What are libertarians?

[Pogo]

Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.

So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?

Marx wasn't even born yet. Have you been tinkering with Special Ed's anti-linear time machine?

Um...OK?

I didn't say the Founding Fathers were Marxists, that's been a big thing that liberals have been arguing. For example, Dad2three has been arguing Franklin thought all money belonged to the State. You need to read more before you comment on what you haven't been reading.

Aha. Hasty strawman generalization time. Gotcha.

 

[Pogo]

Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.

So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?

Pay no attention to Pogo. I love him dearly--he's one of my favorite people at USMB in fact--but he has a real blind spot when it comes to understanding context such as you used it and most especially when it comes to admitting that definitions change with usage over time.

Fine -- explain how Marx could possibly have influenced the founders of this country before his own birth. I'm sure it's much the same as Jefferson founding the Republican Party 28 years after his own death...

Humor is one thing; abject silliness quite another.

You need to ask the people who are arguing that whether they think Marx actually inspired them or not. How am I supposed to know? They probably think the manifesto was inspired by the founding fathers. I keep telling them their view the Founding Fathers were Marxists is ridiculous. They were small government libertarians. The Constitution is almost exactly what I would write.

Never presume to tell another person what "they need" to do. That's not your place.

You set up a strawman; I called it out. Deal with it.

And no -- they were small government Liberals. "Libertarianism", like Marxism, hadn't been invented yet.

 

[bripat9643]

Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.

So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?

Pay no attention to Pogo. I love him dearly--he's one of my favorite people at USMB in fact--but he has a real blind spot when it comes to understanding context such as you used it and most especially when it comes to admitting that definitions change with usage over time.

Fine -- explain how Marx could possibly have influenced the founders of this country before his own birth. I'm sure it's much the same as Jefferson founding the Republican Party 28 years after his own death...

Humor is one thing; abject silliness quite another.

You need to ask the people who are arguing that whether they think Marx actually inspired them or not. How am I supposed to know? They probably think the manifesto was inspired by the founding fathers. I keep telling them their view the Founding Fathers were Marxists is ridiculous. They were small government libertarians. The Constitution is almost exactly what I would write.

Never presume to tell another person what "they need" to do. That's not your place.

You set up a strawman; I called it out. Deal with it.

And no -- they were small government Liberals. "Libertarianism", like Marxism, hadn't been invented yet.

That's what a libertarian is, dumbass.

 

[Foxfyre]

"

Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.

So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?

Pay no attention to Pogo. I love him dearly--he's one of my favorite people at USMB in fact--but he has a real blind spot when it comes to understanding context such as you used it and most especially when it comes to admitting that definitions change with usage over time.

Fine -- explain how Marx could possibly have influenced the founders of this country before his own birth. I'm sure it's much the same as Jefferson founding the Republican Party 28 years after his own death...

Humor is one thing; abject silliness quite another.

You disagree with my post? That you are among my favorite members here? Tsk Tsk. I'm am crushed.

But she did not say that Marx influenced the Founders. If you were reading what she posted as she intended it, she was criticizing the Leftists who accuse the Founders of embracing Marxist principles. She was suggesting that would be something Gipper would agree with as she was responding to his post that the Left HATES the principles that guided the Founders as they put this country together and rather tries to cast them in the Marxist mode that they CAN agree with.

No, I agree wit dat. -- I disagreed that I have a blind spot; I think more the opposite is going on. Unfortunately this system denies us the ability to discriminate.

Yes, he or she did say Marx influenced the founders. If she/he's attributing it to somebody else, then he/she is constructing a strawman. Pick your fallacy poison.

The fact is Marx was not yet even alive, let alone writing, therefore Founders following Marxism is impossible, provided you accept the concept of linear time.

I think the OP is very confused and fatally indecisive, hence this thread. He or she is not even sure what gender it is. You assumed it's a she, as did I, which is understandable, yet he/she took me to task for the female pronoun, while at the same time declining to cop to male. It plays games with words. I prefer to upset that game table.

Sigh, Again she did NOT say that Marxism influenced the Founders. She said that Leftists try to assign Marxist concepts to the Founders in order to use the Founders for the Leftist ideology. I don't know why you can't read her post and see that.

Gipper said:
"Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.
Click to expand..."​

Kaz responded:
"So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?"​

Pogo responded:

Marx wasn't even born yet. Have you been tinkering with Special Ed's anti-linear time machine? ​

Foxfyre responded:
"Pay no attention to Pogo. I love him dearly--he's one of my favorite people at USMB in fact--but he has a real blind spot when it comes to understanding context such as you used it and most especially when it comes to admitting that definitions change with usage over time."​

At which time both Kaz and I explained that she had in no way suggested that Marx was alive at the time the Founders were hammering out the Constitution, but was rather pointing out that the Democrats assign Marxist concepts to the Founders, which they do. The fact that it would be generations after the days of the Founders before we would label those concepts "Marxist' is irrelevant to the point she was making.

And I am right I think that you did and do have a problem with understanding the context as she expressed it. You accused her wrongly.

 

[Pogo]

Sigh, Again she did NOT say that Marxism influenced the Founders. She said that Leftists try to assign Marxist concepts to the Founders in order to use the Founders for the Leftist ideology. I don't know why you can't read her post and see that.

Gipper said:
"Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.
Click to expand..."​

Kaz responded:
"So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?"​

Pogo responded:

Marx wasn't even born yet. Have you been tinkering with Special Ed's anti-linear time machine? ​

Foxfyre responded:
"Pay no attention to Pogo. I love him dearly--he's one of my favorite people at USMB in fact--but he has a real blind spot when it comes to understanding context such as you used it and most especially when it comes to admitting that definitions change with usage over time."​

At which time both Kaz and I explained that she had in no way suggested that Marx was alive at the time the Founders were hammering out the Constitution, but was rather pointing out that the Democrats assign Marxist concepts to the Founders, which they do. The fact that it would be generations later before we would be able to label those concepts "Marxist' is irrelevant to the point she was making.

And I am right I think that you did and do have a problem with understanding the context as she expressed it. You accused her wrongly.

NO, I did not say Kaz said that Marx influenced the Founders; I alluded to the fact that Kaz alluded to it. In the mouth of a non-present entity, i.e. "the revisionist Democratic history" -- an entity who incidentally also didn't yet exist at that time.

He/she/it is engaging in a strawman by putting that premise up. It's using a strawman to make a blanket generalization, and it's as transparent as a summer day is long.

You cannot "influence" people retroactively before your own birth. The premise is absurd.

 

[Foxfyre]

@Pogo. I rest my case. Most people understand what a Marxist concept is regardless at what point in history is referenced just as most people understand what a Machiavellian concept is or an Orwellian concept is regardless of what point in history is referenced. They don't disallow the use of it just because it references a point in history in which the person the concept is named for wasn't born yet. Just as they don't disallow the term 'liberal' to be applied to modern day Marxists/leftists just because it meant something entirely different in the day of the Founders.

You and I have always gone around and around on this kind of concept. So I am absolutely correct that you have a problem with it. Most people--at least most of us modern day libertarians--don't.

 

[Pogo]

So you cannot refute the previous post noting the blatant fallacies.

Agreed.

 

[Pogo]

You can be a "Marxist" right now if you believe in it, because Karl Marx has lived and had his say.

You cannot be a "Woodist" based on the ideas of a Bob Wood, who will be born sometime in 2053*. You might have that label appended to you after both you and Bob Wood are dead and gone but that's just a commentator appending a label that you never called yourself. Doesn't make the label valid. And more to the point you could not possibly subscribe to Bob Wood's ideas before he even formed them.

I don't get why linear time is so complex for some people. I really don't. You cannot travel through time -- go ask Albert Einstein.

"Christ, Marx, Wood and Wei ... led us to this perfect day"... who knows that reference?

 

[Londoner]

There's a problem when you discuss Marx with folks who have not directly studied his texts or the history of economic thought. Many people here have literally been educated by an echo chamber of talk radio garbage - these people have convinced a generation of republicans that it's okay to speak about an author whom you've never directly studied. If republicans read the actual texts of Adam Smith, the father or classical economics, and Karl Marx, they would discover that two men shared many beliefs, including a hatred for monopolies. Adam Smith wrote a number of passages that sound as class based as Marx. For instance, most rightwingers would ascribe this statement to Marx: “The labour of a manufacturer adds, generally, to the value of the materials which he works upon, that of his own maintenance, and of his master's profit.” Adam Smith wrote it, along with some heavy criticisms of what he termed the rentier class.

Our biggest challenge is educating people who get the bulk of their information from places like Talk Radio or FOX News. These people confuse Marx and Keynes. Keynes believed deeply in private property rights and he very much wanted to insulate capitalism from the downside of the business cycle. Keynes was a serious defender of capitalism at a time when socialism was much stronger. To be unaware of the similarities between Adam Smith and Karl Marx is as intellectually lazy as confusing Mark and Keynes. If you're going to use these terms, read the actual texts. Yes, Marx was socialist and Smith was not - but some of their criticisms of capitalism overlapped. Be careful with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

 

[Foxfyre]

There's a problem when you discuss Marx with folks who have not directly studied his texts or the history of economic thought. Many people here have literally been educated by an echo chamber of talk radio garbage - these people have convinced a generation of republicans that it's okay to speak about an author whom you've never directly studied. If republicans read the actual texts of Adam Smith, the father or classical economics, and Karl Marx, they would discover that two men shared many beliefs, including a hatred for monopolies. Adam Smith wrote a number of passages that sound as class based as Marx. For instance, most rightwingers would ascribe this statement to Marx: “The labour of a manufacturer adds, generally, to the value of the materials which he works upon, that of his own maintenance, and of his master's profit.” Adam Smith wrote it, along with some heavy criticisms of what he termed the rentier class.

Our biggest challenge is educating people who get the bulk of their information from places like Talk Radio or FOX News. These people confuse Marx and Keynes. Keynes believed deeply in private property rights and he very much wanted to insulate capitalism from the downside of the business cycle. Keynes was a serious defender of capitalism at a time when socialism was much stronger. To be unaware of the similarities between Adam Smith and Karl Marx is as intellectually lazy as confusing Mark and Keynes. If you're going to use these terms, read the actual texts. Yes, Marx was socialist and Smith was not - but some of their criticisms of capitalism overlapped. Be careful with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

Just for the sake of argument, what do you see that is Marxist in Adam Smith's statement quoted above? (I should tell you that I have studied the history of economics and I know the theories of both men pretty well. . . in context....not just in sound bites. And I studied both before there was a Fox News and before I knew there was a Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.)

 

[Foxfyre]

There's a problem when you discuss Marx with folks who have not directly studied his texts or the history of economic thought. Many people here have literally been educated by an echo chamber of talk radio garbage - these people have convinced a generation of republicans that it's okay to speak about an author whom you've never directly studied. If republicans read the actual texts of Adam Smith, the father or classical economics, and Karl Marx, they would discover that two men shared many beliefs, including a hatred for monopolies. Adam Smith wrote a number of passages that sound as class based as Marx. For instance, most rightwingers would ascribe this statement to Marx: “The labour of a manufacturer adds, generally, to the value of the materials which he works upon, that of his own maintenance, and of his master's profit.” Adam Smith wrote it, along with some heavy criticisms of what he termed the rentier class.

Our biggest challenge is educating people who get the bulk of their information from places like Talk Radio or FOX News. These people confuse Marx and Keynes. Keynes believed deeply in private property rights and he very much wanted to insulate capitalism from the downside of the business cycle. Keynes was a serious defender of capitalism at a time when socialism was much stronger. To be unaware of the similarities between Adam Smith and Karl Marx is as intellectually lazy as confusing Mark and Keynes. If you're going to use these terms, read the actual texts. Yes, Marx was socialist and Smith was not - but some of their criticisms of capitalism overlapped. Be careful with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

Just for the sake of argument, what do you see that is Marxist in Adam Smith's statement quoted above? (I should tell you that I have studied the history of economics and I know the theories of both men pretty well. . . in context....not just in sound bites. And I studied both before there was a Fox News and before I knew there was a Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. There is no way in hell Marx would make a statement like that.)

 

[bripat9643]

There's a problem when you discuss Marx with folks who have not directly studied his texts or the history of economic thought. Many people here have literally been educated by an echo chamber of talk radio garbage - these people have convinced a generation of republicans that it's okay to speak about an author whom you've never directly studied. If republicans read the actual texts of Adam Smith, the father or classical economics, and Karl Marx, they would discover that two men shared many beliefs, including a hatred for monopolies. Adam Smith wrote a number of passages that sound as class based as Marx. For instance, most rightwingers would ascribe this statement to Marx: “The labour of a manufacturer adds, generally, to the value of the materials which he works upon, that of his own maintenance, and of his master's profit.” Adam Smith wrote it, along with some heavy criticisms of what he termed the rentier class.

I don't know any right-winger who would disagree with that statement, so why would they find it hard to believe that Smith wrote it?

Our biggest challenge is educating people who get the bulk of their information from places like Talk Radio or FOX News. These people confuse Marx and Keynes. Keynes believed deeply in private property rights and he very much wanted to insulate capitalism from the downside of the business cycle. Keynes was a serious defender of capitalism at a time when socialism was much stronger. To be unaware of the similarities between Adam Smith and Karl Marx is as intellectually lazy as confusing Mark and Keynes. If you're going to use these terms, read the actual texts. Yes, Marx was socialist and Smith was not - but some of their criticisms of capitalism overlapped. Be careful with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

Keynes was a charlatan. He didn't give a fig about anything other than puffing up his reputation by sucking up to the powerful. Smith does not criticize capitalism. He criticizes attempts to interfere with capitalism.

Our biggest (meaning rational people) is educating people to understand that a lot what they see on on mainstream media is anti-capitalist propaganda. You're a primary source of the manure.

 

[kaz]

Yes, he or she did say Marx influenced the founders. If she/he's attributing it to somebody else, then he/she is constructing a strawman. Pick your fallacy poison.

Actually, this is a strawman. I did not say Marx "influenced the founders." I did not say anyone said he "influenced" them. I said a bunch of liberals, dad2three, rightwinger and others are arguing they were Marxists. They are saying that they believed in ubiquitous government, they believe the Federal government has no limits to power, all money belongs to the State, Marxist principles. I said nothing about the person Marx, who was not born yet. You decided to take that way literally, and construct the strawman that it was Marx rather than his principles.

 

[kaz]

Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.

So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?

Marx wasn't even born yet. Have you been tinkering with Special Ed's anti-linear time machine?

Um...OK?

I didn't say the Founding Fathers were Marxists, that's been a big thing that liberals have been arguing. For example, Dad2three has been arguing Franklin thought all money belonged to the State. You need to read more before you comment on what you haven't been reading.

Aha. Hasty strawman generalization time. Gotcha.

Ignorance time, you are stating as fact conclusions on discussions you have obviously not read. Dad2three is pounding a Franklin quote he doesn't understand. Franklin said that justifiible taxes are the property of the State and people have no right to not pay them, he is arguing against tax evasion. Dad2three doesn't understand his own quote and keeps arguing Franklin said all money is the property of the State.

If you asked me, I would have been glad to direct you to the quote. But that you chose to go the two year old route and just call me a liar over something you obviously don't know what you are talking about, I'll not bother doing that.

 

[Ravi]

"

Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.

So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?

Pay no attention to Pogo. I love him dearly--he's one of my favorite people at USMB in fact--but he has a real blind spot when it comes to understanding context such as you used it and most especially when it comes to admitting that definitions change with usage over time.

Fine -- explain how Marx could possibly have influenced the founders of this country before his own birth. I'm sure it's much the same as Jefferson founding the Republican Party 28 years after his own death...

Humor is one thing; abject silliness quite another.

You disagree with my post? That you are among my favorite members here? Tsk Tsk. I'm am crushed.

But she did not say that Marx influenced the Founders. If you were reading what she posted as she intended it, she was criticizing the Leftists who accuse the Founders of embracing Marxist principles. She was suggesting that would be something Gipper would agree with as she was responding to his post that the Left HATES the principles that guided the Founders as they put this country together and rather tries to cast them in the Marxist mode that they CAN agree with.

No, I agree wit dat. -- I disagreed that I have a blind spot; I think more the opposite is going on. Unfortunately this system denies us the ability to discriminate.

Yes, he or she did say Marx influenced the founders. If she/he's attributing it to somebody else, then he/she is constructing a strawman. Pick your fallacy poison.

The fact is Marx was not yet even alive, let alone writing, therefore Founders following Marxism is impossible, provided you accept the concept of linear time.

I think the OP is very confused and fatally indecisive, hence this thread. He or she is not even sure what gender it is. You assumed it's a she, as did I, which is understandable, yet he/she took me to task for the female pronoun, while at the same time declining to cop to male. It plays games with words. I prefer to upset that game table.

Sigh, Again she did NOT say that Marxism influenced the Founders. She said that Leftists try to assign Marxist concepts to the Founders in order to use the Founders for the Leftist ideology. I don't know why you can't read her post and see that.

Gipper said:
"Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.
Click to expand..."​

Kaz responded:
"So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?"​

Pogo responded:

Marx wasn't even born yet. Have you been tinkering with Special Ed's anti-linear time machine? ​

Foxfyre responded:
"Pay no attention to Pogo. I love him dearly--he's one of my favorite people at USMB in fact--but he has a real blind spot when it comes to understanding context such as you used it and most especially when it comes to admitting that definitions change with usage over time."​

At which time both Kaz and I explained that she had in no way suggested that Marx was alive at the time the Founders were hammering out the Constitution, but was rather pointing out that the Democrats assign Marxist concepts to the Founders, which they do. The fact that it would be generations after the days of the Founders before we would label those concepts "Marxist' is irrelevant to the point she was making.

And I am right I think that you did and do have a problem with understanding the context as she expressed it. You accused her wrongly.

leftists don't accuse the founders of embracing Marxist principles.

 

[kaz]

Never presume to tell another person what "they need" to do. That's not your place.

You're just being a hypocrite and a dick

You set up a strawman; I called it out. Deal with it.

The only strawman in our discussions are yours

And no -- they were small government Liberals. "Libertarianism", like Marxism, hadn't been invented yet.

What difference does it make if the words had not been invented yet? I am referring to what they were in today's language. You don't like that? Pound sand, I don't care and it's an idiotic point. You can't use today's words! Because... LOL.

 

[kaz]

NO, I did not say Kaz said that Marx influenced the Founders

Let's go to the video tape:

Yes, he or she did say Marx influenced the founders. If she/he's attributing it to somebody else, then he/she is constructing a strawman. Pick your fallacy poison.

The fact is Marx was not yet even alive, let alone writing, therefore Founders following Marxism is impossible, provided you accept the concept of linear time.

LOL, you're a tool. And an idiot calling me a liar when you obviously don't know. How do you know what other liberals said in conversations with me? You're reading every post written to me? You're obviously not because there have been many, many discussions where liberals are assigning Marxist principles to the founding fathers.

Foxfyre explained it to you, I explained it to you. It's not that complicated. Winston Churchill: I can explain it to you, I cannot comprehend it for you. I said and meant they believe the founding fathers followed principles that are Marxist. All the literal crap is from you, I never said it. It's a ... wait for it ... strawman ....

 

[kaz]

leftists don't accuse the founders of embracing Marxist principles.

You need to pay more attention

 

[Foxfyre]

leftists don't accuse the founders of embracing Marxist principles.

The argument was not what leftists accuse anybody of. The argument was what language/metaphors Kaz is allowed to use according to Pogo.

I do concur with Kaz, however, that many leftists do attribute positions to the Founders that are Marxist in nature. People didn't start calling such positions Marxist until he presented his manifesto to the world any more than we used the terms Machiavellian or Orwellian before those guys became famous. But the concepts existed whether the men existed yet or not--we just have a way to label them now that saves a lot of time.

 

[Foxfyre]

He/she/it is engaging in a strawman by putting that premise up. It's using a strawman to make a blanket generalization, and it's as transparent as a summer day is long.

You cannot "influence" people retroactively before your own birth. The premise is absurd

She didn't say Marx influenced anybody retroactively either. She used the term "Marxist' as it is understood today to describe concepts that leftists attribute to the Founders today. The concepts existed long before Marx wrote them into a political philosophy. But we didn't have a label to put on them until Marx wrote them into a political philosophy. I simply refuse to believe that you are too dense to understand that, so I have to believe by now you are simply too proud to admit that you are wrong.