Liberal Contempt for the Constitution

[PoliticalChic]

PC has to prove that Hamilton had only minor disagreements with Madison during the Convention. She can't, or won't, do that.

PC - we're still waiting on this, whenever you're ready.

I think I'll wait until you have satisfatorily answered the four questions.

 

[antagon]

Hello,

As I stated I think the terms are outdated to the point that no one truly knows what they mean anymore. Collectivist and Individualist are simple terms that describe instantly what the person believes.

As you have probably figured out by now I am an individualist. That being said I do believe that we as a society have a social contract wherein those who are unable to take care of themselves should be provided for by those who can. That is what makes us human.

What I don't believe in however are 4 generation welfare families. Welfare is simply slavery revisited only they don't have to work. Conversely they don't really get to improve themselves either. The welfare systm is set up to punish those who would make the attempt to get out of the system. They are trapped.

I fin it amazing that during the Great Depression no one starved...and no one tells us how that happened. I will tell you how..the churches stepped in and fed the poor and dissolute.
The collectivists try to destroy the churches (BTW I am an agnostic) by pointing out every instance of the Catholic child abuse cases (rightly so I might add) however they then through their collectivist teachers unions protect teachers who do the same. The collectivist judges do not imprison for life the convicted child rapists in our midst. Do you not see a problem here?

So no my defintions of collectivists and individualists are not a stretch. A simple survey through a few dozen history books (and of course the newspapers) will show you what I speak of.

There is a fundamental problem with the term liberal and conservative. A conservative is a person who believes in an individualistic centered government. In other words the government has very little power over the individual while the individual has great power over the government. And appropriately the individual is responsible for his or her welfare. They are beholden to none.

Liberalism is the antithesis of that philosophy. instead the government has vast powers to control the individual and the individual is at the mercy of that government. It is a collectivist mentality. Fascism, communisim, and socialism are all examples of a collectivist government. Fabian Socialists try to hide that fact by calling communists "leftists" and fascsists "rightwingers" but when you compare their relationships with their subjects they are basically the same. No rights and no responsibilities..unless you are member of the ruling class.

One other fundamental difference between a collectivist society and an individualist society is how the soldiers are viewed. In a collectivist society you are expected to die for the country which is why Russia suffered 25 million casualties during WWII, people were cheaper than equipment so they were used up to preserve the equipment wherever possible. The steppes saw some of the worst examples of that where the NKVD would round up villages and have them charge across the open field to make the German machineguns run out of bullets.

For comparison Germany suffered approximately 3 million dead, Italy around 400,000 (and they surrendered in 1943), Japan over 2 million as they did not keep track of civilian deaths in any meaningful way. But the western allies suffered much less. The UK lost around 400,000, the US lost 360,000, France lost around 200,000. So if I was in a war I know which side I would want to be on.

In an individualistic society however if a soldier dies for his or her country we are grateful for their sacrafice and try to limit that sacrafice wherever possible as is clearly demonstrated by the casualty figures.

One other thing that most no one knows is that after the Russian POWs were freed from the German camps they were immediatly sent to the gulags because they had been "tainted by the west" according to Stalin. And lets not forget the 80 MILLION that he killed in the gulags before WWII had even started. And then of cousre there is China where demographers estimate that Mao had 150 MILLION killed during the Culteral Revolution. Yep give me a good collectivist government any time..

welcome, westwall, it is cool to see someone who makes posts with some gravity. it is troubling, however, that you seem to be another poster who has bought into the religious fuhrer that has overtaken the concepts of conservative and liberal.

i remember more traditional and simpler definitions of the term conservative. it could be summed up as spending and taking less money. liberal, you are right, is the opposite.

aren't your stretches about collectivism and all that bullshit? this need to make conservatism out to a whole set of ideals about individualism (for you) collective morality (for others), etc. has made it impossible to trust conservatives to spend less bux. that's it. now, they pack an expensive agenda of hardly individualist pet-projects, and the original meaning is long lost.

perhaps no stretches in your study on collective and individual value sets. i would only caution that few apply these values consistently in all aspects of life, or would project the government's obligations to themselves or their roles in society to the government.

what i felt was a stretch was that the individualist ideology was incorporated in a definition for conservatism. i don't find it fitting with conservative policies, nor consistent among conservatives.

i challenge your position that poverty didn't take lives it would scarcely today in the pre-welfare, pre-unemployment insurance depression era. i would go further to pose that it is not the makings of a first-world nation, economically, to support the under-belly of the economy on the wherewithal of churches to keep folks fed.

 

[antagon]

You didn't answer question 1.

You didn't answer question 2.

You didn't answer question 3.

You didn't answer question 4.
.

I don't have to, you're not my fucking teacher.

The reason for indicating that you didn't answer the questions is to prove the paucity of your postition.

And you language indicates that you know it as well.

don't bullshit yourself, PC. you wont answer (honestly) my question directed at the thrust of your OP. all that indicates is your hypocrisy.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

PC has to prove that Hamilton had only minor disagreements with Madison during the Convention. She can't, or won't, do that.

PC - we're still waiting on this, whenever you're ready.

I think I'll wait until you have satisfatorily answered the four questions.

You're the one who claimed that Hamilton only had his view of the gw clause after the ratification. You made this claim before you asked your barage of silly questions. I have waited patiently for you to provide any actual evidence to this effect, so far, all you have succeeded in proving is that Hamilton was opposed to Madison after ratification, while providing no evidence as to his opinion before ratification. My patience has run out, I can only assume you do not have any such evidence. So unless you're willing to share this evidence, or admit you don't have it, this discussion is over.


Frankly the idea that I should have to jump through YOUR hoops to get you to show me evidence for YOUR argument is totally retarded. You should be eager to prove your argument, not reluctant.

 

[antagon]

PC - we're still waiting on this, whenever you're ready.

I think I'll wait until you have satisfatorily answered the four questions.

You're the one who claimed that Hamilton only had his view of the gw clause after the ratification. You made this claim before you asked your barage of silly questions. I have waited patiently for you to provide any actual evidence to this effect, so far, all you have succeeded in proving is that Hamilton was opposed to Madison after ratification, while providing no evidence as to his opinion before ratification. My patience has run out, I can only assume you do not have any such evidence. So unless you're willing to share this evidence, or admit you don't have it, this discussion is over.


Frankly the idea that I should have to jump through YOUR hoops to get you to show me evidence for YOUR argument is totally retarded. You should be eager to prove your argument, not reluctant.

i'm willing to say that madison was aligned with hamilton as they co-wrote the federalist papers, and that the polarity struck between hamilton/washington/monroe and madison/jefferson after the ratification was in stark contrast thereto.

moving, hopefully, past that point, i don't see what argument is being made on that basis. I would also say that wisdom befell madison on many of hamilton's (an economist) points with time, and that it is indicated that madison returned to this more supportive opinion of hamilton's federal>state posture.

that it is hard to nail madison's take on government down to a single opinion on a single topic, escapes neoconservatives who wave the flag of his jeffersonian congressional tenure ahead of the wisdom he gained taking the nation through the 1812. They dont account for many wisdoms afforded us by war, civil war, depression and modernization.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Let's be very clear: you got evidence, you merely choose to fail to accept it. It is akin to a child covering his ears and shouting "I can't hear you, so you're not talking."

I note that you omitted answering several of the questions that I have posed, thus identifying yourelf as a fraud.

Try again?

1. Are you claiming that you do not know of the monumental differences between those who feel that the Founders suggested a document that would stand through the ages, complete with a way to amend it, and those who see wish an ever-expanding government, ever-more intrusive, and find that the restrictions of the Constitution stand in the way?

2."...only after the Constitution had been ratified..."
Pray tell, how do you interpret the above.

3.You haven't said that you agree that the government should enforce regulation of salt content in foods, but you seem not to see any limits at all. Do you?

4. This is the footnote in question: "18.^ Hamilton, Alexander. (5 December 1791) "Report on Manufactures" The Papers of Alexander Hamilton (ed. by H.C. Syrett et al.; New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1961-79)" You have claimed that it doesn't validate the statement in the Wiki article for which it is indicated.
Have you read said tome?

Dodge much?

The is exactly PC's point about herself: "It is akin to a child covering his ears and shouting "'I can't hear you, so you're not talking.'"

This is not the first time that you have had to rely on my language, and my posts to cobble together yours.

As they say, "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."

Thanks so much.

PC, it is also spoofing you. You can't argue, that is clear enough.

 

[JakeStarkey]

PC can't answer the questions or provide evidence.

She simply is not a player to respect in these matters.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A point to all on this thread: Madison and Hamilton allied with Jay to get the Constitution ratified in NY. That certainly does not mean they agreed except for a few small matters.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

i'm willing to say ....

Shit then it must be true.

 

[Father Time]

PC has to prove that Hamilton had only minor disagreements with Madison during the Convention. She can't, or won't, do that.

PC - we're still waiting on this, whenever you're ready.

I think I'll wait until you have satisfatorily answered the four questions.

Nice dodge, I'm not sure if this reflects on immaturity or an inability to answer the question but nice dodge nonetheless.

 

[Father Time]

Frankly the idea that I should have to jump through YOUR hoops to get you to show me evidence for YOUR argument is totally retarded. You should be eager to prove your argument, not reluctant.

You must spread some reputation around before giving it to SpidermanTuba again.

 

[antagon]

A point to all on this thread: Madison and Hamilton allied with Jay to get the Constitution ratified in NY. That certainly does not mean they agreed except for a few small matters.

point taken. agreement to form government was not agreement as to its functions, per sa. the fed papers entailed several explicit policy agreements about the values of a strong federal government, as laid into the debate in NY, but madison so argued in the VA convention, as well, and without hamilton's collusion. they agreed over the lack of a need for a bill of rights, too, among a few other major issues.

madison proved his political pliability by later penning the bill of rights to make our nation a reality through compromise. could the same coalition factor play in to his and his fellow virginiaman, jefferson's anti-federalist posture after the ratification? as a rep in congress, could it have been representative of his constituent's affinity with dem-rep politics going into the second/third cogress that polarized his views?

 

[JakeStarkey]

A point to all on this thread: Madison and Hamilton allied with Jay to get the Constitution ratified in NY. That certainly does not mean they agreed except for a few small matters.

point taken. agreement to form government was not agreement as to its functions, per sa. the fed papers entailed several explicit policy agreements about the values of a strong federal government, as laid into the debate in NY, but madison so argued in the VA convention, as well, and without hamilton's collusion. they agreed over the lack of a need for a bill of rights, too, among a few other major issues.

madison proved his political pliability by later penning the bill of rights to make our nation a reality through compromise. could the same coalition factor play in to his and his fellow virginiaman, jefferson's anti-federalist posture after the ratification? as a rep in congress, could it have been representative of his constituent's affinity with dem-rep politics going into the second/third cogress that polarized his views?

The 1st Congress, I think, shook Madison, out of the realm of theory into actually putting his political philosophy to work. And there was his compatriot, Hamilton, standing as a monolith with a nationalist, economic plan that so threatened what JM believed that JM moved into the Jeffersonian camp.

 

[antagon]

A point to all on this thread: Madison and Hamilton allied with Jay to get the Constitution ratified in NY. That certainly does not mean they agreed except for a few small matters.

point taken. agreement to form government was not agreement as to its functions, per sa. the fed papers entailed several explicit policy agreements about the values of a strong federal government, as laid into the debate in NY, but madison so argued in the VA convention, as well, and without hamilton's collusion. they agreed over the lack of a need for a bill of rights, too, among a few other major issues.

madison proved his political pliability by later penning the bill of rights to make our nation a reality through compromise. could the same coalition factor play in to his and his fellow virginiaman, jefferson's anti-federalist posture after the ratification? as a rep in congress, could it have been representative of his constituent's affinity with dem-rep politics going into the second/third cogress that polarized his views?

The 1st Congress, I think, shook Madison, out of the realm of theory into actually putting his political philosophy to work. And there was his compatriot, Hamilton, standing as a monolith with a nationalist, economic plan that so threatened what JM believed that JM moved into the Jeffersonian camp.

i'd quite agree that events of the day 'shook' the man. i would toss in conflict between the brits and france and our national alliance with the french compromising southern raw materials plantationeers' prospects in an otherwise neutral world market.

god forbid there were televised debates at the time; 'flip-flop' would've been long coined at madison's expense.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Madison as the original flip-flop! Very good.

We can imagine JM mumbling as an old man, "I first voted for the Constitution then I spent the rest of my life trying to undermine it with my friend Tommy. But that damn Hamilton, standing like a colossus. However, our good friend Aaron took care of that!"

point taken. agreement to form government was not agreement as to its functions, per sa. the fed papers entailed several explicit policy agreements about the values of a strong federal government, as laid into the debate in NY, but madison so argued in the VA convention, as well, and without hamilton's collusion. they agreed over the lack of a need for a bill of rights, too, among a few other major issues.

madison proved his political pliability by later penning the bill of rights to make our nation a reality through compromise. could the same coalition factor play in to his and his fellow virginiaman, jefferson's anti-federalist posture after the ratification? as a rep in congress, could it have been representative of his constituent's affinity with dem-rep politics going into the second/third cogress that polarized his views?

The 1st Congress, I think, shook Madison, out of the realm of theory into actually putting his political philosophy to work. And there was his compatriot, Hamilton, standing as a monolith with a nationalist, economic plan that so threatened what JM believed that JM moved into the Jeffersonian camp.

i'd quite agree that events of the day 'shook' the man. i would toss in conflict between the brits and france and our national alliance with the french compromising southern raw materials plantationeers' prospects in an otherwise neutral world market.

god forbid there were televised debates at the time; 'flip-flop' would've been long coined at madison's expense.

 

[antagon]

the scandal of those days. its the basis by which it's preposterous to claim high ground on constitutional interpretation such as PCthegenius has. staking a contention in the shifting turf of the first couple sessions of congress is ill advised, or advised squarely on the basis of the arguments made, hoping the same politician didn't later contradict himself.

the neocon arguments are so wanting when compared to the justices' decisions on the legislations they refute, it is a mystery why they bother altogether.

 

[JakeStarkey]

the scandal of those days. its the basis by which it's preposterous to claim high ground on constitutional interpretation such as PCthegenius has. staking a contention in the shifting turf of the first couple sessions of congress is ill advised, or advised squarely on the basis of the arguments made, hoping the same politician didn't later contradict himself.

the neocon arguments are so wanting when compared to the justices' decisions on the legislations they refute, it is a mystery why they bother altogether.

I imagine it is a pleasurable mental masturbation for them, although sterile, of course.

 

[antagon]

you doth presume too much with all that about sterility. i've seen the fervor. i shudder to think what goes on behind these keystrokes when they get into a frenzy.