABOUT Thoreau before implying he was an INDIVIDUALIST according to your definition and misguided understanding. You will, no doubt dance around, disavow any fault, sling ad hominem and deflect from the point proven above to avoid all responsibility for your error, but that will not only show your unsavory side and abhorrence to critical thinking and the naked truth, but again show your penchant for dishonesty and lack of any reasoned sense of ethical conduct!

Were you self-taught?

I'm also an anarchist, but I'm also a capitalist who believes in private property and free exchange.

You need a government to protect private property, so you can't be both.

Somehow, a small mind imagines that the question is whether to have a government, or no government.

One would imagine that even a grade school grad would understand that there are a myriad version of 'government.'

The quote often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, '"That government is best which governs least,' fits my concept best.

Classical liberals....called conservatives today, saw government as a necessary evil, of simply a benign but voluntary social contract for free men to enter into willingly,...as our Founders did.


Progressives/Liberals have the belief that the entire society was one organic whole left no room for those who didn’t want to behave, let alone ‘evolve' into the welfare state.


Please don't make such an egregious error again.

Classical liberals learned their lesson, or at least some of them did, when confronted with the Industrial Revolution. That's when it became clear that powerful governments were needed to rein in capitalism.

OMG!

The Industrial Revolution was the validation of capitalism!

1. A half-century before Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto, there was Gracchus Babeuf’s Plebeian Manifesto, which was later renamed the Manifesto of the Equals. Babeuf’s early (1796) work has been described as socialist, anarchist, and communist, and has had an enormous impact. He wrote: “The French Revolution was nothing but a precursor of another revolution, on which will be bigger, more solemn, and which will be the last…We reach for something more sublime and more just: the common good or the community of goods! Nor more individual property in land: the land belongs to no one. We demand, we want, the common enjoyment of the fruits of the land: the fruits belong to all.”

Here, then, are the major themes of socialist theory.



2. Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.”

3. But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes.
From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.

Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006

The Industrial Revolution and its horrors proved for all time that business/industry/capitalism had to be strictly regulated by the government.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

There is no such thing as the Charter of American Principle.

Huh... yet you cited, what you here claim does not exist.

LOL! So ... what can we make of THAT?