The founders idea of a political spectrum

[Mr.Fitnah]

Why can't you address the issues. Posting someone else's work then sitting back is not argumentation, Mr. F. It is regurgitation of someone else's talking points. Perhaps you are letting others do your thinking. That fits in with what I have seen from you here.

Agreeing with the founding fathers is not a talking point.
Changing the subject, making personal attacks and then claiming one is avoiding the issue is a boring tactic , but please feel free to go with it.
It will be earing you negs from now on.

 

[JBeukema]

Agreeing with the founding fathers is not a talking point.

Yes, it is. It's laziness and an inability to describe your own beliefs or argue your own points, wrapped in the drapings of faux patriotism in the hopes of scoring cheap political points.

See: appeal to authority

 

[JakeStarkey]

Agreeing with the founding fathers is not a talking point.

Yes, it is. It's laziness and an inability to describe your own beliefs or argue your own points, wrapped in the drapings of faux patriotism in the hopes of scoring cheap political points.

See: appeal to authority

The Founders got much right, some wrong, and were guessing the rest. To accept what they did as political scripture without questions is simply stupid.

Someone once suggested that Mr. F has lost his marbles. I don't know that he is as much literally insane as that he shot through those rapids and is quietly paddling in the backwaters of some lagoon somewhere. His coherence, while at times amazing, is not quite up to human standard.

 

[Dante]

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams

John Adam said lots of things. In what context was did he supposedly say this?

 

[JBeukema]

Did Adams write the Constitution or the First Amendment?

No.

Those who did clearly disagreed with him.

 

[JBeukema]

[T]the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion

Treaty of Tripoli
-John Adams (signatory)

US Treaty with Tripoli, 1796-1797

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Agreeing with the founding fathers is not a talking point.

Yes, it is. It's laziness and an inability to describe your own beliefs or argue your own points, wrapped in the drapings of faux patriotism in the hopes of scoring cheap political points.

See: appeal to authority

It is not a logical fallacy to look to the founders to understand the Constitution And what kind of people we are expected to be as citizens .

They are the authority .

It would be a logical fallacy to look to Barack Obama or George Bush as authorities on anything but progressivism.

 

[Dante]

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams

The problem with lightweight intellectuals like FittieBoy, is that they mistake collecting trivia with acquiring knowledge.

Founding Father John Adams had his accomplishments...

The 1780 Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, drafted by John Adams, is the world's oldest functioning written constitution.

John Adams and the Massachusetts Constitution - The Massachusetts Constitution

but the Massachusetts State Constitution...had it's critics (citizens)...critics mostly of Adams' view of morality and religion...

Article III

Article III. [As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.

...

Massachusetts Constitution

The Massachusetts state Constitution as amended so many times...

Articles of Amendment

As of 2003, there are 120 Articles of Amendment.

Historian Samuel Eliot Morison observed that the original 1780 constitution "has been amended [so many times] as to make it more democratic, supporting one of the least efficient and most corrupt of modern state governments."[2]

 

[Dante]

Agreeing with the founding fathers is not a talking point.

Yes, it is. It's laziness and an inability to describe your own beliefs or argue your own points, wrapped in the drapings of faux patriotism in the hopes of scoring cheap political points.

See: appeal to authority

It is not a logical fallacy to look to the founders to understand the Constitution And what kind of people we are expected to be as citizens .

They are the authority .

It would be a logical fallacy to look to Barack Obama or George Bush as authorities on anything but progressivism.

"They are the authority." "what kind of people we are expected to be"

Are they the authority today? They gave us the amendments process. Their authority dictated slaves as one fifth(?) of a person.

what kind of people we are to be is our choice...we are not expected to fall in line, we are free people's




People like FittieBoy, need a lesson in reality.

 

[Sheldon]

Agreeing with the founding fathers is not a talking point.

Yes, it is. It's laziness and an inability to describe your own beliefs or argue your own points, wrapped in the drapings of faux patriotism in the hopes of scoring cheap political points.

See: appeal to authority

It is not a logical fallacy to look to the founders to understand the Constitution And what kind of people we are expected to be as citizens .

They are the authority .

It would be a logical fallacy to look to Barack Obama or George Bush as authorities on anything but progressivism.

No, the Constitution they wrote is the authority. But at least you admit that you see them as the source of authority, and since you've cherry picked some of their views and used those vicariously in argument, then it completely falls in line with the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundium.

The founders had their disagreements and any of their personal writings can be selected to support any common interpretation of the Constitution. The idea that they all shared the same goals and interpretations is an argument that is blind to history.

 

[Dante]

Yes, it is. It's laziness and an inability to describe your own beliefs or argue your own points, wrapped in the drapings of faux patriotism in the hopes of scoring cheap political points.

See: appeal to authority

It is not a logical fallacy to look to the founders to understand the Constitution And what kind of people we are expected to be as citizens .

They are the authority .

It would be a logical fallacy to look to Barack Obama or George Bush as authorities on anything but progressivism.

No, the Constitution they wrote is the authority. But at least you admit that you see them as the source of authority, and since you've cherry picked some of their views and used those vicariously in argument, then it completely falls in line with the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundium.

The founders had their disagreements and any of their personal writings can be selected to support any common interpretation of the Constitution. The idea that they all shared the same goals and interpretations is an argument that is blind to history.

 

[JBeukema]

It is not a logical fallacy to look to the founders to understand the Constitution And what kind of people we are expected to be as citizens .

We are expected to be nothing other than what we expect of ourselfves and others.

They are the authority .

Wrong. We, the People, are the authority, not corpses, kings, or whatever prophets you might seek to deify.

 

[Dante]

It is not a logical fallacy to look to the founders to understand the Constitution And what kind of people we are expected to be as citizens .

We are expected to be nothing other than what we expect of ourselfves and others.

They are the authority .

Wrong. We, the People, are the authority, not corpses, kings, or whatever prophets you might seek to deify.

 

[amrchaos]

Hey Fitnah

JB makes a point--Whose Republic is it anyway? The founding fathers or ours?

The founders constructed the constitution(which is the basis for our government, now do you hate government?) and laid out much advice through their opinions. But it is up to the citizenry(and politicians, mind you) to decide if the advice is applicable to our situation or not!!

By the way, taking the works of some one else and resizing it to fit your view point is not honest. That is something a lot of propagandist do. You should keep that in mind when you watch any political shows.

 

[JBeukema]

If the FF did not want for us to govern ourselves and for the Republic to adapt to better serve the People, they'd have not included two means of changing it in accordance with itself without violating the social contract.

Also, if the FF had not wanted for us to govern ourselves, they'd share a place next to the King underneath our collective foot.

 

[QUENTIN]

Strong government >>>>>>>>>>>self government >>>>>>>>>>No government
Facism
Communism >>>>>>>>>>where the founders X drew the line>>>>xAnarchy.
Police states.

the typical inaccurate spectrum

A more accurate spectrum

It makes no sense to draw a spectrum based on the platforms of a political party that can change from generation to generation, or on the seating charts of Euroabian parliaments.

The Law one is accurate, the attempt at a new political spectrum is not at all. Lumping fascism and communism together is absurd and shows a total lack of understanding of their tenets. Fascism intentionally, directly, and inherently involved tyrannical authoritarianism. Communism is the opposite, it intentionally, directly, and inherently leads to having no rulers much less tyrants or authoritarians. It's like you're confusing Soviet totalitarianism with Communism just because they falsely claimed to be Communists in order to gain and hold power.

An accurate spectrum would go, from far left to far right:


Anarcho-libertarianism (anarcho-socialism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, etc, known collectively as "Left Anarchism")

\/

Communism

\/

Socialism

\/

Mixed Market Capitalism

\/

Free Market Capitalism

\/

Corporatism

\/

Fascism

\/

Anarcho-capitalism (anarcho-individualism, anarcho-marketism, etc what's collectively known as "Right Anarchism")


Taking opposites like fascism and communism and placing them atop one another (and claiming far-right fascism is "left) and putting libertarianism as the far right of the spectrum is inaccurate, dishonest, and probably nothing more than a cheap attempt to portray all leftism as making one "less free" and the further right you go, the "more free" you get to match your ideological agenda.

The furthest left and further right are, by definition, anarchists who differ strongly on the variety and form of anarchism. A proper and accurate representation of the political spectrum purely in relation to lever of freedom needs at least axes, to place things like Libertarianism and Progessivism where they belong. "Moderate" ultimately has no definition or ideology as it is simply the relative middle of whatever existing society and its political divergences one is considering.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Here, Mr. F, this will help you understand where you went wrong and help you get right.

#1. The Political Spectrum

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Yes, it is. It's laziness and an inability to describe your own beliefs or argue your own points, wrapped in the drapings of faux patriotism in the hopes of scoring cheap political points.

See: appeal to authority

It is not a logical fallacy to look to the founders to understand the Constitution And what kind of people we are expected to be as citizens .

They are the authority .

It would be a logical fallacy to look to Barack Obama or George Bush as authorities on anything but progressivism.

No, the Constitution they wrote is the authority. But at least you admit that you see them as the source of authority, and since you've cherry picked some of their views and used those vicariously in argument, then it completely falls in line with the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundium.

The founders had their disagreements and any of their personal writings can be selected to support any common interpretation of the Constitution. The idea that they all shared the same goals and interpretations is an argument that is blind to history.

Appeal to Authority
(argumentum ad verecundium)


Are you suggestion the framers are not familiar with the constitution and had no opinions as to the proper character of the governed people to maintain a Representative republic?

In the search to understand the citizens responsibilities to maintain freedom and liberty is is acceptable to look at the framers opinions of that topic .

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is not a logical fallacy to look to the founders to understand the Constitution And what kind of people we are expected to be as citizens .

They are the authority .

It would be a logical fallacy to look to Barack Obama or George Bush as authorities on anything but progressivism.

No, the Constitution they wrote is the authority. But at least you admit that you see them as the source of authority, and since you've cherry picked some of their views and used those vicariously in argument, then it completely falls in line with the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundium.

The founders had their disagreements and any of their personal writings can be selected to support any common interpretation of the Constitution. The idea that they all shared the same goals and interpretations is an argument that is blind to history.

Appeal to Authority
(argumentum ad verecundium)


Are you suggestion the framers are not familiar with the constitution and had no opinions as to the proper character of the governed people to maintain a Representative republic?

In the search to understand the citizens responsibilities to maintain freedom and liberty is is acceptable to look at the framers opinions of that topic .

Then why did you not offer that reasonable advice in the beginning? You are backing up, son, and you should be. You should also recognize (1) that the Founders were divided on many principles, and (2) that we are fully capable of interpreting the Constitution for ourselves in our times.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

There was little daylight in there minds as to the character and virtue required of the people to hold onto a working republic.

Trusting the modern majority of people in the USA to interpret the Constitution is rather foolish they have been deliberately ill educated for almost 100 years .

People calling our form of government as a democracy is just one symptom .

Thinking we can expect our elected officials to be more virtuous then those who elect them is another.