Our founding fathers were not conservative

[bigrebnc1775]

More revisionist history from the right. Next they'll want us to believe that the confederates were the victims in the civil war.

OK whats your story?

 

[Intense]

Yeah! Look at the quote! Patrick didn't want no LIBERAL[/COLORL crap! He wanted LIBERTY!

What Is Classical Liberalism?

by Ralph Raico

"Classical liberalism" is the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade. Up until around 1900, this ideology was generally known simply as liberalism. The qualifying "classical" is now usually necessary, in English-speaking countries at least (but not, for instance, in France), because liberalism has come to be associated with wide-ranging interferences with private property and the market on behalf of egalitarian goals. This version of liberalism — if such it can still be called — is sometimes designated as "social," or (erroneously) "modern" or the "new," liberalism. Here we shall use liberalism to signify the classical variety."

.

There was before that, another form of liberalism. What is called Rational Liberalism:

"Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law."

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen

Like terminology occurs over and over among the writings and speeches of the founding generation. They were--at least those who believed in the limits imposed by a written constitution--the rational sort of Liberals, rather than the English Whiggism that calls itself erroneously by the same name

That is Libertarian by today's standards. Liberalism has become about Statist Power and Control.

 

[Intense]

Despite the freedom of conscience and homage, individuals are still obliged by the social compact to observe what Locke calls "duties they owe one another," or as Virginia's Declaration of Rights puts it:

"That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other."

Totally, Locke lived by two Great Commandments, Love God with All the Strength of Your Being, and Love Your Neighbor, Your Brother and Sister as Your Self. He also Established Non-Violent Civil Disobedience, accepting the Consequence, as a Tool of Protest against Injustice, where All Else Fails.

The Point that gets missed, here is more brought out in "The Emperor Has No Clothes". When you squash the Individual to bend to the will of Society beyond Reason, to the point that they prefer to to deny what they witness, for the sake of acceptance, you have committed a crime against the forces that govern creation. Part of the reason we are here is improve ourselves through cause and effect, through learning and knowledge. Another reason we are here is to Witness, and tell the honest truth about what we witness, from our own individual perspective, which we each possess separately. To mess with that for the sake of conformity, expediency, or anything else is a disservice to the individual and the group both, whether we see it or not. The Freedom to Speak the Truth. Unalienable Right. Our Obligation to Our Creator, takes Precedent over Everything Else. As a Christian or Jew, the First Two of the 10 Commandment's are Crystal Clear. When one needs to deny their faith or deny the truth as they witness it, or deny their Conscience to belong, it is not worth belonging.

If our founders are to be considered "conservative" then the above should inform the sensibilities of AM radio hosts who call people a waste of oxygen, and the like, and the sensibilities of those who listen to them however. As Madison put it "Liberty disdains to persecute."

I think AM Radio Host's fight their own battles well enough without advice from you or I. You might consider showmanship, and pushing buttons to get a reaction as tools in the battle of wills. Know when your chain is being pulled. The attacks on those same host are and have been constant. Their continued success though, possibly beyond your comprehension, is because of talent and ability, nothing less. Many have tried to imitate and compete, with no success.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That is Libertarian by today's standards. Liberalism has become about Statist Power and Control.

Let's not forget involuntary servitude.

 

[Agit8r]

What Is Classical Liberalism?

by Ralph Raico

"Classical liberalism" is the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade. Up until around 1900, this ideology was generally known simply as liberalism. The qualifying "classical" is now usually necessary, in English-speaking countries at least (but not, for instance, in France), because liberalism has come to be associated with wide-ranging interferences with private property and the market on behalf of egalitarian goals. This version of liberalism — if such it can still be called — is sometimes designated as "social," or (erroneously) "modern" or the "new," liberalism. Here we shall use liberalism to signify the classical variety."

.

There was before that, another form of liberalism. What is called Rational Liberalism:

"Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law."

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen

Like terminology occurs over and over among the writings and speeches of the founding generation. They were--at least those who believed in the limits imposed by a written constitution--the rational sort of Liberals, rather than the English Whiggism that calls itself erroneously by the same name

That is Libertarian by today's standards. Liberalism has become about Statist Power and Control.

Except those on the political right, who call themselves "Libertarian" believe that markets ought to have no protection for the property that individuals have "in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares" o_0

 

[M14 Shooter]

Except those on the political right, who call themselves "Libertarian" believe that markets ought to have no protection for the property that individuals have...

Like... who? How do you know?
And, how are they relevant?

 

[Agit8r]

Except those on the political right, who call themselves "Libertarian" believe that markets ought to have no protection for the property that individuals have...

Like... who? How do you know?
And, how are they relevant?

Wage and hour laws are intervention in the marketplace, no?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Except those on the political right, who call themselves "Libertarian" believe that markets ought to have no protection for the property that individuals have...

Like... who? How do you know?
And, how are they relevant?

Wage and hour laws are intervention in the marketplace, no?

Yes... but how are these examples of "believe that markets ought to have no protection for the property that individuals have"...?

 

[Agit8r]

Like... who? How do you know?
And, how are they relevant?

Wage and hour laws are intervention in the marketplace, no?

Yes... but how are these examples of "believe that markets ought to have no protection for the property that individuals have"...?

hour laws protect "the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares"

wage laws protect (if only nominally) some remuneration for "labor that acquires their daily subsistence"

this really isn't rocket science

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wage and hour laws are intervention in the marketplace, no?

Yes... but how are these examples of "believe that markets ought to have no protection for the property that individuals have"...?

hour laws protect "the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares"

wage laws protect (if only nominally) some remuneration for "labor that acquires their daily subsistence"

Ok... and how are these examples of "the property that individuals have"?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Funny how each side tries desperately to claim the founders. My theory, they'd be totally ashamed and horrified by both parties. Those dudes would not have belonged to either of these band of fuckers.

for once you actually used logic and common sense because yes,if our founders could get into a time machine and see what america has become today and how the government let corporations take over the government and run the country instead of the people like they meant it to be,they would be horrified with the american people for the way they have allowed the people to work for the government today instead of the other way around which is the way its suppose to be according to the constitution which has now been trashed by politicians in out government.

 

[Contumacious]

What Is Classical Liberalism?

by Ralph Raico

"Classical liberalism" is the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade. Up until around 1900, this ideology was generally known simply as liberalism. The qualifying "classical" is now usually necessary, in English-speaking countries at least (but not, for instance, in France), because liberalism has come to be associated with wide-ranging interferences with private property and the market on behalf of egalitarian goals. This version of liberalism — if such it can still be called — is sometimes designated as "social," or (erroneously) "modern" or the "new," liberalism. Here we shall use liberalism to signify the classical variety."

.

There was before that, another form of liberalism. What is called Rational Liberalism:

"Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law."

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen

Like terminology occurs over and over among the writings and speeches of the founding generation. They were--at least those who believed in the limits imposed by a written constitution--the rational sort of Liberals, rather than the English Whiggism that calls itself erroneously by the same name

That is Libertarian by today's standards. Liberalism has become about Statist Power and Control.

Exactly.

.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Funny how each side tries desperately to claim the founders. My theory, they'd be totally ashamed and horrified by both parties. Those dudes would not have belonged to either of these band of fuckers.

for once you actually used logic and common sense because yes,if our founders could get into a time machine and see what america has become today and how the government let corporations take over the government and run the country instead of the people like they meant it to be,they would be horrified with the american people for the way they have allowed the people to work for the government today instead of the other way around which is the way its suppose to be according to the constitution which has now been trashed by politicians in out government.

Sadly, while I think the Founding Fathers WOULD be horrified at the American people, I don't think they'd be at all surprised.

 

[Intense]

Funny how each side tries desperately to claim the founders. My theory, they'd be totally ashamed and horrified by both parties. Those dudes would not have belonged to either of these band of fuckers.

for once you actually used logic and common sense because yes,if our founders could get into a time machine and see what america has become today and how the government let corporations take over the government and run the country instead of the people like they meant it to be,they would be horrified with the american people for the way they have allowed the people to work for the government today instead of the other way around which is the way its suppose to be according to the constitution which has now been trashed by politicians in out government.

Sadly, while I think the Founding Fathers WOULD be horrified at the American people, I don't think they'd be at all surprised.

I don't know about that. I'm surprised with new lows in expectation all of the time.

 

[kaz]

Funny how each side tries desperately to claim the founders. My theory, they'd be totally ashamed and horrified by both parties. Those dudes would not have belonged to either of these band of fuckers.

if our founders could get into a time machine and see what america has become today and how the government let corporations take over the government and run the country instead of the people like they meant it to be...

Really? The founders believed in balance of power and they feared government. I challenge you to show anything they ever did that justifies government using it's power to protect itself from private citizens or businesses. You can't because everything they did was the complete reverse of that.

 

[Agit8r]

Yes... but how are these examples of "believe that markets ought to have no protection for the property that individuals have"...?

hour laws protect "the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares"

wage laws protect (if only nominally) some remuneration for "labor that acquires their daily subsistence"

Ok... and how are these examples of "the property that individuals have"?

In Lockean philosophy--and that of our founders who followed it--individuals had the natural right to gather the produce of nature for their basic subsistence, and that the Civil Rights exchanged for these natural right could provide NO LESS protection, but rather were--WHEN LEGITIMATE--to offer the same or better.

Property: James Madison, Property

 

[Intense]

Funny how each side tries desperately to claim the founders. My theory, they'd be totally ashamed and horrified by both parties. Those dudes would not have belonged to either of these band of fuckers.

if our founders could get into a time machine and see what america has become today and how the government let corporations take over the government and run the country instead of the people like they meant it to be...

Really? The founders believed in balance of power and they feared government. I challenge you to show anything they ever did that justifies government using it's power to protect itself from private citizens or businesses. You can't because everything they did was the complete reverse of that.

Hamilton: The Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, 1791

 

[Intense]

hour laws protect "the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares"

wage laws protect (if only nominally) some remuneration for "labor that acquires their daily subsistence"

Ok... and how are these examples of "the property that individuals have"?

In Lockean philosophy--and that of our founders who followed it--individuals had the natural right to gather the produce of nature for their basic subsistence, and that the Civil Rights exchanged for these natural right could provide NO LESS protection, but rather were--WHEN LEGITIMATE--to offer the same or better.

Property: James Madison, Property

The Second Treatise of Civil Government
1690

John Locke
1632-1704


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction
CHAP. I.
CHAP. II. Of the State of Nature.
CHAP. III. Of the State of War.
CHAP. IV. Of Slavery.
CHAP. V. Of Property.
CHAP. VI. Of Paternal Power.
CHAP. VII. Of Political or Civil Society.
CHAP. VIII. Of the Beginning of Political Societies.
CHAP. IX. Of the Ends of Political Society and Government.
CHAP. X. Of the Forms of a Common-wealth.
CHAP. XI. Of the Extent of the Legislative Power.
CHAP. XII. Of the Legislative, Executive, and Federative Power of the Common-wealth.
CHAP. XIII. Of the Subordination of the Powers of the Common-wealth.
CHAP. XIV. Of Prerogative.
CHAP. XV. Of Paternal, Political, and Despotical Power, considered together.
CHAP. XVI. Of Conquest.
CHAP. XVII. Of Usurpation.
CHAP. XVIII. Of Tyranny.
CHAP. XIX. Of the Dissolution of Government.

John Locke: Second Treatise of Civil Government

 

[M14 Shooter]

hour laws protect "the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares"

wage laws protect (if only nominally) some remuneration for "labor that acquires their daily subsistence"

Ok... and how are these examples of "the property that individuals have"?

In Lockean philosophy--and that of our founders who followed it--individuals had the natural right to gather the produce of nature for their basic subsistence, and that the Civil Rights exchanged for these natural right could provide NO LESS protection, but rather were--WHEN LEGITIMATE--to offer the same or better.

Property: James Madison, Property

You're confusing protection for property and the protection of one's labor.

 

[Agit8r]

Ok... and how are these examples of "the property that individuals have"?

In Lockean philosophy--and that of our founders who followed it--individuals had the natural right to gather the produce of nature for their basic subsistence, and that the Civil Rights exchanged for these natural right could provide NO LESS protection, but rather were--WHEN LEGITIMATE--to offer the same or better.

Property: James Madison, Property

You're confusing protection for property and the protection of one's labor.

I'm not according the the Father of Our Constitution

"If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States."