Two cultures: Hunters and Gatherers vs Free Stuff

[rightwinger]

During the 1780s, Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, which was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the state of New York. After reading about Alexander Hamilton's work for the New York Manumission Society, I gained a greater appreciation of Alexander Hamilton.
Alexander Hamilton and the New York Manumission Society | Everyday Citizen

John Jay founded the New-York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, and Protecting Such of Them as Have Been, or May be Liberated or the New York Manumission Society, and became its first president in 1785.
New York Manumission Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marquis de Lafayette - Jay Friend, Revolutionary War Hero and Honorary Member of the NY Manumission Society.
Marquis de Lafayette - Jay Friend, Revolutionary War Hero and Honorary Member of the NY Manumission Society | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

In Philadelphia at the start of the Revolution, Quakers founded the Society for Promoting Abolition of Slavery and Relief of Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage. Franklin would become its president in 1787. In Pennsylvania and New York, Quaker congregations began to expel slave owners. Methodists, on fire from the revivalist Great Awakening, came to see God's love and freedom as universals, and preachers set out to convert blacks. Methodists voted to remove slaveholders from church membership.
Finding Slaves in Unexpected Places : The Colonial Williamsburg Official History Site

It would be four years before New Hampshire acted, but Vermont moved quickly and freed its slaves in 1777. Soon, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island began gradual emancipation. By the 1790 census, there were no slaves to be counted in Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont.
Ibid.

Sorry....but our Founding Fathers screwed the pooch when it came to slavery and human rights in general. But what the heck.....it was the 18th century what did they know about human rights?

They started a progression that eventually lead to the liberties we enjoy today but it was future generations that eventually granted those liberties

That is why we cannot take the writings of the founding fathers as gospel. They could never comprehend the complexities of our society .....why would we want them to make decisions for us?

Judge Bork makes the point that Originalists can easily apply timeless constitutional commands to new technologies, such as wiretapping and television, and to changed circumstances, as suits for libel and slander. All the judge needs is knowledge of the core value that the Framers intended to protect. And, while we may not decide every case in the way the Framers would have, “entire ranges of problems will be placed off limits to judges, thus preserving democracy in those areas where the framers intended democratic government.”

The founding fathers were for the most part religious and righteous men. But their core values were shaped in the 18th century. Those core values believed that blacks were 3/5 of a man, women were subservient to men and lacked the intelligence to make critical decisions, Indians were mere savages to be denied the rights of man.
Modern judges trying to get inside the minds of the founding fathers is mere fantasy. The founding fathers had no concept of what our society is like and what it's needs are. To apply a What Would Jesus Do? Methodology is merely using the founding fathers to support your political opinions. For the most part, if you asked the founding fathers how to resolve modern challenges you would get piss poor advice

 

[mudwhistle]

Capitalism started it all with it's "you deserve" advertising themes.

Yeah, right, we have welfare because of corporate marketing strategy.

Yeah....it's all a plot.

Supply and demand.

Buyer beware.

Eliminate all of the stupid decisions and just assign everyone their little piece of the collective pie in the sky.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sorry....but our Founding Fathers screwed the pooch when it came to slavery and human rights in general. But what the heck.....it was the 18th century what did they know about human rights?

They started a progression that eventually lead to the liberties we enjoy today but it was future generations that eventually granted those liberties

That is why we cannot take the writings of the founding fathers as gospel. They could never comprehend the complexities of our society .....why would we want them to make decisions for us?

Judge Bork makes the point that Originalists can easily apply timeless constitutional commands to new technologies, such as wiretapping and television, and to changed circumstances, as suits for libel and slander. All the judge needs is knowledge of the core value that the Framers intended to protect. And, while we may not decide every case in the way the Framers would have, “entire ranges of problems will be placed off limits to judges, thus preserving democracy in those areas where the framers intended democratic government.”

The founding fathers were for the most part religious and righteous men. But their core values were shaped in the 18th century. Those core values believed that blacks were 3/5 of a man, women were subservient to men and lacked the intelligence to make critical decisions, Indians were mere savages to be denied the rights of man.
Modern judges trying to get inside the minds of the founding fathers is mere fantasy. The founding fathers had no concept of what our society is like and what it's needs are. To apply a What Would Jesus Do? Methodology is merely using the founding fathers to support your political opinions. For the most part, if you asked the founding fathers how to resolve modern challenges you would get piss poor advice

I don't think we would get piss poor advice if they lived today instead of the late 18th century, because they would make the effort to be as informed today on all the dynamics as they were then.

None of the anecdotal references in your post have a damn thing to do with the principles embodied in the founding documents and ultimately incorporated into the Constitution. A principle is a principle no matter what the circumstances to which it is applied. If we keep the principle in focus, it works no matter what.

However, I think the 'free stuff' group in our society are so enamored with the Santa Claus, Big Brother, all benevolent pipedream of government that they no longer value or cherish the Constitution and would cheerfully chuck it in favor of some new big government concept. I think they are intentionally trying to discredit the Constitution and those who wrote it and I think they are figuratively rewriting it for their own interests which of course is the government ordering the right kind of society that incvludes the right to have others provide them with free stuff. And they are not the least bit interested in even acknowledging, much less discussing any possible negative consequences of that.

 

[rightwinger]

Judge Bork makes the point that Originalists can easily apply timeless constitutional commands to new technologies, such as wiretapping and television, and to changed circumstances, as suits for libel and slander. All the judge needs is knowledge of the core value that the Framers intended to protect. And, while we may not decide every case in the way the Framers would have, “entire ranges of problems will be placed off limits to judges, thus preserving democracy in those areas where the framers intended democratic government.”

The founding fathers were for the most part religious and righteous men. But their core values were shaped in the 18th century. Those core values believed that blacks were 3/5 of a man, women were subservient to men and lacked the intelligence to make critical decisions, Indians were mere savages to be denied the rights of man.
Modern judges trying to get inside the minds of the founding fathers is mere fantasy. The founding fathers had no concept of what our society is like and what it's needs are. To apply a What Would Jesus Do? Methodology is merely using the founding fathers to support your political opinions. For the most part, if you asked the founding fathers how to resolve modern challenges you would get piss poor advice

I don't think we would get piss poor advice if they lived today instead of the late 18th century, because they would make the effort to be as informed today on all the dynamics as they were then.

None of the anecdotal references in your post have a damn thing to do with the principles embodied in the founding documents and ultimately incorporated into the Constitution. A principle is a principle no matter what the circumstances to which it is applied. If we keep the principle in focus, it works no matter what.

However, I think the 'free stuff' group in our society are so enamored with the Santa Claus, Big Brother, all benevolent pipedream of government that they no longer value or cherish the Constitution and would cheerfully chuck it in favor of some new big government concept. I think they are intentionally trying to discredit the Constitution and those who wrote it and I think they are figuratively rewriting it for their own interests which of course is the government ordering the right kind of society that incvludes the right to have others provide them with free stuff. And they are not the least bit interested in even acknowledging, much less discussing any possible negative consequences of that.

Let's look at a basic principle like freedom of speech. To the founding fathers, freedom of speech applied only to white males. Slaves did not have much say. Their founding principles needed updates from future generations to meet the needs of THEIR society

I can't understand your obsession with "free stuff". Do you think welfare queens are the only ones who get "free stuff"???? You get free stuff, I get free stuff. Want to know who gets the most "free stuff"?

The wealthy

 

[Foxfyre]

The founding fathers were for the most part religious and righteous men. But their core values were shaped in the 18th century. Those core values believed that blacks were 3/5 of a man, women were subservient to men and lacked the intelligence to make critical decisions, Indians were mere savages to be denied the rights of man.
Modern judges trying to get inside the minds of the founding fathers is mere fantasy. The founding fathers had no concept of what our society is like and what it's needs are. To apply a What Would Jesus Do? Methodology is merely using the founding fathers to support your political opinions. For the most part, if you asked the founding fathers how to resolve modern challenges you would get piss poor advice

I don't think we would get piss poor advice if they lived today instead of the late 18th century, because they would make the effort to be as informed today on all the dynamics as they were then.

None of the anecdotal references in your post have a damn thing to do with the principles embodied in the founding documents and ultimately incorporated into the Constitution. A principle is a principle no matter what the circumstances to which it is applied. If we keep the principle in focus, it works no matter what.

However, I think the 'free stuff' group in our society are so enamored with the Santa Claus, Big Brother, all benevolent pipedream of government that they no longer value or cherish the Constitution and would cheerfully chuck it in favor of some new big government concept. I think they are intentionally trying to discredit the Constitution and those who wrote it and I think they are figuratively rewriting it for their own interests which of course is the government ordering the right kind of society that incvludes the right to have others provide them with free stuff. And they are not the least bit interested in even acknowledging, much less discussing any possible negative consequences of that.

Let's look at a basic principle like freedom of speech. To the founding fathers, freedom of speech applied only to white males. Slaves did not have much say. Their founding principles needed updates from future generations to meet the needs of THEIR society

I can't understand your obsession with "free stuff". Do you think welfare queens are the only ones who get "free stuff"???? You get free stuff, I get free stuff. Want to know who gets the most "free stuff"?

The wealthy

You really have some very wrong ideas about what the Founding Fathers thought, wrote, or promoted. I suggest that you spend some time reading some of their writings--ALL of their writings and not selected sound bites from leftist websites.

Now please re-read the OP and try really hard and I bet you can understand the thesis that this thread is about.

We have one group of Americans who still embrace the concept of unalienable rights and self governance whether or not they are aware of where those values originated.

We have another group of Americans who pretty much ignores the Constitution, the concept of unalienable rights and self governance, and the consequences of social programs because they are focused on the free stuff that big government provides and/or promises. That free stuff is the most important thing that drives their concept of government and social policy.

Do you agree or disagree with this. Do you see this as okay or not okay?

 

[editec]

As an adult American, you have a fundamental right to be provided:

1. Food
2. Clothing
3. Shelter/housing
4. Furniture/appliances
5. Water, heat, air conditioning
6. An education
7. Health care/medical care
8. A living wage
9. Transportation
10. None of the above


Fifty or sixty years ago, the nation still had rich people and much less affluent people, but both groups shared essentially the same traditional values of honor, personal integrity, accountablility and responsibility and appreciation for time honored institutions of marriage, church, and local education. There were as many different circumstances, personalities and differences of opinion as ever, but essentially America was one culture of individual initiative and unlimited opportunity. This was a people that valued personal freedoms, integrity, responsibility, fiscal accountability, and American exceptionalism.

But over the decades we seem to be dividing into two distinct cultures. One is still firmly implanted in that culture of fifty/sixty years ago. The other is one that increasingly looks to society to fulfill their expectations and their basic needs. It is a culture of assumed victimization, excuses, sense of entitlement, blame, and resentment of those who seem to have already achieved the American dream. Concern for deficits, the national debt, the cost, results, or effect is not as important as meeting the needs and wants of the group.

And while of course there will be degrees of dynamics between these two extremes, the theory is that we have become two tribes. One are the hunters and gatherers as a matter of personal honor. The other are those who want the free stuff and honestly believe that the best society provides it.

Agree or disagree. I do think it is time that America has this debate.

(Can we keep this reasonably civil please?)

Yeah, right...as civil as your post is, you mean?

 

[jillian]

As an adult American, you have a fundamental right to be provided:

1. Food
2. Clothing
3. Shelter/housing
4. Furniture/appliances
5. Water, heat, air conditioning
6. An education
7. Health care/medical care
8. A living wage
9. Transportation
10. None of the above


Fifty or sixty years ago, the nation still had rich people and much less affluent people, but both groups shared essentially the same traditional values of honor, personal integrity, accountablility and responsibility and appreciation for time honored institutions of marriage, church, and local education. There were as many different circumstances, personalities and differences of opinion as ever, but essentially America was one culture of individual initiative and unlimited opportunity. This was a people that valued personal freedoms, integrity, responsibility, fiscal accountability, and American exceptionalism.

But over the decades we seem to be dividing into two distinct cultures. One is still firmly implanted in that culture of fifty/sixty years ago. The other is one that increasingly looks to society to fulfill their expectations and their basic needs. It is a culture of assumed victimization, excuses, sense of entitlement, blame, and resentment of those who seem to have already achieved the American dream. Concern for deficits, the national debt, the cost, results, or effect is not as important as meeting the needs and wants of the group.

And while of course there will be degrees of dynamics between these two extremes, the theory is that we have become two tribes. One are the hunters and gatherers as a matter of personal honor. The other are those who want the free stuff and honestly believe that the best society provides it.

Agree or disagree. I do think it is time that America has this debate.

(Can we keep this reasonably civil please?)

Yeah, right...as civil as your post is, you mean?

thanks for saying that before i did.

 

[Sallow]

As an adult American, you have a fundamental right to be provided:

1. Food
2. Clothing
3. Shelter/housing
4. Furniture/appliances
5. Water, heat, air conditioning
6. An education
7. Health care/medical care
8. A living wage
9. Transportation
10. None of the above


Fifty or sixty years ago, the nation still had rich people and much less affluent people, but both groups shared essentially the same traditional values of honor, personal integrity, accountablility and responsibility and appreciation for time honored institutions of marriage, church, and local education. There were as many different circumstances, personalities and differences of opinion as ever, but essentially America was one culture of individual initiative and unlimited opportunity. This was a people that valued personal freedoms, integrity, responsibility, fiscal accountability, and American exceptionalism.

But over the decades we seem to be dividing into two distinct cultures. One is still firmly implanted in that culture of fifty/sixty years ago. The other is one that increasingly looks to society to fulfill their expectations and their basic needs. It is a culture of assumed victimization, excuses, sense of entitlement, blame, and resentment of those who seem to have already achieved the American dream. Concern for deficits, the national debt, the cost, results, or effect is not as important as meeting the needs and wants of the group.

And while of course there will be degrees of dynamics between these two extremes, the theory is that we have become two tribes. One are the hunters and gatherers as a matter of personal honor. The other are those who want the free stuff and honestly believe that the best society provides it.

Agree or disagree. I do think it is time that America has this debate.

(Can we keep this reasonably civil please?)

The major problem with your argument..as is all conservative arguments..is it completely overlooks the role governments play in civilization. The very idea of collectivism..is a means to an end..and that end is providing the essentials for survival. Humans banded together to survive. Simple as that. Government evolved out of that. It is a means to acquire and distribute goods and services to it's participants. If government is not fulfilling that role then there is no need for it.

 

[Sallow]

I don't think we would get piss poor advice if they lived today instead of the late 18th century, because they would make the effort to be as informed today on all the dynamics as they were then.

None of the anecdotal references in your post have a damn thing to do with the principles embodied in the founding documents and ultimately incorporated into the Constitution. A principle is a principle no matter what the circumstances to which it is applied. If we keep the principle in focus, it works no matter what.

However, I think the 'free stuff' group in our society are so enamored with the Santa Claus, Big Brother, all benevolent pipedream of government that they no longer value or cherish the Constitution and would cheerfully chuck it in favor of some new big government concept. I think they are intentionally trying to discredit the Constitution and those who wrote it and I think they are figuratively rewriting it for their own interests which of course is the government ordering the right kind of society that incvludes the right to have others provide them with free stuff. And they are not the least bit interested in even acknowledging, much less discussing any possible negative consequences of that.

Let's look at a basic principle like freedom of speech. To the founding fathers, freedom of speech applied only to white males. Slaves did not have much say. Their founding principles needed updates from future generations to meet the needs of THEIR society

I can't understand your obsession with "free stuff". Do you think welfare queens are the only ones who get "free stuff"???? You get free stuff, I get free stuff. Want to know who gets the most "free stuff"?

The wealthy

You really have some very wrong ideas about what the Founding Fathers thought, wrote, or promoted. I suggest that you spend some time reading some of their writings--ALL of their writings and not selected sound bites from leftist websites.

Now please re-read the OP and try really hard and I bet you can understand the thesis that this thread is about.

We have one group of Americans who still embrace the concept of unalienable rights and self governance whether or not they are aware of where those values originated.

We have another group of Americans who pretty much ignores the Constitution, the concept of unalienable rights and self governance, and the consequences of social programs because they are focused on the free stuff that big government provides and/or promises. That free stuff is the most important thing that drives their concept of government and social policy.

Do you agree or disagree with this. Do you see this as okay or not okay?

No..actually..you have some very clouded ideas about the founding fathers..and the period they lived in. They weren't trying to get rid of slavery..not all of them anyway. And they wrote the Constitution with the idea that white male landed gentry were going to be the benefactors of the government it created.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Seriously......how arrogant does one have to be to claim that a large percentage of Americans has been bribed by "free stuff" into voting for socially responsible government.

 

[Sallow]

Seriously......how arrogant does one have to be to claim that a large percentage of Americans has been bribed by "free stuff" into voting for socially responsible government.

Well rightwinger nailed it as well when he said most of the "free stuff" goes to the wealthy. That guy sitting in first class in the plane you passed on your way to economy class, sipping on Champagne and eating caviar, is very likely doing it on your dime.

It's in our tax code.

 

[JoeB131]

My first thoughts.

There are no rights. Never were, never will be.

There are privilages everyone else lets you have.

Any fool who thinks he has "rights" should look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942". That's how fast rights disappear.

Everyone should be self-sufficient, aboslutely. But making everyone self-sufficient would me the 1% would have to share with the 99%.

There's enough wealth around to find something useful for everyone to do. the resulting consumer demand would be self-sustaining.

We've bought into some lies.

The first lie is that investments creates jobs. Bullshit. Consumer demand creates jobs.

Now, going to the things on your list. Most of them are good ideas. An educated populace is vital to a democracy.

Where the REpublican Party has been self-destructive is in demolishing the middle class to make the rich richer. When you are working a McJob and need food stamps and section 8 housing, you'll vote for more of that stuff. If you are making a good salary and paying taxes, you will be less inclined to. It's really just that simple.

 

[Sallow]

My first thoughts.

There are no rights. Never were, never will be.

There are privilages everyone else lets you have.

Any fool who thinks he has "rights" should look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942". That's how fast rights disappear.

Everyone should be self-sufficient, aboslutely. But making everyone self-sufficient would me the 1% would have to share with the 99%.

There's enough wealth around to find something useful for everyone to do. the resulting consumer demand would be self-sustaining.

We've bought into some lies.

The first lie is that investments creates jobs. Bullshit. Consumer demand creates jobs.

Now, going to the things on your list. Most of them are good ideas. An educated populace is vital to a democracy.

Where the REpublican Party has been self-destructive is in demolishing the middle class to make the rich richer. When you are working a McJob and need food stamps and section 8 housing, you'll vote for more of that stuff. If you are making a good salary and paying taxes, you will be less inclined to. It's really just that simple.

Hey..you stole my sig!

 

[JoeB131]

Well, I put the verb in the correct place and added the word "just".

 

[G.T.]

JoeB,

You and I agree - because if we're to read the constitution from a "maybe there isn't a creator" standpoint, then rights NESSESSARILY were not endowed by our creator.

On topic though. I grew up around poor people. There are system abusers. But the fact that people just love being poor, unemployed and on welfare (speaking of a majority who are) is blatantly false.

Try going outside. Political discourse is not really all revealing, but moreso an over simplification. You can't understand until you step outside of your bubble.

 

[Nosmo King]

The general welfare of the citizens of the united States suffers when some of its citizens live in poverty while others game the system and benefit beyond their capacity to enjoy.

By "game the system" you mean work harder and smarter and thereby achieve more. How do I benefit when the government writes checks to alcoholics lying in the gutter or sluts who get pregnant because they can't keep their legs closed?

Taxes are 'confiscated' to provide compensation to private companies, to large agricultural interests, the separate states and the bureaucracies established to serve them. .

You won't find advocates of capitalism supporting any of that. They've been criticizing it since this nation was founded.

There is a morality to aiding disadvantaged citizens as well.

Only if it's voluntary. Welfare is theft.

If you think that poverty should not be addressed with tax dollars, how are we going to pay for the ignorance that inevitably accompanies poverty? Taxes will be 'confiscated' to pay for prisons and hospitals. For orphanages and poor houses. Your attitude betrays not only the callousness most Americans abhor, but a shallow view of history that extends no further than your own front door.

 

[JoeB131]

JoeB,

You and I agree - because if we're to read the constitution from a "maybe there isn't a creator" standpoint, then rights NESSESSARILY were not endowed by our creator.

On topic though. I grew up around poor people. There are system abusers. But the fact that people just love being poor, unemployed and on welfare (speaking of a majority who are) is blatantly false.

Try going outside. Political discourse is not really all revealing, but moreso an over simplification. You can't understand until you step outside of your bubble.

I never said it was. I'm sure they hate being poor and unemployed. But they also don't understand that the way to not be so is to work for it.

When I was in teh National Guard, in an inner city Chicago unit, we had a lot of guys with that mentality. They were showing up, they got a check. What? You expect us to actually take this training stuff seriously, Sarge? And unload trucks and set up tents?

My biggest complaint with liberalism is that it fosters a mentality that "the world owes you". My biggest problem with conservatism is that it has a mentality of "I've got mine, screw you."

Can't we get to a happy medium where work is encouraged as an ethic, but we all try to be reasonably fair to each other?

 

[Big Fitz]

Oh how I wish this was an open poll to see the respondents.

 

[G.T.]

JoeB,

You and I agree - because if we're to read the constitution from a "maybe there isn't a creator" standpoint, then rights NESSESSARILY were not endowed by our creator.

On topic though. I grew up around poor people. There are system abusers. But the fact that people just love being poor, unemployed and on welfare (speaking of a majority who are) is blatantly false.

Try going outside. Political discourse is not really all revealing, but moreso an over simplification. You can't understand until you step outside of your bubble.

I never said it was. I'm sure they hate being poor and unemployed. But they also don't understand that the way to not be so is to work for it.


When I was in teh National Guard, in an inner city Chicago unit, we had a lot of guys with that mentality. They were showing up, they got a check. What? You expect us to actually take this training stuff seriously, Sarge? And unload trucks and set up tents?

My biggest complaint with liberalism is that it fosters a mentality that "the world owes you". My biggest problem with conservatism is that it has a mentality of "I've got mine, screw you."

Can't we get to a happy medium where work is encouraged as an ethic, but we all try to be reasonably fair to each other?

I disagree with the "they dont understand," and would say that most do understand and the "they" is a very small percentage.

 

[uscitizen]

Hunters and gatherers always go for the free stuff.
Did they raise the game they kill/consume? Raise the fruits and such that they gather?

Nope not till they made agriculture a part of their lifestyle did they quit counting on free stuff.