Classic Liberalism V.S. Progressivism.

[FactFinder]

No, actually there are some very definite distinctions, reversals, and utter denials, in effect between the two. Thanks for not reading up on the Thread before Posting.

You are welcome! The title was enough Thank you.

So that's two wasted Posts for you.

Or you...since you chose to repond.

 

[FactFinder]

You are welcome! The title was enough Thank you.

So that's two wasted Posts for you.

Or you...since you chose to repond.

I am beginning to see who is the waster here.

 

[FactFinder]

The Parasites, the Angry Horde. Busting Someone for Violating a Just Law is one thing, Busting Somebody for how much They Possess through Achievement, is a Crime and a blemish on the Society as a Whole.

classic mental illness. classic selfishness, classic avarice.

 

[FactFinder]

The Parasites, the Angry Horde. Busting Someone for Violating a Just Law is one thing, Busting Somebody for how much They Possess through Achievement, is a Crime and a blemish on the Society as a Whole.

classic mental illness. classic selfishness, classic avarice.

epitome...classic self absorption. classic self.

 

[daveman]

The Parasites, the Angry Horde. Busting Someone for Violating a Just Law is one thing, Busting Somebody for how much They Possess through Achievement, is a Crime and a blemish on the Society as a Whole.

classic mental illness. classic selfishness, classic avarice.

epitome...classic self absorption. classic self.

I'd say that quoting your own post and agreeing with it is self-absorption.

 

[uscitizen]

Progressive ban drugs and behaviours.

 

[Intense]

But but but but Intense.. Here is the fundamental economics that VALIDATES everything that we (conservatives, libertarians, defenders of the free market) have said about the Minimum Wage. That it adversely affects immigrants, urban ghetto youth, and the unfit. And here we have the PROGRESSIVE movement making that case FOR US. Only in the ultimate irony -- it was a principal MOTIVATION for them to impose the Min Wage!!!

Not to mention the proof of the Min Wage effect that we are currently measuring in the misery of those classes that the Progressives were targeting "for the social good".

So you are you are saying that you want to go through all this mumbo jumbo to try to justify in your spirit paying someone to work for you for less than they can possibly survive on in this f'in mainipulated world. May God forgive you your totally shortsided blindingly selfish stance.

You need only look at the EXCESS unemployments of urban ghetto youth and immigrants and less skilled workers and students to see the damage that your "charity" has bought them. Minimum wage is a TEMPORARY state. Never meant to define a career or even more than a foot in the door. You've SLAMMED the f-ing door in their faces.. Good Job. Praise the Lord..

That is very true. Way, way, back, in my Hitch-Hiking years, I traveled and worked when I could all around the Country. Day Labor, was the best in the Urban Area's where you could work and save up till your next move, or just move on really quick. Getting paid daily. That changed in allot of way's and that did make things harder. Restaurant, Construction, Factory, Warehouse, Farm, Ranch, it is out there, and the wages vary. Anything I ever did, usually started at the Ground Floor. Developing Skills is what gets you better compensated, that and reliability. When we talk Getting in the door, Sheep Skins Matter greatly, Experience, Resume, when the shit hit's the fan, it is competence, ability, and how you make use of it. I've met, and worked with, and learned skills from all different kinds of people. We are all Related if you search back far enough.

 

[Londoner]

Maybe what needs to be looked at first are the Government Protected Monopolies? Government has It's hand in every wallet, yet, it never seems to have enough, nor be able to turn Any Government Program into Anything that relates to Self Generating. Government seems more interested in Dependency than Self Reliance. Too often compounding damage, and then demanding more to deal with it. The proclaimed solutions only create more expectation and dependency. That ain't working out so well. Look at the ACORN Spawn. Every Penney invested in them, only creates more debt, it actually multiplies the deficit. The more they touch, the bigger the hole.

This was and is my fear with the War on Terrorism and Homeland Security.

In a perfect world, government could end poverty, racism, and terrorism ...on time and under budget. Problem is: government always makes things worse, sometimes far worse. They cannot be trusted to run a laundromat, yet we give them vast budgets and powers to rebuild Arab nations and set-up a massive domestic surveillance bureaucracy which is larger, and less transparent, and more potentially invasive than anything LBJ ever dreamed*. Why do people trust that government will use this concentrated power effectively?

The Cold War and War on Terrorism did not just give Washington power over the 50 states, it turned the entire globe into a context for
intervention. A greater example of centralized power cannot be imagined. Yet, there is no dialogue about the way national security and globalism^ centralizes power. The only people I've seen bring attention to this are old isolationist Republicans or the CATO Institute. I'm all for national defense - and I'd love a utopia without evil doers; and it would be great if Washington had the capacity to impose top-down world improvement - but I lack the Right's faith in Big Government solutions. I think the more power and money we give them, the bigger the mistakes they will make. I think if you trust Big Government to remake the Arab world, you will end-up giving them loads of power and money to make things worse.

Indeed, I'd love to feel amniotic safety in tall buildings and jet planes - and I'd love for everyone's computer to be filled only with jpegs of the American Flag - but I don't trust nanny government with the budget and power to protect me. I accept that life is dangerous. I value freedom over safety. I don't need a Big Federal Government tying the states together under its protective wing - whether it be FEMA, the War on Drugs, or Homeland Security. I don't need Washington to waste trillions of dollars saving the world, or improving the world, or rebuilding the world in our image. I need them to do less because I don't trust fallible, corruptible humans with such large levers of power. Tragically, there is no voice against this kind of centralization-of-power. The Tea Party is not allowed to pursue this issue because so much of their information comes from the benefactors of state power.

The Right, since Reagan, has been great at raising awareness about the inefficiency and moral hazards of welfare. They taught us to see the unintended consequence of federal intervention and central planning. Food stamps turn the poor into dependents, welfare undermines work, FDR prolonged the depression, and the minimum wage leads to job loss. And let's not talk about price controls, which get incentives all wrong.

Here is the scary part: the same group which protests government power the loudest actually grows government the most, with nary a peep. I remember when the Bush administration established TIPS in the wake of 9/11. The program was designed to provide "permanent surveillance of American citizens by a certain category of worker". According to the Bush White House, "mail carriers, technicians, or repair personnel are in an excellent position to recognize unusual events". Basically, the program encouraged all Americans to spy on each other for the government. Whole new secretive bureaucracies formed (later centralizing into Homeland Security) to watch and gather information on Americans.

Again: we'd all like to be safe, but some of us don't trust a central authority with this power. What I find most interesting about the Patriot Act are the ways in which it erodes the legal boundary between enemy combatant and civilian - thus making it easier for Big Government to use national security as a context to watch, record, and incarcerate disruptive civilians or groups. You are aware that this is the KGB Model, e.g., state bureaucrats use an external threat to grow their power of juridical intervention, hiding their decisions behind a veil of national security. Eventually, they use this expanded power to disrupt/jail political opponents; perhaps they blur the difference between war protester and enemy combatants. Or worse: they create vague crimes like"anti-American activity", e.g., the McCarthy witch hunts a.k.a. using Cold War hysteria to hunt political enemies. Here is the point: we don't want to leave such large levers of power lying around. Both parties have a bad track record when it comes to protecting rights.

Here is a well-researched book about the way 9/11 was used to circumvent the Constitution and erode the legal rights and privacy of American citizens. The scary part is that the serfs are not allowed to see the real abuses of power. They have been trained to worry more about Welfare Queens and gay marriage than the erosion of privacy.
Global War on Liberty (paperback) by Jean-Claude Paye : Telos Press

Here is an article on Homeland Security. We might pause to consider how dangerously un-transparent this kind of power is. It is disconcerting how little it is mentioned by the protectors of freedom.
** A hidden world, growing beyond control | washingtonpost.com

^Running the postwar global economy and imposing our market system on inhospitable regions takes a massive, powerful government. Stabilizing the 3rd world so that capital has access to cheap labor and resources gives Washington more power than the Jobs program that saved Reagan's father. We need to see the concentration of power in all its guises if we are to be responsible checks on government power

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Maybe what needs to be looked at first are the Government Protected Monopolies? Government has It's hand in every wallet, yet, it never seems to have enough, nor be able to turn Any Government Program into Anything that relates to Self Generating. Government seems more interested in Dependency than Self Reliance. Too often compounding damage, and then demanding more to deal with it. The proclaimed solutions only create more expectation and dependency. That ain't working out so well. Look at the ACORN Spawn. Every Penney invested in them, only creates more debt, it actually multiplies the deficit. The more they touch, the bigger the hole.

This was and is my fear with the War on Terrorism and Homeland Security.

In a perfect world, government could provide total safety. They could end poverty, racism, and terrorism ...on time and under budget. Problem is: government always makes things worse, sometimes far worse. They cannot be trusted to run a laundromat, yet we give them vast budgets and powers to rebuild Arab nations and set-up a massive domestic surveillance bureaucracy which is larger, and less transparent, and more potentially invasive than anything LBJ ever dreamed*. Why do people trust that government will use this concentrated power effectively? The Cold War and War on Terrorism did not just give Washington power over the 50 states, it turned the entire globe into a context for centralized intervention. There is no dialogue about the way national security and globalism^ centralizes power. The only people I've seen bring attention to this are old isolationist Republicans or the CATO Institute. I'm all for national defense. I'd love to feel amniotic safety in tall buildings and jet planes - and I'd love for everyone's computer to be filled only with jpegs of the American Flag - but I don't trust nanny government with the budget and power to protect me. I accept that life is dangerous. I value freedom over safety. I don't need a Big Federal Government tying the states together under its protective wing - whether it be FEMA, the War on Drugs, or Homeland Security. I don't need Washington to waste trillions of dollars saving the world, or improving the world, or rebuilding the world in our image. I need them to do less because I don't trust fallible, corruptible humans with such large levers of power. Tragically, there is no voice against this kind of centralization-of-power. The Tea Party is not and will never be allowed to pursue this issue.

The Right, since Reagan, has been great at raising awareness about the inefficiency and moral hazards of welfare. They taught us to see the unintended consequence of federal intervention and central planning. Food stamps turn the poor into dependents, welfare undermines work, FDR prolonged the depression, and the minimum wage leads to job loss. And let's not talk about price controls, which get incentives all wrong.

Here is the scary part: the same group which protests government power the loudest actually grows government significantly, with nary a peep. I remember when the Bush administration established TIPS in the wake of 9/11. The program was designed to provide "permanent surveillance of American citizens by a certain category of worker". According to the Bush White House, "mail carriers, technicians, or repair personnel are in an excellent position to recognize unusual events". Basically, the program encouraged all Americans to spy on each other for the government. Whole new secretive bureaucracies formed (later centralizing into Homeland Security) to watch and gather information on Americans. Again: we'd all like to be safe, but some of us don't trust a central authority with this power. What I find most interesting about the Patriot Act are the ways in which it erodes the legal boundary between enemy combatant and civilian - thus making it easier for Big Government to use national security as a context to watch, record, and incarcerate disruptive civilians or groups. You are aware that this is the KGB Model, e.g., state bureaucrats use an external threat to grow their power of juridical intervention, hiding their decisions behind a veil of national security. Eventually, they use this expanded power to disrupt/jail political opponents; perhaps they blur the difference between war protester and enemy combatants. Or worse: they create vague crimes like"anti-American activity", e.g., the McCarthy witch hunts a.k.a. using Cold War hysteria to hunt political enemies. Here is the point: we don't want to leave such large levers of power lying around. Both parties have a bad track record when it comes to protecting rights.

Here is a well-researched book about the way 9/11 was used to circumvent the Constitution and erode the legal rights and privacy of American citizens. The scary part is that the serfs are not allowed to see the real abuses of power. They have been trained to worry more about Welfare Queens than the erosion of privacy and legal rights.
Global War on Liberty (paperback) by Jean-Claude Paye : Telos Press

Here is an article on Homeland Security. We might pause to consider how dangerously un-transparent this kind of power is. It is disconcerting how little it is mentioned by the protectors of freedom.
** A hidden world, growing beyond control | washingtonpost.com

^Running the postwar global economy and imposing our market system on inhospitable regions takes a massive, powerful government. Stabilizing the 3rd world so that capital has access to cheap labor and resources gives Washington more power than the Jobs program that saved Reagan's father. We need to see the concentration of power in all its guises if we are to be responsible checks on government power

How would a world where the government provided perfect safety be perfect?

 

[Mr.Nick]

Maybe what needs to be looked at first are the Government Protected Monopolies? Government has It's hand in every wallet, yet, it never seems to have enough, nor be able to turn Any Government Program into Anything that relates to Self Generating. Government seems more interested in Dependency than Self Reliance. Too often compounding damage, and then demanding more to deal with it. The proclaimed solutions only create more expectation and dependency. That ain't working out so well. Look at the ACORN Spawn. Every Penney invested in them, only creates more debt, it actually multiplies the deficit. The more they touch, the bigger the hole.

This was and is my fear with the War on Terrorism and Homeland Security.

In a perfect world, government could provide total safety. They could end poverty, racism, and terrorism ...on time and under budget. Problem is: government always makes things worse, sometimes far worse. They cannot be trusted to run a laundromat, yet we give them vast budgets and powers to rebuild Arab nations and set-up a massive domestic surveillance bureaucracy which is larger, and less transparent, and more potentially invasive than anything LBJ ever dreamed*. Why do people trust that government will use this concentrated power effectively? The Cold War and War on Terrorism did not just give Washington power over the 50 states, it turned the entire globe into a context for centralized intervention. There is no dialogue about the way national security and globalism^ centralizes power. The only people I've seen bring attention to this are old isolationist Republicans or the CATO Institute. I'm all for national defense. I'd love to feel amniotic safety in tall buildings and jet planes - and I'd love for everyone's computer to be filled only with jpegs of the American Flag - but I don't trust nanny government with the budget and power to protect me. I accept that life is dangerous. I value freedom over safety. I don't need a Big Federal Government tying the states together under its protective wing - whether it be FEMA, the War on Drugs, or Homeland Security. I don't need Washington to waste trillions of dollars saving the world, or improving the world, or rebuilding the world in our image. I need them to do less because I don't trust fallible, corruptible humans with such large levers of power. Tragically, there is no voice against this kind of centralization-of-power. The Tea Party is not and will never be allowed to pursue this issue.

The Right, since Reagan, has been great at raising awareness about the inefficiency and moral hazards of welfare. They taught us to see the unintended consequence of federal intervention and central planning. Food stamps turn the poor into dependents, welfare undermines work, FDR prolonged the depression, and the minimum wage leads to job loss. And let's not talk about price controls, which get incentives all wrong.

Here is the scary part: the same group which protests government power the loudest actually grows government significantly, with nary a peep. I remember when the Bush administration established TIPS in the wake of 9/11. The program was designed to provide "permanent surveillance of American citizens by a certain category of worker". According to the Bush White House, "mail carriers, technicians, or repair personnel are in an excellent position to recognize unusual events". Basically, the program encouraged all Americans to spy on each other for the government. Whole new secretive bureaucracies formed (later centralizing into Homeland Security) to watch and gather information on Americans. Again: we'd all like to be safe, but some of us don't trust a central authority with this power. What I find most interesting about the Patriot Act are the ways in which it erodes the legal boundary between enemy combatant and civilian - thus making it easier for Big Government to use national security as a context to watch, record, and incarcerate disruptive civilians or groups. You are aware that this is the KGB Model, e.g., state bureaucrats use an external threat to grow their power of juridical intervention, hiding their decisions behind a veil of national security. Eventually, they use this expanded power to disrupt/jail political opponents; perhaps they blur the difference between war protester and enemy combatants. Or worse: they create vague crimes like"anti-American activity", e.g., the McCarthy witch hunts a.k.a. using Cold War hysteria to hunt political enemies. Here is the point: we don't want to leave such large levers of power lying around. Both parties have a bad track record when it comes to protecting rights.

Here is a well-researched book about the way 9/11 was used to circumvent the Constitution and erode the legal rights and privacy of American citizens. The scary part is that the serfs are not allowed to see the real abuses of power. They have been trained to worry more about Welfare Queens than the erosion of privacy and legal rights.
Global War on Liberty (paperback) by Jean-Claude Paye : Telos Press

Here is an article on Homeland Security. We might pause to consider how dangerously un-transparent this kind of power is. It is disconcerting how little it is mentioned by the protectors of freedom.
** A hidden world, growing beyond control | washingtonpost.com

^Running the postwar global economy and imposing our market system on inhospitable regions takes a massive, powerful government. Stabilizing the 3rd world so that capital has access to cheap labor and resources gives Washington more power than the Jobs program that saved Reagan's father. We need to see the concentration of power in all its guises if we are to be responsible checks on government power

How would a world where the government provided perfect safety be perfect?

I believe it has been tried before, Mao, Stalin and Castro come to mind but..... I suppose the liberals, er progressives want a repeat of that...

It's almost like humanity has learned nothing...

We just recycle history and do it over and over and over- I though our Bill of Rights purpose was to prevent that? - It will never happen again - I'll fight them until they're nothing...

We will never repeat Stalins or Maos horror show - you can put that in the books...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This was and is my fear with the War on Terrorism and Homeland Security.

In a perfect world, government could provide total safety. They could end poverty, racism, and terrorism ...on time and under budget. Problem is: government always makes things worse, sometimes far worse. They cannot be trusted to run a laundromat, yet we give them vast budgets and powers to rebuild Arab nations and set-up a massive domestic surveillance bureaucracy which is larger, and less transparent, and more potentially invasive than anything LBJ ever dreamed*. Why do people trust that government will use this concentrated power effectively? The Cold War and War on Terrorism did not just give Washington power over the 50 states, it turned the entire globe into a context for centralized intervention. There is no dialogue about the way national security and globalism^ centralizes power. The only people I've seen bring attention to this are old isolationist Republicans or the CATO Institute. I'm all for national defense. I'd love to feel amniotic safety in tall buildings and jet planes - and I'd love for everyone's computer to be filled only with jpegs of the American Flag - but I don't trust nanny government with the budget and power to protect me. I accept that life is dangerous. I value freedom over safety. I don't need a Big Federal Government tying the states together under its protective wing - whether it be FEMA, the War on Drugs, or Homeland Security. I don't need Washington to waste trillions of dollars saving the world, or improving the world, or rebuilding the world in our image. I need them to do less because I don't trust fallible, corruptible humans with such large levers of power. Tragically, there is no voice against this kind of centralization-of-power. The Tea Party is not and will never be allowed to pursue this issue.

The Right, since Reagan, has been great at raising awareness about the inefficiency and moral hazards of welfare. They taught us to see the unintended consequence of federal intervention and central planning. Food stamps turn the poor into dependents, welfare undermines work, FDR prolonged the depression, and the minimum wage leads to job loss. And let's not talk about price controls, which get incentives all wrong.

Here is the scary part: the same group which protests government power the loudest actually grows government significantly, with nary a peep. I remember when the Bush administration established TIPS in the wake of 9/11. The program was designed to provide "permanent surveillance of American citizens by a certain category of worker". According to the Bush White House, "mail carriers, technicians, or repair personnel are in an excellent position to recognize unusual events". Basically, the program encouraged all Americans to spy on each other for the government. Whole new secretive bureaucracies formed (later centralizing into Homeland Security) to watch and gather information on Americans. Again: we'd all like to be safe, but some of us don't trust a central authority with this power. What I find most interesting about the Patriot Act are the ways in which it erodes the legal boundary between enemy combatant and civilian - thus making it easier for Big Government to use national security as a context to watch, record, and incarcerate disruptive civilians or groups. You are aware that this is the KGB Model, e.g., state bureaucrats use an external threat to grow their power of juridical intervention, hiding their decisions behind a veil of national security. Eventually, they use this expanded power to disrupt/jail political opponents; perhaps they blur the difference between war protester and enemy combatants. Or worse: they create vague crimes like"anti-American activity", e.g., the McCarthy witch hunts a.k.a. using Cold War hysteria to hunt political enemies. Here is the point: we don't want to leave such large levers of power lying around. Both parties have a bad track record when it comes to protecting rights.

Here is a well-researched book about the way 9/11 was used to circumvent the Constitution and erode the legal rights and privacy of American citizens. The scary part is that the serfs are not allowed to see the real abuses of power. They have been trained to worry more about Welfare Queens than the erosion of privacy and legal rights.
Global War on Liberty (paperback) by Jean-Claude Paye : Telos Press

Here is an article on Homeland Security. We might pause to consider how dangerously un-transparent this kind of power is. It is disconcerting how little it is mentioned by the protectors of freedom.
** A hidden world, growing beyond control | washingtonpost.com

^Running the postwar global economy and imposing our market system on inhospitable regions takes a massive, powerful government. Stabilizing the 3rd world so that capital has access to cheap labor and resources gives Washington more power than the Jobs program that saved Reagan's father. We need to see the concentration of power in all its guises if we are to be responsible checks on government power

How would a world where the government provided perfect safety be perfect?

I believe it has been tried before, Mao, Stalin and Castro come to mind but..... I suppose the liberals, er progressives want a repeat of that...

It's almost like humanity has learned nothing...

We just recycle history and do it over and over and over- I though our Bill of Rights purpose was to prevent that? - It will never happen again - I'll fight them until they're nothing...

We will never repeat Stalins or Maos horror show - you can put that in the books...

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

 

[Intense]

Maybe what needs to be looked at first are the Government Protected Monopolies? Government has It's hand in every wallet, yet, it never seems to have enough, nor be able to turn Any Government Program into Anything that relates to Self Generating. Government seems more interested in Dependency than Self Reliance. Too often compounding damage, and then demanding more to deal with it. The proclaimed solutions only create more expectation and dependency. That ain't working out so well. Look at the ACORN Spawn. Every Penney invested in them, only creates more debt, it actually multiplies the deficit. The more they touch, the bigger the hole.

This was and is my fear with the War on Terrorism and Homeland Security.

In a perfect world, government could provide total safety. They could end poverty, racism, and terrorism ...on time and under budget. Problem is: government always makes things worse, sometimes far worse. They cannot be trusted to run a laundromat, yet we give them vast budgets and powers to rebuild Arab nations and set-up a massive domestic surveillance bureaucracy which is larger, and less transparent, and more potentially invasive than anything LBJ ever dreamed*. Why do people trust that government will use this concentrated power effectively? The Cold War and War on Terrorism did not just give Washington power over the 50 states, it turned the entire globe into a context for centralized intervention. There is no dialogue about the way national security and globalism^ centralizes power. The only people I've seen bring attention to this are old isolationist Republicans or the CATO Institute. I'm all for national defense. I'd love to feel amniotic safety in tall buildings and jet planes - and I'd love for everyone's computer to be filled only with jpegs of the American Flag - but I don't trust nanny government with the budget and power to protect me. I accept that life is dangerous. I value freedom over safety. I don't need a Big Federal Government tying the states together under its protective wing - whether it be FEMA, the War on Drugs, or Homeland Security. I don't need Washington to waste trillions of dollars saving the world, or improving the world, or rebuilding the world in our image. I need them to do less because I don't trust fallible, corruptible humans with such large levers of power. Tragically, there is no voice against this kind of centralization-of-power. The Tea Party is not and will never be allowed to pursue this issue.

The Right, since Reagan, has been great at raising awareness about the inefficiency and moral hazards of welfare. They taught us to see the unintended consequence of federal intervention and central planning. Food stamps turn the poor into dependents, welfare undermines work, FDR prolonged the depression, and the minimum wage leads to job loss. And let's not talk about price controls, which get incentives all wrong.

Here is the scary part: the same group which protests government power the loudest actually grows government significantly, with nary a peep. I remember when the Bush administration established TIPS in the wake of 9/11. The program was designed to provide "permanent surveillance of American citizens by a certain category of worker". According to the Bush White House, "mail carriers, technicians, or repair personnel are in an excellent position to recognize unusual events". Basically, the program encouraged all Americans to spy on each other for the government. Whole new secretive bureaucracies formed (later centralizing into Homeland Security) to watch and gather information on Americans. Again: we'd all like to be safe, but some of us don't trust a central authority with this power. What I find most interesting about the Patriot Act are the ways in which it erodes the legal boundary between enemy combatant and civilian - thus making it easier for Big Government to use national security as a context to watch, record, and incarcerate disruptive civilians or groups. You are aware that this is the KGB Model, e.g., state bureaucrats use an external threat to grow their power of juridical intervention, hiding their decisions behind a veil of national security. Eventually, they use this expanded power to disrupt/jail political opponents; perhaps they blur the difference between war protester and enemy combatants. Or worse: they create vague crimes like"anti-American activity", e.g., the McCarthy witch hunts a.k.a. using Cold War hysteria to hunt political enemies. Here is the point: we don't want to leave such large levers of power lying around. Both parties have a bad track record when it comes to protecting rights.

Here is a well-researched book about the way 9/11 was used to circumvent the Constitution and erode the legal rights and privacy of American citizens. The scary part is that the serfs are not allowed to see the real abuses of power. They have been trained to worry more about Welfare Queens than the erosion of privacy and legal rights.
Global War on Liberty (paperback) by Jean-Claude Paye : Telos Press

Here is an article on Homeland Security. We might pause to consider how dangerously un-transparent this kind of power is. It is disconcerting how little it is mentioned by the protectors of freedom.
** A hidden world, growing beyond control | washingtonpost.com

^Running the postwar global economy and imposing our market system on inhospitable regions takes a massive, powerful government. Stabilizing the 3rd world so that capital has access to cheap labor and resources gives Washington more power than the Jobs program that saved Reagan's father. We need to see the concentration of power in all its guises if we are to be responsible checks on government power

I'm pretty much in agreement with You there. One Natural Right we missed in the Bill Of Right's is the Right to Privacy. Another goes as far back as Hamilton, I personally believe was intentional. Him Trumping the Concept of Enumerated Powers of the Federal Government with the General Welfare Clause, which He argued, gave the Federal Government the Power to Construct Powers as It saw fit, effectively nullifying Enumerated Powers, the limits of Authority and Intervention.

 

[Bern80]

Maybe what needs to be looked at first are the Government Protected Monopolies? Government has It's hand in every wallet, yet, it never seems to have enough, nor be able to turn Any Government Program into Anything that relates to Self Generating. Government seems more interested in Dependency than Self Reliance. Too often compounding damage, and then demanding more to deal with it. The proclaimed solutions only create more expectation and dependency. That ain't working out so well. Look at the ACORN Spawn. Every Penney invested in them, only creates more debt, it actually multiplies the deficit. The more they touch, the bigger the hole.

This was and is my fear with the War on Terrorism and Homeland Security.

In a perfect world, government could provide total safety. They could end poverty, racism, and terrorism ...on time and under budget. Problem is: government always makes things worse, sometimes far worse. They cannot be trusted to run a laundromat, yet we give them vast budgets and powers to rebuild Arab nations and set-up a massive domestic surveillance bureaucracy which is larger, and less transparent, and more potentially invasive than anything LBJ ever dreamed*. Why do people trust that government will use this concentrated power effectively? The Cold War and War on Terrorism did not just give Washington power over the 50 states, it turned the entire globe into a context for centralized intervention. There is no dialogue about the way national security and globalism^ centralizes power. The only people I've seen bring attention to this are old isolationist Republicans or the CATO Institute. I'm all for national defense. I'd love to feel amniotic safety in tall buildings and jet planes - and I'd love for everyone's computer to be filled only with jpegs of the American Flag - but I don't trust nanny government with the budget and power to protect me. I accept that life is dangerous. I value freedom over safety. I don't need a Big Federal Government tying the states together under its protective wing - whether it be FEMA, the War on Drugs, or Homeland Security. I don't need Washington to waste trillions of dollars saving the world, or improving the world, or rebuilding the world in our image. I need them to do less because I don't trust fallible, corruptible humans with such large levers of power. Tragically, there is no voice against this kind of centralization-of-power. The Tea Party is not and will never be allowed to pursue this issue.

The Right, since Reagan, has been great at raising awareness about the inefficiency and moral hazards of welfare. They taught us to see the unintended consequence of federal intervention and central planning. Food stamps turn the poor into dependents, welfare undermines work, FDR prolonged the depression, and the minimum wage leads to job loss. And let's not talk about price controls, which get incentives all wrong.

Here is the scary part: the same group which protests government power the loudest actually grows government significantly, with nary a peep. I remember when the Bush administration established TIPS in the wake of 9/11. The program was designed to provide "permanent surveillance of American citizens by a certain category of worker". According to the Bush White House, "mail carriers, technicians, or repair personnel are in an excellent position to recognize unusual events". Basically, the program encouraged all Americans to spy on each other for the government. Whole new secretive bureaucracies formed (later centralizing into Homeland Security) to watch and gather information on Americans. Again: we'd all like to be safe, but some of us don't trust a central authority with this power. What I find most interesting about the Patriot Act are the ways in which it erodes the legal boundary between enemy combatant and civilian - thus making it easier for Big Government to use national security as a context to watch, record, and incarcerate disruptive civilians or groups. You are aware that this is the KGB Model, e.g., state bureaucrats use an external threat to grow their power of juridical intervention, hiding their decisions behind a veil of national security. Eventually, they use this expanded power to disrupt/jail political opponents; perhaps they blur the difference between war protester and enemy combatants. Or worse: they create vague crimes like"anti-American activity", e.g., the McCarthy witch hunts a.k.a. using Cold War hysteria to hunt political enemies. Here is the point: we don't want to leave such large levers of power lying around. Both parties have a bad track record when it comes to protecting rights.

Here is a well-researched book about the way 9/11 was used to circumvent the Constitution and erode the legal rights and privacy of American citizens. The scary part is that the serfs are not allowed to see the real abuses of power. They have been trained to worry more about Welfare Queens than the erosion of privacy and legal rights.
Global War on Liberty (paperback) by Jean-Claude Paye : Telos Press

Here is an article on Homeland Security. We might pause to consider how dangerously un-transparent this kind of power is. It is disconcerting how little it is mentioned by the protectors of freedom.
** A hidden world, growing beyond control | washingtonpost.com

^Running the postwar global economy and imposing our market system on inhospitable regions takes a massive, powerful government. Stabilizing the 3rd world so that capital has access to cheap labor and resources gives Washington more power than the Jobs program that saved Reagan's father. We need to see the concentration of power in all its guises if we are to be responsible checks on government power

I'm pretty much in agreement with You there. One Natural Right we missed in the Bill Of Right's is the Right to Privacy. Another goes as far back as Hamilton, I personally believe was intentional. Him Trumping the Concept of Enumerated Powers of the Federal Government with the General Welfare Clause, which He argued, gave the Federal Government the Power to Construct Powers as It saw fit, effectively nullifying Enumerated Powers, the limits of Authority and Intervention.

I don't know that right to privacy was intentionally missed. Privacy isn't something that is really neccessary. You may not like having someone peeping in your windows, but it's not like they can hurt you by doing that.....unless you're doing something illegal and you certainly have the ability to maintain a level of privacy regardless of it being a right or not.

 

[Intense]

This was and is my fear with the War on Terrorism and Homeland Security.

In a perfect world, government could provide total safety. They could end poverty, racism, and terrorism ...on time and under budget. Problem is: government always makes things worse, sometimes far worse. They cannot be trusted to run a laundromat, yet we give them vast budgets and powers to rebuild Arab nations and set-up a massive domestic surveillance bureaucracy which is larger, and less transparent, and more potentially invasive than anything LBJ ever dreamed*. Why do people trust that government will use this concentrated power effectively? The Cold War and War on Terrorism did not just give Washington power over the 50 states, it turned the entire globe into a context for centralized intervention. There is no dialogue about the way national security and globalism^ centralizes power. The only people I've seen bring attention to this are old isolationist Republicans or the CATO Institute. I'm all for national defense. I'd love to feel amniotic safety in tall buildings and jet planes - and I'd love for everyone's computer to be filled only with jpegs of the American Flag - but I don't trust nanny government with the budget and power to protect me. I accept that life is dangerous. I value freedom over safety. I don't need a Big Federal Government tying the states together under its protective wing - whether it be FEMA, the War on Drugs, or Homeland Security. I don't need Washington to waste trillions of dollars saving the world, or improving the world, or rebuilding the world in our image. I need them to do less because I don't trust fallible, corruptible humans with such large levers of power. Tragically, there is no voice against this kind of centralization-of-power. The Tea Party is not and will never be allowed to pursue this issue.

The Right, since Reagan, has been great at raising awareness about the inefficiency and moral hazards of welfare. They taught us to see the unintended consequence of federal intervention and central planning. Food stamps turn the poor into dependents, welfare undermines work, FDR prolonged the depression, and the minimum wage leads to job loss. And let's not talk about price controls, which get incentives all wrong.

Here is the scary part: the same group which protests government power the loudest actually grows government significantly, with nary a peep. I remember when the Bush administration established TIPS in the wake of 9/11. The program was designed to provide "permanent surveillance of American citizens by a certain category of worker". According to the Bush White House, "mail carriers, technicians, or repair personnel are in an excellent position to recognize unusual events". Basically, the program encouraged all Americans to spy on each other for the government. Whole new secretive bureaucracies formed (later centralizing into Homeland Security) to watch and gather information on Americans. Again: we'd all like to be safe, but some of us don't trust a central authority with this power. What I find most interesting about the Patriot Act are the ways in which it erodes the legal boundary between enemy combatant and civilian - thus making it easier for Big Government to use national security as a context to watch, record, and incarcerate disruptive civilians or groups. You are aware that this is the KGB Model, e.g., state bureaucrats use an external threat to grow their power of juridical intervention, hiding their decisions behind a veil of national security. Eventually, they use this expanded power to disrupt/jail political opponents; perhaps they blur the difference between war protester and enemy combatants. Or worse: they create vague crimes like"anti-American activity", e.g., the McCarthy witch hunts a.k.a. using Cold War hysteria to hunt political enemies. Here is the point: we don't want to leave such large levers of power lying around. Both parties have a bad track record when it comes to protecting rights.

Here is a well-researched book about the way 9/11 was used to circumvent the Constitution and erode the legal rights and privacy of American citizens. The scary part is that the serfs are not allowed to see the real abuses of power. They have been trained to worry more about Welfare Queens than the erosion of privacy and legal rights.
Global War on Liberty (paperback) by Jean-Claude Paye : Telos Press

Here is an article on Homeland Security. We might pause to consider how dangerously un-transparent this kind of power is. It is disconcerting how little it is mentioned by the protectors of freedom.
** A hidden world, growing beyond control | washingtonpost.com

^Running the postwar global economy and imposing our market system on inhospitable regions takes a massive, powerful government. Stabilizing the 3rd world so that capital has access to cheap labor and resources gives Washington more power than the Jobs program that saved Reagan's father. We need to see the concentration of power in all its guises if we are to be responsible checks on government power

I'm pretty much in agreement with You there. One Natural Right we missed in the Bill Of Right's is the Right to Privacy. Another goes as far back as Hamilton, I personally believe was intentional. Him Trumping the Concept of Enumerated Powers of the Federal Government with the General Welfare Clause, which He argued, gave the Federal Government the Power to Construct Powers as It saw fit, effectively nullifying Enumerated Powers, the limits of Authority and Intervention.

I don't know that right to privacy was intentionally missed. Privacy isn't something that is really neccessary. You may not like having someone peeping in your windows, but it's not like they can hurt you by doing that.....unless you're doing something illegal and you certainly have the ability to maintain a level of privacy regardless of it being a right or not.

It goes far beyond that. Medical Records, Tax Records, Credit Bureau, DMV. Internet History, Surfing Habits. It's exploitation. Be it a Stalker, a Potential Employer, Advertising and Soliciting, whatever. The breach of Security potential alone is astounding. A Major Credit Card Scam Ring was just busted up here in Queens this week.

NY Authorities Bust Identity Theft Ring That Made Counterfeit Credit Cards


NY Authorities Bust Identity Theft Ring That Made Counterfeit Credit Cards | NBC New York

 

[FA_Q2]

It goes far beyond that. Medical Records, Tax Records, Credit Bureau, DMV. Internet History, Surfing Habits. It's exploitation. Be it a Stalker, a Potential Employer, Advertising and Soliciting, whatever. The breach of Security potential alone is astounding. A Major Credit Card Scam Ring was just busted up here in Queens this week.

NY Authorities Bust Identity Theft Ring That Made Counterfeit Credit Cards


NY Authorities Bust Identity Theft Ring That Made Counterfeit Credit Cards | NBC New York

You have to realize though that the founders were dealing in a world that included none of that. They really did only have to worry about someone 'looking' in your windows but then again, owning your own property and the right to be secure in it pretty much covers that problem anyway. I am not sure that the right was so much missed as not needed as QW pointed out as that was a different time.

Perhaps it is missing and needs to be added with the digital age but I really do not see how that would change much. Most of what you are referring to is already protected but that will not stop the criminals from getting to it anyway. Besides that, a right to privacy can get somewhat sticky. Sure, you have a clear right to privacy in your own home and as a matter of fact you have that now BUT as soon as you step outside I do not see a compelling reason why you would expect that same privacy. You are then in public after all.

 

[Intense]

"Civil liberty (says an excellent writer) is a severe and a restrained thing; implies, in the notion of it, authority, settled subordinations, subjection, and obedience; and is altogether as much hurt by too little of this kind, as by too much of it. And the love of liberty, when it is indeed the love of liberty, which carries us to withstand tyranny, will as much carry us to reverence authority, and to support it; for this most obvious reason, that one is as necessary to the being of liberty, as the other is destructive of it. And, therefore, the love of liberty which does not produce this effect, the love of liberty which is not a real principle of dutiful behavior toward authority, is as hypocritical as the religion which is not productive of a good life. Licentiousness is, in truth, such an excess of liberty as is of the same nature with tyranny. For, what is the difference betwixt them, but that one is lawless power exercised under pretense of authority, or by persons vested with it; the other, lawless power exercised under pretense of liberty, or without any pretense at all? A people, then, must always be less free in proportion as they are more licentious, licentiousness being not only different from liberty but directly contrary to it -- a direct breach upon it."

True liberty, then, is a liberty to do everything that is right, and the being restrained from doing anything that is wrong. So far from our having a right to do everything that we please, under a notion of liberty, liberty itself is limited and confined -- but limited and confined only by laws which are at the same time both its foundation and its support. It can, however, hardly be necessary to inform you that ideas and notions respecting liberty, very different from these, are daily suggested in the speeches and the writings of the times; and also that some opinions on the subject of government at large, which appear to me to be particularly loose and dangerous, are advanced in the sermon now under consideration; and that, therefore, you will acknowledge the propriety of my bestowing some farther notice on them both.

It is laid down in this sermon, as a settled maxim, that the end of government is "the common good of mankind." I am not sure that the position itself is indisputable; but, if it were, it would by no means follow that "this common good being matter of common feeling, government must therefore have been instituted by common consent." There is an appearance of logical accuracy and precision in this statement; but it is only an appearance. The position is vague and loose; and the assertion is made without an attempt to prove it. If by men's "common feelings" we are to understand that principle in the human mind called common sense, the assertion is either unmeaning and insignificant, or it is false. In no instance have mankind ever yet agreed as to what is, or is not, "the common good." A form or mode of government cannot be named, which these "common feelings" and "common consent," the sole arbiters, as it seems, of "common good," have not, at one time or another, set up and established, and again pulled down and reprobated. What one people in one age have concurred in establishing as the "common good," another in another age have voted to be mischievous and big with ruin. The premises, therefore, that "the common good is matter of common feeling," being false, the consequence drawn from it, viz., that government was instituted by "common consent," is of course equally false. -Jonathan Boucher

Jonathan Boucher: On Civil Liberty, Passive Obedience, and Nonresistance

 

[Intense]

The habit of corrupting our political system, by the instrumentality of inference, convenience and necessity, with an endless series of consequences attached to them, is the importer of contraband principles, and the bountiful grantor of powers not given, or withheld by our constitutions. It is, therefore, the natural enemy of our home-bred form of government, and ought to awaken the resistance of all legislative and judicial departments, and the detestation of every person not enriched by this ruinous commerce. Every lover of our institutions ought to be a vigilant custom-house officer, and do his utmost to prevent a heavy government from being brought in gradually by these seemingly light skiffs. It is convenient for the transmission of taxes, that congress should create banks; but the constitution does not delegate to the federal government a power to create political combinations, invested with a power to regulate the wealth and poverty of individuals. This new power of indefinite magnitude is, however, said to be conveyed, as a consequence of the convenient mode of removing money. Again: congress have a power to regulate commerce; but the constitution does not delegate to the federal government a power to make several states tributary to one, nor a power to make the people of all the states tributary to a combination of capitalists, constituting in fact a body politick, materially affecting the interests of all persons. In this case also, the inference is made to bestow a far greater power, than that from which it is extracted. -JOHN TAYLOR

John Taylor: Construction Construed, and Constitutions Vindicated (1820)

 

[Intense]

Rules for Changing a Limited Republican Government into an Unlimited Hereditary One

Volume (?)

1784-1796

Organizing the New Nation

THE ANNALS OF AMERICA
---------------------
Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.

100

Philip Freneau
Rules for Changing
a Republic [into a Democracy, then] into a Monarchy

Those who had opposed the constitution thought their fears justified by the conduct of the government that began to function in 1789. Under the aggressive leadership of Alexander Hamilton, the secretary of the treasury, economic measures were taken that favored the few, while a effective party machine was organized and the army strengthened in such a way as to suggest an intent to control rather than to represent the many. The whole tone of Washington's administration was aristocratic, favoring as it did the educated, the wealthy, the clergy, and the press, who were fearful of "mob rule" and preferred to see what Hamilton called "gentlemen of principle and property" in command. As Hamilton had at his service a newspaper - John Fenno's Gazette of the United States - to support his policies, his opponents, led by Jefferson and Madison, decided to establish a rival newspaper, the National Gazette. Philip Freneau, an experienced journalist of known democratic leanings, was chosen to edit the paper. The editorial, reprinted here, is typical of those in which Freneau criticized the Hamiltonian program from 1791 to 1793.

Source: American Museum, July 1792: "Rules for Changing a Limited Republican Government into an Unlimited Hereditary One."


Rules for changing a limited republican government into an unlimited hereditary one.

1. It being necessary in order to effect the change, to get rid of constitutional shackles and popular prejudices, all possible means and occasions are to be used for both these purposes.

2. Nothing being more likely to prepare the vulgar mind for aristocratical ranks and hereditary powers than titles, endeavor in the offset of the government to confer these on its most dignified officers. If the principal magistrate should happen to be particularly venerable in the eyes of the people, take advantage of that fortunate circumstance in setting the example.

3. Should the attempt fail through his republican aversion to it, or from the danger of alarming the people, do not abandon the enterprise altogether, but lay up the proposition in the record. Time may gain it respect, and it will be there always ready, cut and dried, for any favorable conjuncture that may offer.

4. In drawing all bills, resolutions, and reports, keep constantly in view that the limitations in the Constitution are ultimately to be explained away. Precedents and phrases may thus be shuffled in, without being adverted to by candid or weak people, of which good use may afterward be made.

5. As the novelty and bustle of inaugurating the government will for some time keep the public mind in a heedless and unsettled state, let the press during this period be busy in propagating the doctrines of monarchy and aristocracy. For this purpose it will be particular useful to confound a mobbish democracy with a representative republic, that by exhibiting all the turbulent examples and enormities of the former, an odium may be thrown on the character of the latter. Review all the civil contests, convulsions, factions, broils, squabbles, bickering, black eyes, and bloody noses of ancient, middle, and modern ages; caricature them into the most frightful forms and colors that can be imagined, and unfold one scene of horrible tragedy after another till the people be made, if possible, to tremble at their own shadows. Let the discourses on Davila then contrast with these pictures of terror the quiet hereditary succession, the reverence claimed by birth and nobility, and the fascinating influence of stars, and ribands, and garters, cautiously suppressing all the bloody tragedies and unceasing oppressions which form the history of this species of government. No pains should be spared in this part of the undertaking, for the greatest will be wanted, it being extremely difficult, especially when a people have been taught to reason and feel their rights, to convince them that a king, who is always an enemy to the people, and a nobility, who are perhaps still more so, will take better care of the people than the people will take of themselves.

6. But the grand nostrum will be a public debt, provided enough of it can be got and it be medicated with the proper ingredients. If by good fortune a debt be ready at hand, the most is to be made of it. Stretch it and swell it to the utmost the items will bear. Allow as many extra claims as decency will permit. Assume all the debts of your neighbors - in a word, get as much debt as can be raked and scraped together, and when you have got all you can, "advertise" for more, and have the debt made as big as possible. This object being accomplished, the next will be to make it as perpetual as possible; and the next to that, to get it into as few hands as possible. The more effectually to bring this about, modify the debt, complicate it, divide it, subdivide it, subtract it, postpone it, let there be one-third of two-thirds, and two-thirds of one-third, and two-thirds of two-thirds; let there be 3 percents, and 4 percents, and 6 percents, and present 6 percents, and future 6 percents. To be brief, let the whole be such a mystery that a few only can understand it; and let all possible opportunities and informations fall in the way of these few to cinch their advantages over the many.

7. It must not be forgotten that the members of the legislative body are to have a deep stake in the game. This is an essential point, and happily is attended with no difficulty. A sufficient number, properly disposed, can alternately legislate and speculate, and speculate and legislate, and buy and sell, and sell and buy, until a due portion of the property of their constituents has passed into their hands to give them an interest against their constituents, and to ensure the part they are to act. All this, however, must be carried on under the cover of the closest secrecy; and it is particularly lucky that dealings in paper admit of more secrecy that any other. Should a discovery take place, the whole plan may be blown up.


Cont.......

Freneau: Changing a Republic into a Monarchy (1792)

 

[Bfgrn]

Rules for Changing a Limited Republican Government into an Unlimited Hereditary One

Volume (?)

1784-1796

Organizing the New Nation

THE ANNALS OF AMERICA
---------------------
Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.

100

Philip Freneau
Rules for Changing
a Republic [into a Democracy, then] into a Monarchy

Those who had opposed the constitution thought their fears justified by the conduct of the government that began to function in 1789. Under the aggressive leadership of Alexander Hamilton, the secretary of the treasury, economic measures were taken that favored the few, while a effective party machine was organized and the army strengthened in such a way as to suggest an intent to control rather than to represent the many. The whole tone of Washington's administration was aristocratic, favoring as it did the educated, the wealthy, the clergy, and the press, who were fearful of "mob rule" and preferred to see what Hamilton called "gentlemen of principle and property" in command. As Hamilton had at his service a newspaper - John Fenno's Gazette of the United States - to support his policies, his opponents, led by Jefferson and Madison, decided to establish a rival newspaper, the National Gazette. Philip Freneau, an experienced journalist of known democratic leanings, was chosen to edit the paper. The editorial, reprinted here, is typical of those in which Freneau criticized the Hamiltonian program from 1791 to 1793.

Source: American Museum, July 1792: "Rules for Changing a Limited Republican Government into an Unlimited Hereditary One."


Rules for changing a limited republican government into an unlimited hereditary one.

1. It being necessary in order to effect the change, to get rid of constitutional shackles and popular prejudices, all possible means and occasions are to be used for both these purposes.

2. Nothing being more likely to prepare the vulgar mind for aristocratical ranks and hereditary powers than titles, endeavor in the offset of the government to confer these on its most dignified officers. If the principal magistrate should happen to be particularly venerable in the eyes of the people, take advantage of that fortunate circumstance in setting the example.

3. Should the attempt fail through his republican aversion to it, or from the danger of alarming the people, do not abandon the enterprise altogether, but lay up the proposition in the record. Time may gain it respect, and it will be there always ready, cut and dried, for any favorable conjuncture that may offer.

4. In drawing all bills, resolutions, and reports, keep constantly in view that the limitations in the Constitution are ultimately to be explained away. Precedents and phrases may thus be shuffled in, without being adverted to by candid or weak people, of which good use may afterward be made.

5. As the novelty and bustle of inaugurating the government will for some time keep the public mind in a heedless and unsettled state, let the press during this period be busy in propagating the doctrines of monarchy and aristocracy. For this purpose it will be particular useful to confound a mobbish democracy with a representative republic, that by exhibiting all the turbulent examples and enormities of the former, an odium may be thrown on the character of the latter. Review all the civil contests, convulsions, factions, broils, squabbles, bickering, black eyes, and bloody noses of ancient, middle, and modern ages; caricature them into the most frightful forms and colors that can be imagined, and unfold one scene of horrible tragedy after another till the people be made, if possible, to tremble at their own shadows. Let the discourses on Davila then contrast with these pictures of terror the quiet hereditary succession, the reverence claimed by birth and nobility, and the fascinating influence of stars, and ribands, and garters, cautiously suppressing all the bloody tragedies and unceasing oppressions which form the history of this species of government. No pains should be spared in this part of the undertaking, for the greatest will be wanted, it being extremely difficult, especially when a people have been taught to reason and feel their rights, to convince them that a king, who is always an enemy to the people, and a nobility, who are perhaps still more so, will take better care of the people than the people will take of themselves.

6. But the grand nostrum will be a public debt, provided enough of it can be got and it be medicated with the proper ingredients. If by good fortune a debt be ready at hand, the most is to be made of it. Stretch it and swell it to the utmost the items will bear. Allow as many extra claims as decency will permit. Assume all the debts of your neighbors - in a word, get as much debt as can be raked and scraped together, and when you have got all you can, "advertise" for more, and have the debt made as big as possible. This object being accomplished, the next will be to make it as perpetual as possible; and the next to that, to get it into as few hands as possible. The more effectually to bring this about, modify the debt, complicate it, divide it, subdivide it, subtract it, postpone it, let there be one-third of two-thirds, and two-thirds of one-third, and two-thirds of two-thirds; let there be 3 percents, and 4 percents, and 6 percents, and present 6 percents, and future 6 percents. To be brief, let the whole be such a mystery that a few only can understand it; and let all possible opportunities and informations fall in the way of these few to cinch their advantages over the many.

7. It must not be forgotten that the members of the legislative body are to have a deep stake in the game. This is an essential point, and happily is attended with no difficulty. A sufficient number, properly disposed, can alternately legislate and speculate, and speculate and legislate, and buy and sell, and sell and buy, until a due portion of the property of their constituents has passed into their hands to give them an interest against their constituents, and to ensure the part they are to act. All this, however, must be carried on under the cover of the closest secrecy; and it is particularly lucky that dealings in paper admit of more secrecy that any other. Should a discovery take place, the whole plan may be blown up.


Cont.......

Freneau: Changing a Republic into a Monarchy (1792)

Fascinating...this game plan was followed to the T by Ronald Reagan.

 

[Intense]

Rules for Changing a Limited Republican Government into an Unlimited Hereditary One

Volume (?)

1784-1796

Organizing the New Nation

THE ANNALS OF AMERICA
---------------------
Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.

100

Philip Freneau
Rules for Changing
a Republic [into a Democracy, then] into a Monarchy

Those who had opposed the constitution thought their fears justified by the conduct of the government that began to function in 1789. Under the aggressive leadership of Alexander Hamilton, the secretary of the treasury, economic measures were taken that favored the few, while a effective party machine was organized and the army strengthened in such a way as to suggest an intent to control rather than to represent the many. The whole tone of Washington's administration was aristocratic, favoring as it did the educated, the wealthy, the clergy, and the press, who were fearful of "mob rule" and preferred to see what Hamilton called "gentlemen of principle and property" in command. As Hamilton had at his service a newspaper - John Fenno's Gazette of the United States - to support his policies, his opponents, led by Jefferson and Madison, decided to establish a rival newspaper, the National Gazette. Philip Freneau, an experienced journalist of known democratic leanings, was chosen to edit the paper. The editorial, reprinted here, is typical of those in which Freneau criticized the Hamiltonian program from 1791 to 1793.

Source: American Museum, July 1792: "Rules for Changing a Limited Republican Government into an Unlimited Hereditary One."


Rules for changing a limited republican government into an unlimited hereditary one.

1. It being necessary in order to effect the change, to get rid of constitutional shackles and popular prejudices, all possible means and occasions are to be used for both these purposes.

2. Nothing being more likely to prepare the vulgar mind for aristocratical ranks and hereditary powers than titles, endeavor in the offset of the government to confer these on its most dignified officers. If the principal magistrate should happen to be particularly venerable in the eyes of the people, take advantage of that fortunate circumstance in setting the example.

3. Should the attempt fail through his republican aversion to it, or from the danger of alarming the people, do not abandon the enterprise altogether, but lay up the proposition in the record. Time may gain it respect, and it will be there always ready, cut and dried, for any favorable conjuncture that may offer.

4. In drawing all bills, resolutions, and reports, keep constantly in view that the limitations in the Constitution are ultimately to be explained away. Precedents and phrases may thus be shuffled in, without being adverted to by candid or weak people, of which good use may afterward be made.

5. As the novelty and bustle of inaugurating the government will for some time keep the public mind in a heedless and unsettled state, let the press during this period be busy in propagating the doctrines of monarchy and aristocracy. For this purpose it will be particular useful to confound a mobbish democracy with a representative republic, that by exhibiting all the turbulent examples and enormities of the former, an odium may be thrown on the character of the latter. Review all the civil contests, convulsions, factions, broils, squabbles, bickering, black eyes, and bloody noses of ancient, middle, and modern ages; caricature them into the most frightful forms and colors that can be imagined, and unfold one scene of horrible tragedy after another till the people be made, if possible, to tremble at their own shadows. Let the discourses on Davila then contrast with these pictures of terror the quiet hereditary succession, the reverence claimed by birth and nobility, and the fascinating influence of stars, and ribands, and garters, cautiously suppressing all the bloody tragedies and unceasing oppressions which form the history of this species of government. No pains should be spared in this part of the undertaking, for the greatest will be wanted, it being extremely difficult, especially when a people have been taught to reason and feel their rights, to convince them that a king, who is always an enemy to the people, and a nobility, who are perhaps still more so, will take better care of the people than the people will take of themselves.

6. But the grand nostrum will be a public debt, provided enough of it can be got and it be medicated with the proper ingredients. If by good fortune a debt be ready at hand, the most is to be made of it. Stretch it and swell it to the utmost the items will bear. Allow as many extra claims as decency will permit. Assume all the debts of your neighbors - in a word, get as much debt as can be raked and scraped together, and when you have got all you can, "advertise" for more, and have the debt made as big as possible. This object being accomplished, the next will be to make it as perpetual as possible; and the next to that, to get it into as few hands as possible. The more effectually to bring this about, modify the debt, complicate it, divide it, subdivide it, subtract it, postpone it, let there be one-third of two-thirds, and two-thirds of one-third, and two-thirds of two-thirds; let there be 3 percents, and 4 percents, and 6 percents, and present 6 percents, and future 6 percents. To be brief, let the whole be such a mystery that a few only can understand it; and let all possible opportunities and informations fall in the way of these few to cinch their advantages over the many.

7. It must not be forgotten that the members of the legislative body are to have a deep stake in the game. This is an essential point, and happily is attended with no difficulty. A sufficient number, properly disposed, can alternately legislate and speculate, and speculate and legislate, and buy and sell, and sell and buy, until a due portion of the property of their constituents has passed into their hands to give them an interest against their constituents, and to ensure the part they are to act. All this, however, must be carried on under the cover of the closest secrecy; and it is particularly lucky that dealings in paper admit of more secrecy that any other. Should a discovery take place, the whole plan may be blown up.


Cont.......

Freneau: Changing a Republic into a Monarchy (1792)

Fascinating...this game plan was followed to the T by Ronald Reagan.

Think bigger.