Freedoms Resurrection: The 230 year Old Answer

you son of a bitch, you got me solidly invested in a joke, with an anti obama punchline.

Ah yea-ah, Ahahahhaaa

Again with this stupid distinction where there is none.

Speaking of nothing, there's no such thing as "natural law." Natural law is, I see it, it's mine. Natural law is complete freedom with no restrictions.

Law provides property, otherwise it doesn't exist. If there was no government, I could kill you and take your stuff because nothing would stop me from doing so. You could yammer all day about how it's your property, but without law, you don't have property.

Do Libertarians even understand this? Is this like the Libertarian version of the Fundamentalsit Christian St. Thomas Aquinas argument? Does nature have some divine command that can't be trampled on?

Social Contract theory, look it up.

Where do you get your misinformation? Law protects property, not "provides" property. And it is natural law that in fact suggests that you might feel the sharpness of my teeth if you try to take my supper. To say it does not exist is to deny your own existence.

I'm surprised that a historical mind would take such a hostile stance towards Aquinas. While I don't really subscribe to the natural law theory (especially viewed through the prism of God and Christianity), I do recognize its significance in Western Jurisprudence. When you think about Aquinas' "Summa Theologica," it really reflects back to thinkers like Aristotle and Cicero--both of whom believed that the natural law was based on human reason.

Anyhoo, it's just thought...

I don't give credit to Divine Command assholes. Trying really, really hard to make your religion make sense is still poor critical thought.

In fact, I don't give credence to much of anyone pre-Enlightenment. Even the old Greek philosophers relied on reason in a meaningless way. The whole point is to use facts to question your own assumptions. Not derive facts from existing assumptions while ignoring the obvious flaws.

To some extent, it's not their fault. Most of them were products of their age. But people like Aquinas kept people in the Dark Ages, they didn't bring them out. The century that was follow was the worst in Medieval history. Worse even than the actual Dark Ages. It's where most of our Medieval stereotypes come from.

It's not misinformation, it's called independent thought. You know, questioning commonly held assumptions, establishing points of epistemology, reasoning out possibilities. You should try it sometime, you'll probably stop being a Libertarian.

Yeah, you can defend objects in the world, how does that make them yours again? And isn't that part of the twin no-no forces of Libertarianism, force and fraud? If it was natural law, you wouldn't NEED to defend it. It's a HUMAN law, one that only exists if it is obeyed, respected and enforced.

You have no property without law because all property is just a social agreement to designate possessions to certain individuals on pain of legal enforcement.

Property is an idea, not a law of nature. I COULD take that supper from you if I was strong enough and there is nothing you could do about it or vice versa.

Ownership is an entirely invented concept. This isn't just my opinion, it's both a demonstrable fact and an irrefutable philosophical reality.

There is no such THING as "natural law." Reality behave the way it behaves, it doesn't give a flying fuck about how we think it should behave or how we want it to behave. We WANT to have property rights and so we see it as a good thing when it happens in nature. But it's not a fact, it's nonsensical to make it a fact of nature.

Saying "property" is natural law is like saying "democracy" or "religion" is natural law. No, it isn't. It's a naturally occurring PHENOMENA, but the laws of physics don't give us our social agreements.

In fact, plenty of societies had no concept of property as we know it. Native Americans had property by use distinctions. Something was only yours if you were using it, leading to huge misunderstandings in early interactions when Natives regularly stole things from settlers.

"Property is an idea, not a law of nature. "
You don't know the difference between your tipi and my tipi? The Cherokee do. This is something you know without teaching. How about your life and my life? Much scolarship has been devoted to the argument of what natural law is or if it exists at all. We will not settle it here. But you claim that it is "HUMAN" law. I disagree. To reason is human, and it may take reason to recognize natural law or to put it into describable context, but natural law is evident in the society of wolves. How could wolves exhibit human traits? Furthermore, law does not have to be obeyed, respected and enforced to exist. It must be obeyed, respected and enforced before it will benefit society. Laws are broken every day. That does not mean they do not exist.

Distinctions of identity are not proof for natural moral implications from the world. Yes, I know the difference between tipis and persons, it doesn't make them mine. It is intuitive that there's a social agreement which could lead to my being punished if interfere with said person or tipi, that doesn't mean that the universe cares. Does a rock have a concept of property? Why not if it's an inherent law of nature? It is just mammals? Is it other animals? How exactly does this work?

I mean, what you're essentially arguing is for an objective morality, which is nonsensical by definition. If it were "natural law" to have property, then it would be impossible to not have it. Breaking the "natural law" would be like negating gravity, it simply couldn't be done.

Again, your insistence that it is present among animals other than ourselves doesn't demonstrate that it's a -law- of nature. Property is an incredibly useful social arrangement that's nearly impossible to not have in environments larger than families, but social arrangements aren't binding to reality. They're made up.

I think there is some miscommunication here, what exactly do you think a law of nature is? If you're thinking of "natural law" as being some sort of legal code that exists without government, then it falls on you to demonstrate how in the hell that could be possible. Most people have to use god as their excuse for that one.

You're right, it is debated endlessly in academia, as are many things. But plenty of ideas are still completely bunk even though they have fervent supporters, and that's my understanding of anyone arguing for objective morality, which is what I think you mean by natural law.

Get back to me on that one.

It's natural because it exists without human devises. A river takes its bed and an oak claims the ground beneath it. Rocks I can't say about. They don't seem to mind my presence, but they seem pretty quiet and to themselves.

A river doesn't own the ground beneath it and neither does a tree, Occupying a place in space-time does not mean you own that place in space time.

Think about the extent to which ownership is meaningless. If you were the only existing organic creature, would you need property? Why not? Because property is only an important distinction to make to other organic creatures who desire to use or consume what you intend to use or consume exclusively. You've been thinking about the wrong way, I own this, they own that. Think about it in reverse. You aren't allowed to use that, they aren't allowed to use yours. It's a designation of social expectations, not a scientifically valid assessment of morality, not that there even is such a thing.

You're gonna be at this for a while, if you want me to just spoil the ending, I can do that. Property is a concept. And, like all concepts, it only exists in the mind. A concept can be applied to reality, but it can't ever BE a part of reality.

Thus, the term "natural law" is meaningless unless you're actually referring to physical laws like thermodynamics or gravity.

Can you not apply your argument to the river or the oak?
Your problem is clear & simple. You don't know the river.

It's irrelevant, I don't follow the river's laws, even if it was capable of making them.

I only follow humans laws that I think make sense and the rest I only follow when I have to.

So no, I'm not seeing the problem.

Go yak a white river. See who's laws you follow.

Guffaw, now you're just playing word games.

Gravity and mass weren't legislated by the water molecules in the river, that's just the way the universe is.

Property, on the other hand...

And the oak claims it's ground by chemistry. Physics, chemistry, biology, sociology. Are we not subject to them all?

There is a distinction between rule of law and rule of the majority. It may be meaningless semantics, to you at least, but the difference does exist.

Property is not dependent on laws it is dependent upon power. If enough power says you own something you own it. If enough power says you don't you don't. If enough force protects you you, you remain unharmed, if enough force wishes to harm you, you die. No thought in your head, philosophy, nor words written on paper, laws, now governing body will stop someone from killing you and taking your property. However the force or the implied threat of force or violence backing them will. It's not about natural laws or government's laws its about the power backing them. Mike understands this distinction between what should ethical be and what is in reality. as he constantly mentions threats of force and violence. What Mike is presenting as the ethical basis for what and how this force should be applied not some fundamental laws of the universe. You on the other hand don't seem to understand that you are making the exact same argument you are accusing Mike of.

Social contract theory is simply an observation of how the world works masquerading as an EXTREMELY WEAK, it is both inconsistent and arbitrary, ethical theory.

Social contract theory is the moral equivalent of me saying I have a gun and you don't, you do what I say, therefore what I say is ethical. If more guns are on my side I'm ethical, a military dictatorship if you will. The same thing for a theocracy except replace guns with threats of hell.

The point is that what is is not necessarily what should be or what is ethical.

So few ever realize that we have a Republic and not a democracy. Even our school textbooks teach our children that we have a Democratic government.

This talking point gets old too.

Wrong, we have a constitutional Democratic-Republic. Remember that party we used to have? The Democratic-Republic Party? The one that split into two? Yeah, not an accident.

Nothing about either a Democracy nor a Republic guarantees constitutional rights. You can be a Democracy with a constitution and a Republic without one.

Furthermore, Democracy does not mean mob rule. It just means rule by the people. A Republic is a form of Democracy, they aren't separate ideas.

In a Republic, you simply elect a representative to make votes for thousands of people rather than thousands of people voting for specific measures.

But the early America did things locally by vote in town hall meetings and the modern version of that today is the ballot measure.

Hence, Democratic-Republic. We vote for certain issues and we elect representatives for the rest. We are certainly more Republican than Democratic, but we are nevertheless both.

Once again, since this likely needs to be emphasized. The CONSTITUTION is a separate element of Democratic government. It's merely a document limiting certain powers of the government. You could have a dictatorship with a Constitution, it can apply to any form of government.

So, we're not a straight Republic like Rome was. We are a Constitutional Democratic-Republic.

The word democracy was never mentioned in the constitution true enough. However the spirit of democracy itself is majority rule. Keeping in mind that the majority is usually not correct (especially with lying politicians) - it is obvious that the ideals of a Republic have not been in this country for hundreds of years now. Franklin challenged the new America saying "We have given you a republic, now lets see if you can keep it" knowing that not even 100 years prior the same thing was tried in England and failed miserably because people misunderstood it, and its corruption. America was supposed to be a fresh start when the compromise to make it a republic was made.
Yet the majority at the time made things their business, and as corruption of ideals and actions worked their way into the system, we in essence became a democracy. This was never the intent of the founders and only happened because people were misled by the limited republic of the day as it grew corrupt. This is always the case in a republic, which is why they never last (except in platitude where democrats try to convince republicans that their ideals are being used and failing - which too is a lie).
The more educated founders, and even Paine saw this is a future problem, and trusted that the people would continue more down the path of self governance which would keep the new republic limited as it was at the time as described in the article. The ultimate idea of this experiment was to eventually have an enlightened people that would make government obsolete as anything more then a public service. The fact that we have since gone the opposite direction is not only disturbing but maddening as well.

Also, you said,
"So, we're not a straight Republic like Rome was. We are a Constitutional Democratic-Republic" = not true by any means. I would suggest you study more this - try starting with Rubicon: The triumph and Tragedy of the Roman Republic, and Rome and Her Enemies. The reason why those US is compared to Rome so often is that we continually pursue the same things that contributed to the fall of Rome. Also not that the Roman Republic was based off of a very differant set of ideal. Our founder were nearly all well study in such arena's which is why they made their ideals as widespread as possible - so that the same mistakes Rome made would not be repeated.

You didn't refute any of my points, you just repeated the same nonsense I just debunked.

Read my post again and read my history post below, I'm not going to rehash everything I just said because you were too lazy to actually respond to any of it.

You don't know basic econ if you think illegals do nothing to jobs and that outsourcing is good for us. The effects might be exaggerated and the voters might be dumb, but we have the largest trade deficit on the planet and 20 million undocumented people, most of whom likely work. You're telling me that there is ZERO harm being done there? Or maybe even some positive?

Swallowing classical economics whole is completely stupid, it's demonstrably wrong even under its own standards. It's relying on Newtonian Mechanics for physics and negating friction. Have fun getting the wrong answer every time.

And while one issue voters and moral majority types are annoying, they're by no means voting illegitimately. If someone intends to legally trash something you care about, even if they're good in most other ways, it makes perfect sense to be concerned about that.

What democracy? Ever heard of a constitutional republic? Didn't think so.

Who the hell said anything about monarchy?? We're INDIVIDUALISTS. We favor FREEDOM.

Go back to your lame coffee party meeting with only 15 other folks in a small room. No one cares anymore. Obama's just as ineffective and bogus as Bush. Not a whole lot of difference between the 2 in the long run.

Unfortunately true. But, a monarchy isn't that answer.

Nor are central banks.

Ummm - you mean like England during the 18th century? ;-)

Germany. 1930.

Care to expand?

When does violence start making sense?

War is Peace? Slavery is Freedom?

Get off the meds....

Violence to defend your property rights?

Don't throw stones in glass houses.

The "revolution" is bullshit organic food? ...Honestly?

Well, if you wanna give up a lot of your technology and advancements in society for a little 'freedom', that's your choice, but I'd rather have BOTH freedom and advanced technology and good food. Don't wimp out.

I'm armed and knowledgable. Just stay the fuck out of my yard and away from my grub. I sure as hell don't need you or the government telling me what I already know.

Perhaps you should read some of Jefferson's Anas. His views on agricultural self-sufficiency in the context of a republican form of government have been an inspiration to me.

If there were more people of this family's caliber living in this country and the world, it would be a hell of a lot nicer place to live. Grow food, not lawns!

Yeah, because we'd be so much better in disunity, warring with each other like Greek or Balkan states over petty distinctions rather than actually being a nation.

As opposed to destabilizing and warring with other nations?

Nations always war with other nations, you think we WOULDN'T be doing that if we were all practically separate countries?

We'd probably be doing it to each other, and certainly nothing would stop us from doing it to others.

War is either a means to an end or an ideological conflict between nations, or both. Short of a one-world nation, there's never a time when that's not true.

First you say...
"Yeah, because we'd be so much better in disunity, warring with each other like Greek or Balkan states over petty distinctions rather than actually being a nation."

Then you say...
Nations always war with other nations, you think we WOULDN'T be doing that if we were all practically separate countries?

Which side of the argument are you postulating? Your train of logic is still in the switchyard.
Instead of being contrary just to make a post, why don't you think about what you are saying?
This seems to be a prevalent characterization of the prolific progressive posters here on Current. That and down rating everything you don't like, whether it's true or not seems to make no difference.

No, your problem is you're seeing contradictions where there are none.

Nations war with other nations, NOT WITH THEMSELVES. Therefore, when you have a nation, you won't have a war between Arizona and California, you'll have a war between the U.S. and somebody else, we'll say Mexico, while Arizona and California get along just fine.

In a state of disunity, you have a wars between OTHER nations AND THEMSELVES. A war between California and Texas and a war between those states and some other nation, we'll say Mexico again.

That was the whole fucking point, a unified unit doesn't commit war on itself. It DOES commit on other units which aren't in its unity. How is that an argument AGAINST disunity? DIsunified units fight both amongst themselves and against foreign enemies.

This is what you think according to your claim of contradiction. People fight other nations and not each other when unified, people fight each other and other nations when not unified, therefore, we should not be unified.

Don't talk to me about logic being in the switchyards, you didn't even bother to notice how ridiculous your own point is.

How you derived contradiction from this I cannot fathom. But it speaks levels about your reasoning ability if you look at two practically identical sentences and can't identify that they are, in fact, similar and not contradictory.

You were wrong, demonstrably, about it being a mistake to be a nation. You want to talk about being posting nonsense of making a point? You got it right here.

At this point, I'm only taking notice for the comedic value. These tangential arguments are indicative of a lack of focus.

For effeciency's sake, tell me which statement or thought you think I am getting wrong.
Your first statement..
"Yeah, because we'd be so much better in disunity, warring with each other like Greek or Balkan states over petty distinctions rather than actually being a nation." You are saying that you disagree with my statement because if we (the centralized united States) didn't centralize under a superior federal government we would be warring amongst ourselves (between the States...uh...1860?)

Your second statement...
"Nations always war with other nations, you think we WOULDN'T be doing that if we were all practically separate countries?" Which means that if we were joined under a centralized government or not, we would be at war with somebody. You don't know who, but your sure it would be someone. (Let me help with that. Google "US goes to war." I'll bet you get a clue. Or just buy a globe.)

IOW: It wouldn't make a difference whether we were a single nation or several States, we would be at war. So again I ask, which point are you arguing. We should be a nation that will be at war, or several States, who would be at war?

Are you trying to pull an Abbot and Costello?
This link is pure courtesy if you don't get the above question.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8342445135331678445#

You're not making a distinction between war among Americans and war against foreign peoples. That's my point. They're two completely different kinds of wars.

Without a Federal Government, you'd have California vs. Arizona. With it, you don't.

Without a Federal Government, you still have wars against foreign peoples, but you also war among yourselves.

Without the Federal Government, maybe Texas goes to war with Iraq while it's fighting Arizona for Zion to get the tourist income.

Plus, a war on domestic soil is pretty fucking different from attacking various nations overseas.

As for the civil war, well, that's what happens when you have a disunified people who suddenly think they don't have to follow the Federal Government anymore. Plus it's the exception, not the rule.

I mean, if you're a big fan of independent states, you're a big fan of the E.U. right? They're a perfect model of what the U.S. would look like had it never adopted a constitution and a Federal Government.

Whew. Where to start?

"You're not making a distinction between war among Americans and war against foreign peoples."

Without a usurping central government to shackle us together, we are all foreigners to each other. War is war. No distinction needs be made. But I give you an example of North & South Carolina. No fed gov, and no war to draw a line from the mountains to the beach.

I know you are cherry picking States without thought but I hope you realize that Cali & Ariz would most likely not be States. They were creations of the fed gov & if they did exist without it, I'm sure it would be a much different picture. Think about it, who would have bought Louisiana from the French without a empirically ambitious fed gov? You can take it from there, I hope.

The war of 1860 was over oppressive taxes, unfair economic sanctions and a lack of representation. Economics. Exactly like the war of 1775.

The EU is a centralizer. It is the anti-thesis of State Sovereignty. Just as is the NAU and the UN. The fact that you would not know that is really disparaging.

Certainly, you don't think that I hold the essay in the same manner that I would a historical reference? I do, however, enjoy reading about revolutionary ideas--one which was as Paine stated was having "the power to begin the world anew." News flash: The system's fucked and it's time Americans stand up for a better system--and that's going to involve revolutionary change.

Who the fuck is saying that I would want to turn back the clock to such a time? I am more than aware of each of the conditions you described.

On another note, have you ever read Edmund Morgan's "Inventing the People?"

No one is proposing that we return to any of the wretched things which you've described. No one, save for some naive anarchists, but I can't name you a Constitutionalist or Libertarian that prescribes to such a view.

The Constitution is not perfect, so few human contrivances are, but it is a pretty darn good one. One that, if we followed what it says, did not delude ourselves to it's true meanings, and actually reviewed our actions and laws with the Constitution in mind, we would have a far better country.

I don't think for a second that the state provides our freedom. Remember, "...we are endowed by our Creator with certain UNALIENABLE rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
We are not given our rights by anyone. We are born with them.

We have not strayed from, so called, "revolutionary" ideas, even as revolutionary as they might be. What we have strayed from are Constitutional ideas.

I believe Thomas Jefferson, my personal favorite of our founding fathers, said it best, "In questions of power, then let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

No one proposed it? This essay just did.

Not proactively of course, they obviously don't know about all of the things I just mentioned. But they're so clueless that they don't know that we are a lot further now than we ever were before.

That's right, even with warrant-less wire-tapping and the Patriot act, we are currently freer, in practice if not in theory, than we EVER have been.

Furthermore, the Constitution is a document which must be interpreted by definition, that's why it's not law, and can be changed. So having faith in the Constitution is meaningless.

Literally, four words give you the right to free speech, trial by jury and all of that other good shit. "Due process of law." If that clause wasn't in the 14th amendment, you'd have NO RIGHTS at all. Seriously. And if you can't see how "Due process of law" translates to "the Constitution should also apply to the states," then be fucking glad we don't interpret the thing literally, since plenty of it's that vague about essential freedoms.

What you really mean here is faith in Constitutional -values-.

But who's seriously NOT in favor of following the Constitution? I dare you to find me one person on this site who would openly advocate for it.

The problem isn't that American have strayed from the values, the problem is that our leaders have. And we really can't do shit about that until we elect new people in.

But even this claim is meaningless because no one AGREES on exactly what these values are. There are wildly different interpretations of the same text and most of them are not necessarily wrong.

Are you starting to see why this is all propaganda now? The demands insists on an interpretation of reality we know to be false with historical nostalgia to forward a specific ideological agenda.

Figure out what you want to do, that's what's important.

Saladin,
On what do you base this on? The sources for this article are Robert MiddleKauf, Gordon Wood, and a huge amount of studies done on the individuals at the time.

However you did say "The "Founders" were a group of about 40 men who couldn't agree on ANYTHING. And I'm not just talking Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist. Some of the "Founders" even wanted a king, that's how god damn divided they were" - this is very true, and though simplified - i did point it out in the article.

"nd then of course there was slavery! Good times. And the 3/5's clause counted slaves as 3/5's of a person for electoral vote counts, but they couldn't vote." - I have addressed this in other articles. You need to keep in mind that slavery was introduced into the colonies long before they ever thought about breaking away from England. I am a little offended that you call it complicated - it is not unless you fail to fully investigate it, and try putting one detail with higher priority then the other which you seem bent on.

"The "Founders'" vision for this country, the ones who weren't openly trying to sabotage it with a national bank anyway, DESIGNED our government so that we could MAKE UP OUR OWN DAMN MINDS." - wrong again, and i suggest once again that you do more homework. Barnes and noble is a good start.

"WE know how to fix this country, it isn't hard. Stop listening to mindless ideologues who read too much wikipedia for their own good." - Nowhere did I EVER use wiki as a reference.

Okay - by condemning wiki I guess you actually read a little.

You said "Does anyone remember the fucking alien and sedition acts? Does anyone remember Shay's Rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion? Remember that shit? You couldn't VOTE in those days if you weren't a wealthy, white man. And, prior to the Industrial Revolution, there were practically NO rich people! You were either a farmer or an apprentice to a trade and almost no one in those fields made any money. S congrats, you can't vote." - This comment is highlighting the events but not what led up to them and are highly misrepresenting of the whole story - once again - either study more, or address what went behind it before you point out anything as a proof.

So let me get this straight.

You've gone through each of my points, conceded that they were correct and then told me I need to go study more? Huh?

I don't need to address anything you've said then (besides one thing which I'll get to later). You, on the other hand, have a hell of a lot of explaining to do.

You're telling me you -knew- all these things were true and still wrote this? Then you knew you were starting from faulty premises to begin with. How could you be familiar with Gordon Wood and still think there is something back in '76 that we should pay attention to?

We're a completely superior country in completely superior times with completely superior understandings of how a Republic should work. I can count on my hands the number of ideas the "Founders" had that were superior to our own. Most of our amendments to the constitution have been spot on and have expanded freedom in a way the "Founders" never considered.

And if you know about Wood, I think it's fair to assume you know all that too!

So what is this even about? You're too smart to be positing this election-season crap. You know better, you know that our government has improved, if not in purity, then certainly in theory, since our birth.

Their style of government was flawed, both in practice and in principle. Our government is flawed as well, but in practice and not in principle. Your glossy-eyed treatment of the Articles of Confederation is criminal. It was protested by all when it came out and even its Founders didn't find it desirable. It was a disaster, it created a confederacy, not a country. It created Greek City states, not Rome. And by no means was the nation prospering. It was a backwater, relying primarily on trade to receive any wealth at all. Americans prided themselves on not being people of cities or wealth, agricultural values were the norm. It's why half of proverbs all refer to some farm activity.

We have everything we need today to make the kind of society we want, we just have a populace who's as intellectually bankrupt as their corrupt leaders.

The only thing you've said that I actually need to address is this.

"we could MAKE UP OUR OWN DAMN MINDS." - wrong again, and i suggest once again that you do more homework. Barnes and noble is a good start. "

You're telling me that our system of government was set up so that we -couldn't- do what we want? You're telling me that the architects of our early government insisted that the union they formed in that moment would remain identical until it collapsed?

You're talking about people who agreed with Locke and Rousseau, with the common rights of man. Tom Paine would go overseas to help with the French Revolution. We helped dozens of countries set up Democratic governments completely different from our own and we supported them.

Even if none of that were true, is it SUPERIOR to have a system of government that cannot respond to change rather than one which can? I don't understand this nitpick at all.

In fact, in light of the fact that you know all this crap, I don't understand -any- of your post. You're basically conceding how fucked up limited governments are and then turning around and arguing in their favor?

Let me just shorten this overly long post to a simple question, what is it about the early American government that you find desirable and why on Earth should we adopt it?

Strangely enough, I find myself pondering Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist #84--you know, the one addressing the subject of why the proposed constitution did not include a Bill of Rights. Perhaps Hamilton had it right that such agreements were only agreements between a king and subjects--revocable on a whim. That peoples' rights are infinite, and the Constitution was just a limitation of governmental power (yet we saw how Hamilton turned out).

I maintain that Mr. Shirk's essay, though, did not explore the history as much as the idea that the American colonies came to a conclusion, albeit reluctant, to break away from a former system and institute their own. It's about ideas.

Yeah, they tried those damned Articles of Confederation and the result was Shay's Rebellion...yada yada yada. Yeah, the Hamilton Funding and Assumption plan and the Whiskey Rebellion...yada yada yada. Yeah, the Jay Treaty and the Alien and Sedition Laws leading to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions....yada yada yada. Yeah...Article I, Section 2, Clause 1 and Section 9, Clause 1...we know what that was all about too.

It's quite safe to say that people on this thread have an understanding of historical facts. I don't think that turning a decent discussion about libertarian ideas should turn into some tirade of historical oneupmanship though.

The founders were human beings--arguing about the same type of shit that we're arguing about today. If you read Madison's notes of the Convention, there were arguments being made that a state of nature existed between the states--and I sure as hell don't need to point out Hamilton's proposal, do I?

I maintain, though, that this country needs some sort of revolutionary kick in the ass. A lot of people are looking for inspiration, and they're looking at our founders. And if I'm not mistaken, the people in the time of Augustus read people like Livy for an understanding of their origins.

Needless to say, I think that some good dialog regarding our nation's history is a good thing--just keep it somewhat civil. (even though the founders weren't (I recommend Joanne Freeman's "Affairs of Honor" for a little more insight to that)). I actually enjoy reading everyones' post on the subject.

However, it seems somewhat ridiculous to attempt to condense so much history and so many different philosophical ideas on a blog thread. With that being stated, I bid you a good evening.

Point taken, but it's not applicable.

If people are going to look back for ideas, then they ought to do the extra research to find out how well those ideas worked out.

If we do know that they sucked, why are we even considering them?

The ideas are wrong and we're lucky enough to have working examples of why, should we ignore that when we're discussing those ideas?

I don't think people NEED old ideas scotty. That's what I've been getting at. We KNOW what's wrong with our country and we KNOW how to fix it, even across ideological lines.

We're just not doing it, for whatever reason, probably because we're too individualistic to know how to organize effectively. And I think it's a criminal waste of time to look at ideas we know don't work and don't apply to our current problems, or even world, when we already know what it is we need to do to fix things.

I apologize first off for my wording - I highly misunderstood the point you were trying to make, and made the mistake of commenting when busy with other things. In truth , i agree with what you were saying - to be honest, I do not agree with the founders in all aspects myself either. Just to put us on the same sheet of music, my references include Revolutionary Characters - Whats Made the Founders Different, The Radicalism of the American Revolution, Empire of Liberty, The Glorious cause, Plato's Republic, some of Machiavelli's takes on republicanism, Rubicon- the Triumph and Tragedy of the Roman Republic, adn Rome and Her Enemies. Now I know that despite all this reading, that there is plenty more out there that I have not gotten a chance to read yet as I am only 1 guy. All of these works were read in their entirety and yes, it has taken me years to accomplish that - and that is only the tip of the iceberg as you well know.
My points in the article were about ideals - looking for a better way to live. As scott so aptly pointed out - and was not met to convey any absolutes on any line of that - I think we can both agree that is idiocy. As to my other readings that guide my thoughts on what happens when all this comes to pass are those by historians like Alistair Horne, who address the events in discussion in great detail.
Finally, I know all to well how much was ommitted in this article - you and i both know that you cannot possibly capture in a mere 4 page article what historians spend thousands of pages on. The reason I wrote about what i did and why is that the points I did hit are those I never here discussed - anywhere outside of the libertarian sphere. We all know about slavery and compromise by government and people alike - and I assumed that anyone reading this would already know all that, and put it into perspective. Yes Jefferson was a liberal in his personal life - and often pushed to have some of those ideals pushed into government. Yes I have heard of Jeffersons democracy, and even read entire chapter on it - and i have learned that his ideals on a democracy are far differant then how democracy is seen today. And as long as we're at it, I would like to point out that Madison, Adams, and Jefferson alike felt that government was only the solution when people could not govern themselves - a point I would never argue. What I was arguing though, is that this is hardly the case. A people that are lied to and taken advantage of will waste countless hours of otherwise productive time sorting through the mess to find what a responsible course of action should be. So far, our government has been less then honest in its dealings assuming that people are to damn stupid and irresponsible to do it themselves. Problem is that if that is indeed true, and those people can vote - what other outcome can there be then a collective nation of idiots?
We both want the same thing - a better world - and I readily admit that I am hardly the be all end all of the mess. I was seeking input hoping to see something new and in context that could help solve all this. You sound like a smart person, and well read - this being the case, let me ask you - what do you think the solution is?

I never liked it or agreed with it - I am sorry I left that out of the article. Nor in the article did i say that we should return to it. All I pointed out was that if a people are to have a government by their own wishes - then the smaller and more limited the better. Truth is that I would love to see a world where people can live their own lives according to their needs without infringement. Yes every society changes and is dynamic - I have said that on countless of occasions as well. I have also said many times over that failing to adapt to such changes is not a good thing. yet the point I was really driving at was that we are not trying anything today that has not already been done before, and what a new way can be found - just not with the conditions we live under now.
I am not sure if you agree or disagree with that, but if you do, I sure would like to know why, and where I missed something.

Oh yeah - Thomas Paine did indeed go to France - and was later thrown in jail for his views and stubborn refusal to adapt to their ways of life. he only got released when he decided that America was indeed the country he would stay in - and no, he was not an athiest.

The solution depends on which problems are bothering you the most, I made an incredibly long post about this a while back to somebody when he asked what I thought we should do. Rather than re-do that post in new words, I'm going to copy and paste it. It's a rough idea nad it needs work, but it's a start.

It's really long, so in case you don't want to read it, here's the jist. We need massive reform of government at all levels. We need to reassess government priorities, expanding its role in some places and limiting in others. We need massive economic reform with far less of an emphasis on free trade and far more of an emphasis on autonomy and exports. We need to end the American Empire and recede our ridiculous defense budget. We need to get rid of corporate corruption of government at any cost. But most of all, we need a populace of people who aren't bought off by toys and intellectually useless.

That said, here's the long version, part 1.

"I wish there was a short, easy answer to that but, there really isn't. Prepare for a long post with some very harsh truths.

The thing is, the kind of reforms we need are easily -listed-, but practically impossible to implement. We need some kind of constitutional amendment that publicly funds elections, sets up mandated airtime for all candidates, forbids private money from being involved and severely punishes bribery and other lobbyist nonsense that goes on in D.C.

You also need massive reform of Government itself, the senate should just be completely eliminated, along with the filibuster. We should only have the house making majority decisions which can only be overruled by a veto. Supreme Court nominations need to not be for life, this causes too much trouble, especially with all of their recent decisions. The executive needs to give up a lot of his power since, with the war on terror, he now has a frightening amount of power. They could, tomorrow, arrest you and hold you indefinitely, on no charges, with no ability to question your detainment and then rendition you to a foreign country to be tortured.

There needs to be major corporate reform as well. The first thing that needs to be done is just a comprehensive review of all regulatory agencies and pretty much cleaning house on anyone who doesn't belong, like lobbyist appointees. Some people have suggested getting rid of corporate personhood, but the real problem is corporate -privilege-, some of which stems from C.P. but plenty of it is just established practice in Washington. An example, BP will NOT have to pay for all the damage caused by this spill because they have what's called a "liability cap" which means they only have to pay a certain amount and then the government pays for the rest. This is what allowed them to drill out there in the first place, otherwise it would be too risky. That should be stopped wherever possible. The government should NOT subsidize shitty behavior. It's classic American capitalism, privatize the gains and socialize the losses. The bailouts were the same kind of behavior, it's very common.

Free trade needs to end, now. It's been a disastrous failure that has fucked up the whole globe to make a few financial interests and corporations mega-rich while impoverishing everyone else. It's a really complicated issue, but basically they shipped all our jobs overseas and gave us credit cards to buy their stupid shit with instead. This is one of the greatest structural weaknesses in the American economy right now. We have been on a steady decline since we started doing it and it's not going to get any better, it needs to be gotten rid of somehow.

Some people have suggested ending the Fed, as by its very nature it is an organization that encourages fraud on a scale that you literally would not believe. This is a very radical move, I don't know if I support it. But it definitely does need to be, at least, reigned in and audited frequently. Why it exists as an independent entity free from scrutiny, I can't say, but that needs to change.

And, there's no question about it, our Empire has got to go. We cannot afford to be paying for this pathetic, bloated, Cold War-era military to fight enemies that, if they exist, we created with this same military. The wars need to end and the military budget has to be cut in half, at -least-. What most people don't realize is that our massive military doesn't protect us, wars aren't fought like that anymore. We have 20,000 nuclear weapons, no one could ever possibly invade us and hope to exist much longer. No, the military budget is a massive welfare program for the

These are just some things off the top of my head, there's probably more, but they aren't the real problem.

The real problem is that our society is corrupt as shit, filled with morons, greedy beyond any rational justification and made complacent by silly toys and arbitrary laws. We have become a nation of observers, who watch the corruption in government but are convinced that we have no business doing anything about it., we want someone to do it for us. The problem is that the electoral system is obviously flawed in all the ways listed above, which means working with the government directly won't work on its own. The problem is, people in this country are way too individualistic, way too apathetic and way too suspicious of one another. So they'll never organize in any meaningful way. This has been a huge problem throughout U.S. history but it has gotten especially bad in the last few decades.

To put it frankly, our system is set up right now to ensure we have all of these wonderful toys that most of the rest of the world cannot afford to have. And we can only do this because of all these corrupt systems I've listed above. To change those, you need to change our culture. And therein lies the problem."

"
Americans are too fat and happy, they'll never do any of those things. If an American had to choose between fixing their government or giving up their tv forever, which one do you think they would choose? We're in not in a position to demand anything because no matter how angry we are, we're not angry enough to give up that which makes us complacent.

But even if that weren't true, we still don't have a very good shot. The real issue is corporate domination in government. Money is too big and too powerful and it's backed by a government which is immensely strong. So even if we weren't a bunch of stupid loners and we could organize massive strikes against them, they'd have no qualms about repressing us. The business of America in the modern era is, well, business. We have become a society overwhelmingly focused on money making and not society building. Much like the American who would rather watch tv then give it up to fix his government, corporations and financial institutions would rather burn the world to the ground then have their position in life change. And, believe me, if you pay attention, they're doing that.

The sad truth is cb, we probably WON'T fix our government. Things are probably going to get worse and worse and worse, in small, but important increments. Soon it will just become normal for corporations to fuck people over and for environmental catastrophes to go unanswered. Our government will be broke and so will all the programs like schools, medicare, etc. that we depend on. Anger will probably result in violence, but meaningless pointless violence like that guy who flew his plane into the IRS building. This will probably lead to crackdowns by the government which will split the populace in two, making the left/right divide even worse. The economy won't improve, at least not substantially. And you'll have to work hard and harder and harder just to stay in place, not improve.

Much like the collapse of the Roman Empire, things are just falling apart at the seams. Sure, there are things that could fix us but it's our society that's sick. if that doesn't change then it won't even matter if we fix our government because the problems won't go away.

To be honest, this is probably the decline of the American Empire. 40 years from now, we'll still be around, but we'll be a bloated, pathetic country with a bunch of fucked up problems, just like any rich but corrupt country in the world. kind of like how Russia or Britain is right now. Sure, they scrape along, but it's nothing compared to what they used to be.

I hope that was helpful, and you're a patient person if you actually read all of that. But if you really are serious about fixing things, this is what I think needs to be done."

word. . . 1 or 2 things that I have variances with. . . yet very well said.

Now see, how can that be?

I'm one of those commie, world-destroying progressive types you hate so much.

Could it be that we actually have much more in common than our social groups allow us to admit. Why didn't we need some kind of reflective American past-time like this article suggested to agree on these things?

When I actually find people who I'm supposed to disagree with, like conservatives, I find that if we actually discuss the important issues we don't actually disagree about many things. It's just how the issue is framed and where our biases lie.

If most Americans agree with what I just said, and recent polls expressing disfavor with the recent rule on corporate spending from the Supreme Court (70%, 75%, 80% against, with Rep, Indep, and Dem. parties respectively) suggest that they do, why the fuck isn't it being done?

We spend all this time arguing about Obama or Bush, and I do think one of them is clearly objectively worse. But who cares right? Isn't there something deeper that we ALL DO agree on?

Fuck the tea party or the coffee party or the Libertarians or the Socialists or the Democrats or the Republicans. Fuck abortion or the death penalty or the war or Israel or any of those other partisan issues.

There is CLEARLY an imperative to fix this country that the vast majority of us agree on. Keep that in mind when you're talking to someone from the opposing camp, dumb or smart. Try to find common ground.

Because fuck, whether racist right or PC left is worse, whether Corporatist Conservative or Welfare Liberal is worse, ALL of us agree on at least SOME things that MUST be fixed if this country is going to retain its greatness for at least a few more decades.

Lemme know what you think.

Actually, it's a pretty insightful essay. Too bad you can't see past your own ignorance of the subject.

Even if it is a great essay, which I doubt, it does not belong in news. To post it as news is disrespectful to the community.

Well that's for the community to decide..... aren't you the one that's all about voting?!? Why all the hatred for democracy now? You obviously disagree with all those who voted this article up.

Come on dude, you know this shit is not news - just because your little gang of libertarian wing nuts sock puppet some garbage from your pathetic web site doesn't make it news.

Why do you keep making non- news posts to the news group? Don't you know you alienate and drive away legitimate community members by constantly abusing the site?

But it's news, and perfectly acceptable to post, if one of your friends posts some blog article or youtube or whatever. I think you're being totally unfair.

It is not news. How can you honestly claim this is news?

I know that you like it, and you think it is great and want everyone to read it and join your libertarian cause - but that does not make it news.

I think you are smart enough to know better, and I wonder why you continue to make such an obviously false assertion.

Most of the stories posted here aren't news--and this one even says "Not News." I don't see you making such a big issue if it's an op-ed from the Huffington Post or Politico. Lighten up. There's plenty of room for coexistence and a friendly exchange of ideas.

We're not racists. We're not hatemongers. Nor are we professing any of that bullshit here. For the most part, everyone here seems to get along fine.

It says "Not News" because staff pulled it out of the news group.

An Op Ed or an opinion piece is fine, as long as it is actually related to the news. This is not.

Alex can be a great whistleblower at times, but he's also a pretty out there and I'm not certain on all his sources. Peace ScottyT

Yeah, Alex Jones can be a little out there sometimes. But I like what he's been saying as of late--especially with regards to our economy.