Classic Liberalism V.S. Progressivism.

[Intense]

I think Thoreau in the Classic Liberal camp. Hands down.

[4] After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule, is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? — in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. Thoreau's Civil Disobedience - 1

Individual Liberty V.S. Progressivism. Freedom to decide for yourself in matters of Conscience. Principle before the Arbitrary Rule of the State, the Mechanism. Which is to serve which.

Why the swing from Justice First to The State being Supreme over all else? I understand the State wanting to be in the Right, wanting Right on It's side, but it is inverse, The State, not being Supreme, at best, can be on the side of Right.

Why is the Construct viewed by some as of more value that that for which it was created to serve? Why is convenience and expedience of more value than what is Just? Why not just take the time to get it right? Measure twice, cut once.

Constitutions are about Values, Principles, Ideals, which are Broad sensed, true enough. We look to root out contradictions, giving value and position to what is relevant. We learn from error and amend. We Strengthen Individual Liberty in the service of Truth and Justice, not seek to strip it. The States, the People, the Commerce are not to be treated as Hostile enemies of the Federal System without Cause and Due Process. When you think Sacrifice, start with Yourself from within. It is not for one to demand Sacrifice from another, that is not sacrifice at all, but surrender. Someone taking from another without consent, is not sacrifice, it is theft. No construct is Greater than the Principle it was designed to serve. When that Principle is violated, the Trust is Violated. When the Construct has need, it presents It's case, and regardless of the outcome, it does It's best within the means it has to work with.

 

[Bfgrn]

According to R.J. Pestritto, author of American Progressivism, “America’s original Progressives were also its original, big-government liberals.” They set the stage for the New Deal principles of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who cited the progressives – especially Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson – as the major influences on his ideas about government. The progressives, Pestritto says, wanted “a thorough transformation in America’s principles of government, from a government permanently dedicated to securing individual liberty to one whose ends and scope would change to take on any and all social and economic ills.”

In the progressive worldview, the proper role of government was not to confine itself to regulating a limited range of human activities as the founders had stipulated, but rather to inject itself into whatever realms the times seemed to demand. The progressives reasoned that although America's founders had felt it necessary to limit the power of government because of their experience with King George III, government, as a result of historical evolution, was no longer the menace it once had been; rather, they believed government had become capable of solving an ever-greater array of societal problems -- problems the founders could never have envisioned. Consequently, the progressives called for a more activist government whose regulation of people's lives was properly determined not by the outdated words of an anachronistic Constitution, but by whatever the American people seemed to need at any given time.

This perspective dovetailed with the progressives' notion of an “evolving” or “living” government, which, like all living beings, could rightfully be expected to grow and to adapt to changing circumstances. Similarly, progressives also coined the term “living Constitution,” connoting the idea that the U.S. Constitution is a malleable document with no permanent guiding principles -- a document that must, of necessity, change with the times.

R.J. Pestritto writes that the Progressives “detested the Declaration of Independence, which enshrines the protection of individual natural rights (like property) as the unchangeable purpose of government; and they detested the Constitution, which places permanent limits on the scope of government and is structured in a way that makes the extension of national power beyond its original purpose very difficult.” Given their contempt for those documents, the progressives' mission was to progress, or move beyond, the principles laid out by the founders.

In 1913, the progressive historian Charles Beard published An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, which offered a Marxist view of history and smeared the captains of industry. It also portrayed America's founding fathers as basically selfish men who had established a form of government that they thought would benefit them, and only them, financially. From Beard's premise, it was a short logical leap to discredit the Constitution itself as “essentially an economic document” unworthy of the lasting reverence of legislators, judges, or ordinary citizens.

Woodrow Wilson likewise gave voice to the progressive antipathy for America's founding documents when he said that “if you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence, do not repeat the preface” – i.e. that part of the Declaration which states that the only legitimate purpose of government, regardless of time or place, is to secure the natural rights of the individual. By Wilson's calculus, the truly vital portion of the Declaration was the latter part, where it enumerates a litany of time-specific grievances against George III. Wilson suggested that "we are not bound to adhere to the doctrines held by the signers of the Declaration of Independence," and that the Fourth of July, rather than celebrate the Declaration's timeless principles, should instead "be a time for examining our standards, our purposes, for determining afresh what principles, what forms of power we think most likely to effect our safety and happiness."

Whereas classical liberalism saw government as a necessary evil whose involvement in social and private affairs needed to be limited wherever practicable, progressivism saw the state as the rightful overseer and regulator of significant portions of American social and economic life. To compensate for the inequities of capitalism in industrial-age America, Progressives favored a government empowered to redistribute private property under the banner of social justice. R.J. Pestritto compares and contrasts progressivism and socialism:

"Since the Progressives had such a limitless view of state power, and since they wanted to downplay the founders’ emphasis on individual rights, it is only natural to ask if they subscribed to socialism....

"[We must] bear in mind that there was an actual socialist movement during the Progressive Era, and prominent progressives such as Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt were critics of it. In fact, Wilson and Roosevelt both ran against a socialist candidate in the 1912 election (Eugene Debs). The progressives were ambivalent about the socialist movement of their day not so much because they disagreed with it in principle, but because the American socialist movement was a movement of the lower classes. The progressives were elitists; they looked down their noses at the socialists, considering them a kind of rabble.

"Keeping these points in mind, it is, nonetheless, the case that the progressive conception of government closely coincided with the socialist conception. Both progressivism and socialism champion the prerogatives of the state over the prerogatives of the individual. Wilson himself made this connection very plain in a revealing essay he wrote in 1887 called 'Socialism and Democracy.' Wilson’s begins this essay by defining socialism, explaining that it stands for unfettered state power, which trumps any notion of individual rights. It 'proposes that all idea of a limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view,' Wilson wrote, and 'that no line can be drawn between private and public affairs which the State may not cross at will.' After laying out this definition of socialism, Wilson explains that he finds nothing wrong with it in principle, since it was merely the logical extension of genuine democratic theory."


Discover the Networks

Check out the Link. There is allot of background on the Site. What is your assessment? Legitimate or Hype? Why? Is the distinction between Classic Liberalism Fair? Accurate?

Right wing fear mongering propaganda built on false premises.

First of all, our founding fathers were not laissez-faire capitalists. During their reign of governance, they heavily regulated corporations. VERY heavily...

Progressives don't hate the Declaration of Independence. They understand it's meaning. Thomas Jefferson rejected Locke's "life, liberty, and property". He replaced 'property' with 'happiness'. Benjamin Franklin was in agreement with Thomas Jefferson in downplaying protection of "property" as a goal of government. It is noted that Franklin found property to be a "creature of society" and thus, he believed that it should be taxed as a way to finance civil society.

Our founding fathers stated that two of the purposes of our national Constitution were to “insure domestic tranquility” and “promote the general welfare”. Applying the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article One of the United States Constitution, section 8, clause 18) to these principles, the implications of the government’s role in our pursuit of happiness is obvious. There seems no doubt that our Constitution rejects the idea of laissez-faire. Our founding fathers empowered the government to intercede on our behalf to protect our pursuit of happiness. How does the government play a role in our pursuits of happiness? The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution was added to insure that all citizens would be guaranteed “equal protection under the law”. The government cannot sit idly by while corporations mistreat workers, gouge consumers, wreck the environment, and produce faulty products. Government must insure that one person’s pursuit of happiness does not prevent another from attaining his/her own happiness. In the end government must serve as some sort of social conscience. It must discourage selfish, destructive pursuit of materialism which is eroding away our national spirit. Government must encourage social responsibility and promote the common good. If government can do these things Americans might re-discover their own humanity and remember that true happiness is not rooted in property, it is found in community. ref

Yep, the French took Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Property, and Adapted it to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, which does include Possession of Property. Locke's Principle was not centered on Corporate Interest, but on Unalienable Rights. The premise is sound from my perspective.

If you don't understand the concept of Property, it is best you learn it, before you get into trouble.

Government must insure that one person’s pursuit of happiness does not prevent another from attaining his/her own happiness. In the end government must serve as some sort of social conscience. It must discourage selfish, destructive pursuit of materialism which is eroding away our national spirit.

Whatever Medication You are On Cease and Desist, Now! Immediately! Call Poison Control! Where do you come up with this stuff? Who are you trying to kid?

When Jefferson spoke of pursuing happiness, he had nothing vague or private in mind. He meant a public happiness which is measurable; which is, indeed, the test and justification of any government.

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

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

"The most sacred of the duties of a government is to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I completely understand the concept of property as it pertains to today's right wing conservatives. President Kennedy's speechwriter nailed it: "Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people". Today's conservatives have no problem with a public option for property, just not for people.

GOP Favors Public Option for Property, Not People

 

[2twsted4colorTV]

Progressives favored a government empowered to redistribute private property under the banner of social justice. R.J. Pestritto compares and contrasts progressivism and socialism:

The liberal's favorite phrase "Social Justice" I hate that stupid phrase more than anything they say. What does that mean? Liberals get to decide what it means, and then they can impose it on all of us through the all-powerful federal government. The evil of liberalism =big government tyranny

Exactly! Any time somebody tells you "oh I will take care of you, take care of everything, just leave everything to me/us" -- be it a potential spouse of either gender OR the government - beware -- it means "I want to control you and everything you do."

 

[Intense]

Progressives favored a government empowered to redistribute private property under the banner of social justice. R.J. Pestritto compares and contrasts progressivism and socialism:

The liberal's favorite phrase "Social Justice" I hate that stupid phrase more than anything they say. What does that mean? Liberals get to decide what it means, and then they can impose it on all of us through the all-powerful federal government. The evil of liberalism =big government tyranny

Exactly! Any time somebody tells you "oh I will take care of you, take care of everything, just leave everything to me/us" -- be it a potential spouse of either gender OR the government - beware -- it means "I want to control you and everything you do."

Ha! Or a High Pressure Sales Pitch.

 

[Lakhota]

Wow, this thread really sounds InDense.

 

[Bfgrn]

Progressives favored a government empowered to redistribute private property under the banner of social justice. R.J. Pestritto compares and contrasts progressivism and socialism:

The liberal's favorite phrase "Social Justice" I hate that stupid phrase more than anything they say. What does that mean? Liberals get to decide what it means, and then they can impose it on all of us through the all-powerful federal government. The evil of liberalism =big government tyranny

If you put a qualifier before "justice," then what you have is the opposite of justice. So "social justice" is a term that really means "injustice."

For instance what's the difference between "truth" and "my truth?" The later means "untruth" because it differs from "truth" in the abstract.

Let's talk about HIS truth. Jesus preached social justice and he died for social sins. He didn't die for our sins against God, he died for our sins against each other...

 

[Intense]

Wow, this thread really sounds InDense.

Have you been Neutered yet? Get your Rabies and Distemper shot yet?

What is it with you guy's and that but licking thing , I just don't get it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Right wing fear mongering propaganda built on false premises.

First of all, our founding fathers were not laissez-faire capitalists. During their reign of governance, they heavily regulated corporations. VERY heavily...

Progressives don't hate the Declaration of Independence. They understand it's meaning. Thomas Jefferson rejected Locke's "life, liberty, and property". He replaced 'property' with 'happiness'. Benjamin Franklin was in agreement with Thomas Jefferson in downplaying protection of "property" as a goal of government. It is noted that Franklin found property to be a "creature of society" and thus, he believed that it should be taxed as a way to finance civil society.

Our founding fathers stated that two of the purposes of our national Constitution were to “insure domestic tranquility” and “promote the general welfare”. Applying the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article One of the United States Constitution, section 8, clause 18) to these principles, the implications of the government’s role in our pursuit of happiness is obvious. There seems no doubt that our Constitution rejects the idea of laissez-faire. Our founding fathers empowered the government to intercede on our behalf to protect our pursuit of happiness. How does the government play a role in our pursuits of happiness? The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution was added to insure that all citizens would be guaranteed “equal protection under the law”. The government cannot sit idly by while corporations mistreat workers, gouge consumers, wreck the environment, and produce faulty products. Government must insure that one person’s pursuit of happiness does not prevent another from attaining his/her own happiness. In the end government must serve as some sort of social conscience. It must discourage selfish, destructive pursuit of materialism which is eroding away our national spirit. Government must encourage social responsibility and promote the common good. If government can do these things Americans might re-discover their own humanity and remember that true happiness is not rooted in property, it is found in community. ref

Yep, the French took Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Property, and Adapted it to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, which does include Possession of Property. Locke's Principle was not centered on Corporate Interest, but on Unalienable Rights. The premise is sound from my perspective.

If you don't understand the concept of Property, it is best you learn it, before you get into trouble.

Government must insure that one person’s pursuit of happiness does not prevent another from attaining his/her own happiness. In the end government must serve as some sort of social conscience. It must discourage selfish, destructive pursuit of materialism which is eroding away our national spirit.

Whatever Medication You are On Cease and Desist, Now! Immediately! Call Poison Control! Where do you come up with this stuff? Who are you trying to kid?

When Jefferson spoke of pursuing happiness, he had nothing vague or private in mind. He meant a public happiness which is measurable; which is, indeed, the test and justification of any government.

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

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

"The most sacred of the duties of a government is to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I completely understand the concept of property as it pertains to today's right wing conservatives. President Kennedy's speechwriter nailed it: "Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people". Today's conservatives have no problem with a public option for property, just not for people.

GOP Favors Public Option for Property, Not People

Are you aware that all those quotes you used actually proved the opposite of your point?

 

[Intense]

The liberal's favorite phrase "Social Justice" I hate that stupid phrase more than anything they say. What does that mean? Liberals get to decide what it means, and then they can impose it on all of us through the all-powerful federal government. The evil of liberalism =big government tyranny

If you put a qualifier before "justice," then what you have is the opposite of justice. So "social justice" is a term that really means "injustice."

For instance what's the difference between "truth" and "my truth?" The later means "untruth" because it differs from "truth" in the abstract.

Let's talk about HIS truth. Jesus preached social justice and he died for social sins. He didn't die for our sins against God, he died for our sins against each other...

I think Social Justice was something you just inject. Though you may very well write your own Bible with that as a theme, it is not the Theme of Jesus's teaching. Jesus's theme, for You and I, is Salvation. Conscience First in All things. Apply Principle to circumstance, without corrupting it, as best as you can. Stat there.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yep, the French took Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Property, and Adapted it to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, which does include Possession of Property. Locke's Principle was not centered on Corporate Interest, but on Unalienable Rights. The premise is sound from my perspective.

If you don't understand the concept of Property, it is best you learn it, before you get into trouble.

Whatever Medication You are On Cease and Desist, Now! Immediately! Call Poison Control! Where do you come up with this stuff? Who are you trying to kid?

When Jefferson spoke of pursuing happiness, he had nothing vague or private in mind. He meant a public happiness which is measurable; which is, indeed, the test and justification of any government.

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

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

"The most sacred of the duties of a government is to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I completely understand the concept of property as it pertains to today's right wing conservatives. President Kennedy's speechwriter nailed it: "Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people". Today's conservatives have no problem with a public option for property, just not for people.

GOP Favors Public Option for Property, Not People

Are you aware that all those quotes you used actually proved the opposite of your point?

No, only if you are trying to twist the meaning his words or hijack them for some right wing narcissistic illness.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The liberal's favorite phrase "Social Justice" I hate that stupid phrase more than anything they say. What does that mean? Liberals get to decide what it means, and then they can impose it on all of us through the all-powerful federal government. The evil of liberalism =big government tyranny

If you put a qualifier before "justice," then what you have is the opposite of justice. So "social justice" is a term that really means "injustice."

For instance what's the difference between "truth" and "my truth?" The later means "untruth" because it differs from "truth" in the abstract.

Let's talk about HIS truth. Jesus preached social justice and he died for social sins. He didn't die for our sins against God, he died for our sins against each other...

Which Bible did you pull that out of?

Hebrews 9:23-28

23 It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

Why do people think that, because they never read something, no one else ever has either?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When Jefferson spoke of pursuing happiness, he had nothing vague or private in mind. He meant a public happiness which is measurable; which is, indeed, the test and justification of any government.

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

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

"The most sacred of the duties of a government is to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I completely understand the concept of property as it pertains to today's right wing conservatives. President Kennedy's speechwriter nailed it: "Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people". Today's conservatives have no problem with a public option for property, just not for people.

GOP Favors Public Option for Property, Not People

Are you aware that all those quotes you used actually proved the opposite of your point?

No, only if you are trying to twist the meaning his words or hijack them for some right wing narcissistic illness.

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

Can you explain how that justifies government telling people what they cannot do?

 

[Bfgrn]

If you put a qualifier before "justice," then what you have is the opposite of justice. So "social justice" is a term that really means "injustice."

For instance what's the difference between "truth" and "my truth?" The later means "untruth" because it differs from "truth" in the abstract.

Let's talk about HIS truth. Jesus preached social justice and he died for social sins. He didn't die for our sins against God, he died for our sins against each other...

Which Bible did you pull that out of?

Hebrews 9:23-28

23 It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

Why do people think that, because they never read something, no one else ever has either?

Your scriptures have no bearing on my statement.

Matthew 25:34-40
The Final Judgment

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

 

[Bfgrn]

Jesus and the Bible also talks about property...

Luke 16:13-15

13 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon (money).”

14 The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus.

15 He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of man, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valuable in the eyes of man is detestable in God’s sight.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Let's talk about HIS truth. Jesus preached social justice and he died for social sins. He didn't die for our sins against God, he died for our sins against each other...

Which Bible did you pull that out of?

Hebrews 9:23-28

23 It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

Why do people think that, because they never read something, no one else ever has either?

Your scriptures have no bearing on my statement.

Matthew 25:34-40
The Final Judgment

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

Where does that say anything about him dying our sins against others, not God?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Jesus and the Bible also talks about property...

Luke 16:13-15

13 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon (money).”

14 The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus.

15 He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of man, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valuable in the eyes of man is detestable in God’s sight.

It is strange how a (wo)man who serves the government is trying to preach about not serving two masters.

 

[Intense]

When Jefferson spoke of pursuing happiness, he had nothing vague or private in mind. He meant a public happiness which is measurable; which is, indeed, the test and justification of any government.

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

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

"The most sacred of the duties of a government is to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465

Okay, in all fairness and seriousness...

When Jefferson spoke of pursuing happiness, he had nothing vague or private in mind. He meant a public happiness which is measurable; which is, indeed, the test and justification of any government.

I disagree, context matters.
Government is concerned both for the Society and the Individual. In our type of Society, it cannot be any other way. Justice needs to be established,served, and maintained. The test of any Government , in part of which side of Natural Law it is on, What it's commitment is, to what level or degree, consistency, Due Process, Competence, effectiveness, to name a few.

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

Equal Rights, Government can Strive to Preserve, Equal Happiness, Happiness cannot be Legislated or handed out in measure. The concept is absurd. Can Happiness generally be achieved through living life in a principled Society, maintained by a Government that recognizes Unalienable Rights, and works towards improving the Quality of life, in harmony with a Just Society? Yes. Is Government the source or auditor of that Happiness? No.

In the Information and Communication age, so much more is possible, in airing concerns, framing positions and platforms. Government is a means to effect change. One of many. Discovery, Invention, Communication, are also means.

Before one goes securing anything, One would need Cause, and Rule of Law behind them.

"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393

In a Free Society, Yes. When you turn the Society against the Individual, no. The Collective can get pretty irrational, when that happens Justice is the last thing on their minds.
The Rights of the Whole can easily deny the rights of the few, so, in such a circumstance, the statement is untrue. Civil Rights, Individual Rights, Need to be known, precisely to protect Individuals and Minorities in these circumstances. There is no smaller minority than an individual.

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

We are diverse, each with different talents, resources, gifts, abilities, and interests, dictated by circumstance. What we each do with the hand we are dealt is on us. Yes Government and Society play a role, As Individuals, We Each play our own Principle role.

"The most sacred of the duties of a government is to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465

That my Friend is allot easier said than done. Can you distinguish between Impartial Justice and Blind Justice.

You know Jefferson and Madison were very close. Madison the strong Federalist, later opposed Hamilton in Principle. In both the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions Jefferson and Madison made their views clear on the Role of the Federal Government.

My view, as a Federalist is that where there is 75% or more approval, matters or Amendments should move up to the Federal Jurisdiction. Short of that, for the most part, they should stay within State Jurisdiction. When one governs by the consent of the Governed, you want the Governed Educated and Informed, our lives depend on it.

 

[Intense]

Let's talk about HIS truth. Jesus preached social justice and he died for social sins. He didn't die for our sins against God, he died for our sins against each other...

Which Bible did you pull that out of?

Hebrews 9:23-28

23 It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

Why do people think that, because they never read something, no one else ever has either?

Your scriptures have no bearing on my statement.

Matthew 25:34-40
The Final Judgment

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

You cannot Legislate Salvation. You can live by example.

 

[Intense]

Jesus and the Bible also talks about property...

Luke 16:13-15

13 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon (money).”

14 The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus.

15 He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of man, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valuable in the eyes of man is detestable in God’s sight.

It is strange how a (wo)man who serves the government is trying to preach about not serving two masters.

Maybe we just need to learn how to Multi Task better.

I don't think Jesus has anything against Government employees because they work for the Government, that is silly. Wherever you find yourself, Conscience First. God first in all things, for believers. Bear Witness, be Fruitful, tell the truth about what you see. Keep the Faith.

 

[Bfgrn]

Which Bible did you pull that out of?

Why do people think that, because they never read something, no one else ever has either?

Your scriptures have no bearing on my statement.

Matthew 25:34-40
The Final Judgment

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

Where does that say anything about him dying our sins against others, not God?

God is immortal. We can't do any harm to Him. But we will be judged by how we treat His creations. Man was created in His image, we are his finest creation.