Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Founding Fathers and Government Size

royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 7:48:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Often, conservatives claim that the US government was founded upon the principles of minarchy. The the Framers' actions would indicate otherwise, however. Adams used the Aliens and Sedition Act to stifle freedom of speech. Washington put down anti-government rebellions and taxed the people more heavily than they were taxed under the British. All of the early presidents used the army to steal land that belonged to the Native Americans. The Framers were also Masons, and rather than use the funds they secured through taxes responsibly or on reducing the suffering of the indigent, they opted to construct monuments, such as statues and paintings of Washington becoming a god and secret tunnels under the Capitol building. In what sense were the Framers libertarians who supported responsible governmental action?
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 9:16:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 7:48:26 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Often, conservatives claim that the US government was founded upon the principles of minarchy. The the Framers' actions would indicate otherwise, however. Adams used the Aliens and Sedition Act to stifle freedom of speech. Washington put down anti-government rebellions and taxed the people more heavily than they were taxed under the British. All of the early presidents used the army to steal land that belonged to the Native Americans. The Framers were also Masons, and rather than use the funds they secured through taxes responsibly or on reducing the suffering of the indigent, they opted to construct monuments, such as statues and paintings of Washington becoming a god and secret tunnels under the Capitol building. In what sense were the Framers libertarians who supported responsible governmental action?:

Never. When you find out what all this means then you'll be learning. Look up what the Masons actually believe and practice.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 11:41:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 7:48:26 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Often, conservatives claim that the US government was founded upon the principles of minarchy.

I don't think I've ever heard any Conservative ever use the word "Minarchy." In fact, I bet 99% of the Conservatives in the entire nation have never uttered the word "Minarchy." LOL!

The the Framers' actions would indicate otherwise, however. Adams used the Aliens and Sedition Act to stifle freedom of speech.

We don't need fascist Hitlers running around forming militias to take over the U.S. and destroy freedom.

One thing is not permitted in freedom: non-freedom.

Washington put down anti-government rebellions

Yeah, get violent anti-Constitutionalists outta here.

and taxed the people more heavily than they were taxed under the British.

Probably because the new government needed a quick boost to get rolling. Even businesses needed large lumpsums to begin operating.

All of the early presidents used the army to steal land that belonged to the Native Americans.

Native Americans didn't own land. They don't believe in land ownership.

The Framers were also Masons,

They were also whistleblowers. George Washington wrote a letter warning against the Illuminati hoping that it didn't reach the United States.

and rather than use the funds they secured through taxes responsibly or on reducing the suffering of the indigent, they opted to construct monuments, such as statues and paintings of Washington becoming a god and secret tunnels under the Capitol building. In what sense were the Framers libertarians who supported responsible governmental action?

Rubbish.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 1:36:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 11:41:25 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

The the Framers' actions would indicate otherwise, however. Adams used the Aliens and Sedition Act to stifle freedom of speech.

We don't need fascist Hitlers running around forming militias to take over the U.S. and destroy freedom.

One thing is not permitted in freedom: non-freedom.

I thought you were a proponent of the 2nd amendment???

Are you anti-gun all of a sudden???

That seems anti-freedom.

Washington put down anti-government rebellions

Yeah, get violent anti-Constitutionalists outta here.


Violent pro-Constitutionalists?

and taxed the people more heavily than they were taxed under the British.

Probably because the new government needed a quick boost to get rolling. Even businesses needed large lumpsums to begin operating.

That's true. The baby US was broke and desperately trying to pay off all the treaties it entered into prior. But, it was Congress that levied the taxes, not Washington.

All of the early presidents used the army to steal land that belonged to the Native Americans.

Native Americans didn't own land. They don't believe in land ownership.

That's not true. There are some (many, in fact) which do.

The Framers were also Masons,

They were also whistleblowers. George Washington wrote a letter warning against the Illuminati hoping that it didn't reach the United States.

and rather than use the funds they secured through taxes responsibly or on reducing the suffering of the indigent, they opted to construct monuments, such as statues and paintings of Washington becoming a god and secret tunnels under the Capitol building. In what sense were the Framers libertarians who supported responsible governmental action?

Rubbish.

It's not, actually. There is a bust of Washington that he commissioned which is 100% accurate +/- 3 millimeters. The early Americans were some weird dudes. All smart people left to their own devices are.

Plus, Washington and Franklin were late converts to US independence. Washington wanted to be in the British Army and Franklin, until just before the revolution, always envisioned Philadelphia as the capital of The New British Empire.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/5/2013 3:20:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Compare the size of the modern state with the size of the state in the early days of the USA.

As a share of GDP, it is about 10 times larger today (actually more). The founders were, for the most part, believers in free enterprise. Jefferson was a fan of Adam Smith's work. They created a society with a small state that did not interfere much with private activity.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 12:27:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 3:20:50 PM, BigRat wrote:
Compare the size of the modern state with the size of the state in the early days of the USA.

As a share of GDP, it is about 10 times larger today (actually more). The founders were, for the most part, believers in free enterprise. Jefferson was a fan of Adam Smith's work. They created a society with a small state that did not interfere much with private activity.

You are a massive idiot, did you know that?

The founding father that you want to be citing here is Alexander Hamilton. He was the guy who advocated as you do.

Hamilton"s dream of national greatness depended on the United States developing a strong economy. In 1790, the nation"s economy was still based mainly on agriculture. Hamilton wanted to expand the economy and increase the nation"s wealth by using the power of the federal government to promote business, manufacturing, and trade.

In 1790, Hamilton presented Congress with a plan to pay off all war debts as quickly as possible. If the debts were not promptly paid, he warned, the government would lose respect both at home and abroad.

Hamilton"s plan for repaying the debts was opposed by many Americans, especially in the South. Most southern states had already paid their war debts. They saw little reason to help states in the North pay off what they still owed.


Jefferson, on the other hand, had different ideas about how the economy should work.

Like most Americans in the 1790s, Jefferson was a country man. He believed that the nation"s future lay not with Federalist bankers and merchants, but with plain, Democratic-Republican farm folk. "Those who labor in the earth," he wrote, "are the chosen people of God, if ever He had a chosen people."

Democratic-Republicans favored an economy based on agriculture. They opposed any measures designed to encourage the growth of business and manufacturing. (to make something into a product using raw materials)


http://mrkash.com...

I think this is a site that some 6th grade teacher put together, so I apologize for the simplicity with which it is all presented, but sh!t, man...if you understood any less about economics and civics, I'd have to believe you were comatose. For you, the 6th grade level is where we gotta start.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 1:47:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I am so tired from Calculus, so I will let Molyneux speak for me about the dangers of minarchy/American classical liberalism.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 2:44:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2013 1:47:13 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:


I am so tired from Calculus, so I will let Molyneux speak for me about the dangers of minarchy/American classical liberalism.

OK...This guy is an idiot. Here's what he has completely (purposely?) omitted from his argument (not that I'm necessarily an advocate for minarchism, but still...):

1. The US Federal Government was small when it was created because ALL GOVERNMENTS are small when we're talking about a new nation, and especially one which has been the subject of another nation, AND EVEN MORE ESPECIALLY one which has been the subject of another nation, and even as subordinates of that other sovereign, hasn't been in existence for very long.

The US Federal Government, in its origin, was small because it had to be.

Madison, who wrote the bulk of the Constitution, including all 10 of the amendments in the original Bill of Rights, was a FEDERALIST. He believed in a strong Federal Government. He simply believed that there was enough power in the states to check the power of the Federal Government. And, for quite some time, he was right. Now, not so much, BUT the founding fathers knew that the nation they created wouldn't last forever. Jefferson predicted that things would fall apart in 400 years. He was half right...it took 200.

Yes, there were also Anti-Federalists, but guess what? They lost, and they lost from the moment our nation was formed, because their goal was to stop ratification of the Constitution.

You f*cking Libertarians have no g0ddam clue what this country is supposed to be because you never bothered to look into it. You have some notion from your High School History textbooks, and you've extrapolated the rest despite understanding none of it, nor bothering to look into it to challenge your beliefs with actual knowledge.

2. The free market didn't create the massive wealth in the country, WW2 did.


Now, before you even say it, YES, WAR DESTROYS WEALTH, HOWEVER, this was a WORLD WAR, so while the world's wealth was crushed, The US's wealth, as the only industrialized nation of any import not directly involved in the conflict within our homeland, less the minor exception of the Pearl Harbor incident, had a massive increase because of that war.

Why?

Well, because the rest of the industrialized world was in ruins, and they certainly didn't want to remain that way, so they had to rebuild. As the only supplier of...well...EVERYTHING they needed to rebuild, they all came a knockin' at our door for, EVERYTHING.

As this was occurring, we were accumulating the wealth these nations had remaining in reserve and distributing it such that innovation took place and the era of consumer electronics and leisure devices was born...and once these nations rebuilt, they wanted that sh!t as well, so they came to us for it after coming to us for everything else.

And then, a funny thing happened on the way to the new millennium - now that they've rebuilt, and have our Mr. Coffee machines and McDonald's franchises, and we quit innovating and wasted the money as if the gravy train was going to last forever, they aren't coming to us for everything any longer...because we are no longer the monopolistic suppliers of everything to everyone in the world.

But, if you don't believe me, look at this chart of GDP from start to present in The US.

http://visualeconsite.s3.amazonaws.com...

Notice the trend? If not, you're blind, or need some Coke-bottle glasses at the very least.

3. War

HOWEVER, we do still have all that military might left, so even though we are declining economically, worldwide (yes, we are still the #1 economy, but in nowhere near as dominating a fashion as we were previously), we can assert power and hold on to "the good ol' days" by kicking anyone's @ss who tries to stop us from shoving Big Macs and Krispy Kremes down our gullets.

We are at the end stage of an empire, and this is what every empire in decline does. It's what Rome did, it's what England did, it's what the Mongols did, and it's what we're doing...because humans, as a collective, are f*cking stupid.

One thing he did get right - yeah, we can "destroy the world" (though, he's kinda wrong here as well...the world will remain...we just have the ability to destroy all of the life on it).

And, that's the scary part, because an empire will do everything it can at the end to not fall completely, and everything we can do is ruin the planet for all life for the next 100,000 years.

4. When all of this happens, the citizens are suppose to kick a little @ss and take back their government.


That, of course, will never happen in this generation, because obviously, all the "best thinkers", assuming the people here represent that, are apathetic, selfish know-nothings.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 3:07:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Just since 1980, as a percentage of real GDP, the US economy has gone from 22% of the world's aggregate GDP to 20%, and the trend line isn't encouraging...

http://upload.wikimedia.org...

But, hey...we're not f*ckin' up as badly as Europe, right? I'm sure that's some measure of consolation.

http://wallstreetpit.com...

We have the world's largest economy, and we're f*cking squandering it. (and, not through taxes)
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 1:10:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
These arguments or points about the founders are really only of historical interest to me. Obviously there were a variety of opinions among the founders and ultimately the force of their ideas comes from their arguments not their status as founders. Still, political theory and political philosophy have made advances and many of their views and ideas need to be re-evaluated in light of these.

Even if all of them believed in minarchy it wouldn't push me towards the view than the US ought to be one.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 1:11:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2013 12:27:15 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/5/2013 3:20:50 PM, BigRat wrote:
Compare the size of the modern state with the size of the state in the early days of the USA.

As a share of GDP, it is about 10 times larger today (actually more). The founders were, for the most part, believers in free enterprise. Jefferson was a fan of Adam Smith's work. They created a society with a small state that did not interfere much with private activity.

You are a massive idiot, did you know that?

The founding father that you want to be citing here is Alexander Hamilton. He was the guy who advocated as you do.

Hamilton"s dream of national greatness depended on the United States developing a strong economy. In 1790, the nation"s economy was still based mainly on agriculture. Hamilton wanted to expand the economy and increase the nation"s wealth by using the power of the federal government to promote business, manufacturing, and trade.

In 1790, Hamilton presented Congress with a plan to pay off all war debts as quickly as possible. If the debts were not promptly paid, he warned, the government would lose respect both at home and abroad.

Hamilton"s plan for repaying the debts was opposed by many Americans, especially in the South. Most southern states had already paid their war debts. They saw little reason to help states in the North pay off what they still owed.


Jefferson, on the other hand, had different ideas about how the economy should work.

Like most Americans in the 1790s, Jefferson was a country man. He believed that the nation"s future lay not with Federalist bankers and merchants, but with plain, Democratic-Republican farm folk. "Those who labor in the earth," he wrote, "are the chosen people of God, if ever He had a chosen people."

Democratic-Republicans favored an economy based on agriculture. They opposed any measures designed to encourage the growth of business and manufacturing. (to make something into a product using raw materials)


http://mrkash.com...

I think this is a site that some 6th grade teacher put together, so I apologize for the simplicity with which it is all presented, but sh!t, man...if you understood any less about economics and civics, I'd have to believe you were comatose. For you, the 6th grade level is where we gotta start.

Wow. You are quite snarky. And, the funny part is that you make snarky comments right before saying things that are very stupid.

First off, you say that "Alexander Hamilton advocates what you do". And, they you go on to explain how Hamilton wanted an active government that actively helped business.

Again, wow. I literally said that Jefferson wanted Free enterprise where the government stayed out of the economy. Which is true. He opposed Hamilton who supported more intervention.

So, yes, what I said before was, literally, exactly right.

I don't think you realize how stupid you look when you tell someone how stupid they are for saying things that are true right before saying ridiculously ignorant things yourself.

Everything I said above was 100% true... and you were the one who got it all wrong.

I remember this exact same thing happened when you confused total government spending and just federal spending which also involved some snarky comments about "libertarians just ignore facts". Of course, people pointed out that you were making an elementary error.

In summary, making snarky comments and being the pot calling the kettle black doesn't make your stupid comments any less so.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 1:14:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2013 3:07:25 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
Just since 1980, as a percentage of real GDP, the US economy has gone from 22% of the world's aggregate GDP to 20%, and the trend line isn't encouraging...

http://upload.wikimedia.org...

But, hey...we're not f*ckin' up as badly as Europe, right? I'm sure that's some measure of consolation.

http://wallstreetpit.com...

We have the world's largest economy, and we're f*cking squandering it. (and, not through taxes)

Look how Euope's excessive taxes and regulations led to their relative decline.

In our case, it is amazing that there is so little decline.

If you understood economic theory (which you don't as you have shown before), you would know about convergence. All else equal, poorer countries grow faster than richer countries.

The fact that we are declining so little while Europe is so much shows how much better of a model we have had than Europe... Yet, we keep on marching towards Europe's failed model.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 1:29:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2013 1:10:17 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Even if all of them believed in minarchy it wouldn't push me towards the view than the US ought to be one.

The Founders were ultra-brilliant replicants equipped with cutting-edge AI who also had necromantic powers. These authorities who are incredibly trained and educated on the subject in discussion reached a consensus, creating a strong argument from authority. See below for details.

Q: If people cannot be trusted to govern themselves, then how can they be trusted to govern other people?
A: Through the magic of government! That's why they wrote it up on unicorn hide with the blood of a leprechaun.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 2:20:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2013 1:11:05 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/6/2013 12:27:15 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/5/2013 3:20:50 PM, BigRat wrote:
Compare the size of the modern state with the size of the state in the early days of the USA.

As a share of GDP, it is about 10 times larger today (actually more). The founders were, for the most part, believers in free enterprise. Jefferson was a fan of Adam Smith's work. They created a society with a small state that did not interfere much with private activity.

You are a massive idiot, did you know that?

The founding father that you want to be citing here is Alexander Hamilton. He was the guy who advocated as you do.

Hamilton"s dream of national greatness depended on the United States developing a strong economy. In 1790, the nation"s economy was still based mainly on agriculture. Hamilton wanted to expand the economy and increase the nation"s wealth by using the power of the federal government to promote business, manufacturing, and trade.

In 1790, Hamilton presented Congress with a plan to pay off all war debts as quickly as possible. If the debts were not promptly paid, he warned, the government would lose respect both at home and abroad.

Hamilton"s plan for repaying the debts was opposed by many Americans, especially in the South. Most southern states had already paid their war debts. They saw little reason to help states in the North pay off what they still owed.


Jefferson, on the other hand, had different ideas about how the economy should work.

Like most Americans in the 1790s, Jefferson was a country man. He believed that the nation"s future lay not with Federalist bankers and merchants, but with plain, Democratic-Republican farm folk. "Those who labor in the earth," he wrote, "are the chosen people of God, if ever He had a chosen people."

Democratic-Republicans favored an economy based on agriculture. They opposed any measures designed to encourage the growth of business and manufacturing. (to make something into a product using raw materials)


http://mrkash.com...

I think this is a site that some 6th grade teacher put together, so I apologize for the simplicity with which it is all presented, but sh!t, man...if you understood any less about economics and civics, I'd have to believe you were comatose. For you, the 6th grade level is where we gotta start.



Wow. You are quite snarky. And, the funny part is that you make snarky comments right before saying things that are very stupid.

First off, you say that "Alexander Hamilton advocates what you do". And, they you go on to explain how Hamilton wanted an active government that actively helped business.

Again, wow. I literally said that Jefferson wanted Free enterprise where the government stayed out of the economy. Which is true. He opposed Hamilton who supported more intervention.

So, yes, what I said before was, literally, exactly right.

I don't think you realize how stupid you look when you tell someone how stupid they are for saying things that are true right before saying ridiculously ignorant things yourself.

Everything I said above was 100% true... and you were the one who got it all wrong.

I remember this exact same thing happened when you confused total government spending and just federal spending which also involved some snarky comments about "libertarians just ignore facts". Of course, people pointed out that you were making an elementary error.

In summary, making snarky comments and being the pot calling the kettle black doesn't make your stupid comments any less so.

You - Jefferson was a fan of Adam Smith's work. They created a society with a small state that did not interfere much with private activity.

Truth - They opposed any measures designed to encourage the growth of business and manufacturing. (to make something into a product using raw materials)

Snark - you're a retard
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 4:00:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2013 2:20:29 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/6/2013 1:11:05 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/6/2013 12:27:15 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/5/2013 3:20:50 PM, BigRat wrote:
Compare the size of the modern state with the size of the state in the early days of the USA.

As a share of GDP, it is about 10 times larger today (actually more). The founders were, for the most part, believers in free enterprise. Jefferson was a fan of Adam Smith's work. They created a society with a small state that did not interfere much with private activity.

You are a massive idiot, did you know that?

The founding father that you want to be citing here is Alexander Hamilton. He was the guy who advocated as you do.

Hamilton"s dream of national greatness depended on the United States developing a strong economy. In 1790, the nation"s economy was still based mainly on agriculture. Hamilton wanted to expand the economy and increase the nation"s wealth by using the power of the federal government to promote business, manufacturing, and trade.

In 1790, Hamilton presented Congress with a plan to pay off all war debts as quickly as possible. If the debts were not promptly paid, he warned, the government would lose respect both at home and abroad.

Hamilton"s plan for repaying the debts was opposed by many Americans, especially in the South. Most southern states had already paid their war debts. They saw little reason to help states in the North pay off what they still owed.


Jefferson, on the other hand, had different ideas about how the economy should work.

Like most Americans in the 1790s, Jefferson was a country man. He believed that the nation"s future lay not with Federalist bankers and merchants, but with plain, Democratic-Republican farm folk. "Those who labor in the earth," he wrote, "are the chosen people of God, if ever He had a chosen people."

Democratic-Republicans favored an economy based on agriculture. They opposed any measures designed to encourage the growth of business and manufacturing. (to make something into a product using raw materials)


http://mrkash.com...

I think this is a site that some 6th grade teacher put together, so I apologize for the simplicity with which it is all presented, but sh!t, man...if you understood any less about economics and civics, I'd have to believe you were comatose. For you, the 6th grade level is where we gotta start.



Wow. You are quite snarky. And, the funny part is that you make snarky comments right before saying things that are very stupid.

First off, you say that "Alexander Hamilton advocates what you do". And, they you go on to explain how Hamilton wanted an active government that actively helped business.

Again, wow. I literally said that Jefferson wanted Free enterprise where the government stayed out of the economy. Which is true. He opposed Hamilton who supported more intervention.

So, yes, what I said before was, literally, exactly right.

I don't think you realize how stupid you look when you tell someone how stupid they are for saying things that are true right before saying ridiculously ignorant things yourself.

Everything I said above was 100% true... and you were the one who got it all wrong.

I remember this exact same thing happened when you confused total government spending and just federal spending which also involved some snarky comments about "libertarians just ignore facts". Of course, people pointed out that you were making an elementary error.

In summary, making snarky comments and being the pot calling the kettle black doesn't make your stupid comments any less so.

You - Jefferson was a fan of Adam Smith's work. They created a society with a small state that did not interfere much with private activity.

Truth - They opposed any measures designed to encourage the growth of business and manufacturing. (to make something into a product using raw materials)

Snark - you're a retard

How stupid could you be?

The two things you wrote are totally consistent with each other.

As I said, nothing I said was wrong.

The fact that you think something you have said somehow contradicts something I said shows how stupid you are.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 4:05:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 11:41:25 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/5/2013 7:48:26 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Often, conservatives claim that the US government was founded upon the principles of minarchy.

I don't think I've ever heard any Conservative ever use the word "Minarchy." In fact, I bet 99% of the Conservatives in the entire nation have never uttered the word "Minarchy." LOL!

The the Framers' actions would indicate otherwise, however. Adams used the Aliens and Sedition Act to stifle freedom of speech.

We don't need fascist Hitlers running around forming militias to take over the U.S. and destroy freedom.

One thing is not permitted in freedom: non-freedom.

What? Insurrection is what built America, "When the government violates the people's rights, insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensable of duties." -Marquis de Lafayette-


Washington put down anti-government rebellions

Yeah, get violent anti-Constitutionalists outta here.

... Yes, all people who were against the early gov't were against the constitution. What about those that rioted and took down the central banks?

and taxed the people more heavily than they were taxed under the British.

Probably because the new government needed a quick boost to get rolling. Even businesses needed large lumpsums to begin operating.

No, the difference is in US gov't they were represented in gov't., under the British gov't they weren't

All of the early presidents used the army to steal land that belonged to the Native Americans.

Native Americans didn't own land. They don't believe in land ownership.

+1

The Framers were also Masons,

They were also whistleblowers. George Washington wrote a letter warning against the Illuminati hoping that it didn't reach the United States.

and rather than use the funds they secured through taxes responsibly or on reducing the suffering of the indigent, they opted to construct monuments, such as statues and paintings of Washington becoming a god and secret tunnels under the Capitol building. In what sense were the Framers libertarians who supported responsible governmental action?

Rubbish.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 4:50:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2013 4:00:00 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/6/2013 2:20:29 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/6/2013 1:11:05 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/6/2013 12:27:15 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/5/2013 3:20:50 PM, BigRat wrote:
Compare the size of the modern state with the size of the state in the early days of the USA.

As a share of GDP, it is about 10 times larger today (actually more). The founders were, for the most part, believers in free enterprise. Jefferson was a fan of Adam Smith's work. They created a society with a small state that did not interfere much with private activity.

You are a massive idiot, did you know that?

The founding father that you want to be citing here is Alexander Hamilton. He was the guy who advocated as you do.

Hamilton"s dream of national greatness depended on the United States developing a strong economy. In 1790, the nation"s economy was still based mainly on agriculture. Hamilton wanted to expand the economy and increase the nation"s wealth by using the power of the federal government to promote business, manufacturing, and trade.

In 1790, Hamilton presented Congress with a plan to pay off all war debts as quickly as possible. If the debts were not promptly paid, he warned, the government would lose respect both at home and abroad.

Hamilton"s plan for repaying the debts was opposed by many Americans, especially in the South. Most southern states had already paid their war debts. They saw little reason to help states in the North pay off what they still owed.


Jefferson, on the other hand, had different ideas about how the economy should work.

Like most Americans in the 1790s, Jefferson was a country man. He believed that the nation"s future lay not with Federalist bankers and merchants, but with plain, Democratic-Republican farm folk. "Those who labor in the earth," he wrote, "are the chosen people of God, if ever He had a chosen people."

Democratic-Republicans favored an economy based on agriculture. They opposed any measures designed to encourage the growth of business and manufacturing. (to make something into a product using raw materials)


http://mrkash.com...

I think this is a site that some 6th grade teacher put together, so I apologize for the simplicity with which it is all presented, but sh!t, man...if you understood any less about economics and civics, I'd have to believe you were comatose. For you, the 6th grade level is where we gotta start.



Wow. You are quite snarky. And, the funny part is that you make snarky comments right before saying things that are very stupid.

First off, you say that "Alexander Hamilton advocates what you do". And, they you go on to explain how Hamilton wanted an active government that actively helped business.

Again, wow. I literally said that Jefferson wanted Free enterprise where the government stayed out of the economy. Which is true. He opposed Hamilton who supported more intervention.

So, yes, what I said before was, literally, exactly right.

I don't think you realize how stupid you look when you tell someone how stupid they are for saying things that are true right before saying ridiculously ignorant things yourself.

Everything I said above was 100% true... and you were the one who got it all wrong.

I remember this exact same thing happened when you confused total government spending and just federal spending which also involved some snarky comments about "libertarians just ignore facts". Of course, people pointed out that you were making an elementary error.

In summary, making snarky comments and being the pot calling the kettle black doesn't make your stupid comments any less so.

You - Jefferson was a fan of Adam Smith's work. They created a society with a small state that did not interfere much with private activity.

Truth - They opposed any measures designed to encourage the growth of business and manufacturing. (to make something into a product using raw materials)

Snark - you're a retard



How stupid could you be?

The two things you wrote are totally consistent with each other.

As I said, nothing I said was wrong.

The fact that you think something you have said somehow contradicts something I said shows how stupid you are.

Doesn't understand English and can't prove his assertion with logic.

Me - 16

You - 0
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 5:15:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2013 4:50:47 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/6/2013 4:00:00 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/6/2013 2:20:29 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/6/2013 1:11:05 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/6/2013 12:27:15 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/5/2013 3:20:50 PM, BigRat wrote:
Compare the size of the modern state with the size of the state in the early days of the USA.

As a share of GDP, it is about 10 times larger today (actually more). The founders were, for the most part, believers in free enterprise. Jefferson was a fan of Adam Smith's work. They created a society with a small state that did not interfere much with private activity.

You are a massive idiot, did you know that?

The founding father that you want to be citing here is Alexander Hamilton. He was the guy who advocated as you do.

Hamilton"s dream of national greatness depended on the United States developing a strong economy. In 1790, the nation"s economy was still based mainly on agriculture. Hamilton wanted to expand the economy and increase the nation"s wealth by using the power of the federal government to promote business, manufacturing, and trade.

In 1790, Hamilton presented Congress with a plan to pay off all war debts as quickly as possible. If the debts were not promptly paid, he warned, the government would lose respect both at home and abroad.

Hamilton"s plan for repaying the debts was opposed by many Americans, especially in the South. Most southern states had already paid their war debts. They saw little reason to help states in the North pay off what they still owed.


Jefferson, on the other hand, had different ideas about how the economy should work.

Like most Americans in the 1790s, Jefferson was a country man. He believed that the nation"s future lay not with Federalist bankers and merchants, but with plain, Democratic-Republican farm folk. "Those who labor in the earth," he wrote, "are the chosen people of God, if ever He had a chosen people."

Democratic-Republicans favored an economy based on agriculture. They opposed any measures designed to encourage the growth of business and manufacturing. (to make something into a product using raw materials)


http://mrkash.com...

I think this is a site that some 6th grade teacher put together, so I apologize for the simplicity with which it is all presented, but sh!t, man...if you understood any less about economics and civics, I'd have to believe you were comatose. For you, the 6th grade level is where we gotta start.



Wow. You are quite snarky. And, the funny part is that you make snarky comments right before saying things that are very stupid.

First off, you say that "Alexander Hamilton advocates what you do". And, they you go on to explain how Hamilton wanted an active government that actively helped business.

Again, wow. I literally said that Jefferson wanted Free enterprise where the government stayed out of the economy. Which is true. He opposed Hamilton who supported more intervention.

So, yes, what I said before was, literally, exactly right.

I don't think you realize how stupid you look when you tell someone how stupid they are for saying things that are true right before saying ridiculously ignorant things yourself.

Everything I said above was 100% true... and you were the one who got it all wrong.

I remember this exact same thing happened when you confused total government spending and just federal spending which also involved some snarky comments about "libertarians just ignore facts". Of course, people pointed out that you were making an elementary error.

In summary, making snarky comments and being the pot calling the kettle black doesn't make your stupid comments any less so.

You - Jefferson was a fan of Adam Smith's work. They created a society with a small state that did not interfere much with private activity.

Truth - They opposed any measures designed to encourage the growth of business and manufacturing. (to make something into a product using raw materials)

Snark - you're a retard



How stupid could you be?

The two things you wrote are totally consistent with each other.

As I said, nothing I said was wrong.

The fact that you think something you have said somehow contradicts something I said shows how stupid you are.

Doesn't understand English and can't prove his assertion with logic.

Me - 16

You - 0


I refer you to my other posts.

In summary, making up some phony score is a hilarious and pathetic example of how little you know and how little you have to offer intellectually.

I'm doen justifying your stupidity with my responses.

I am simply on a much higher level than you in terms of my knowledge of economics and history. I am done wasting my time on somebody with your lack of knowledge.

All you have is snarky comments (which are totally unjustified given how little you know) and some silly score you made up with no bearing in reality.

You're gonna have to be a little more knowledgable if you want to argue with somebody like me. As for now, you are simply out of your leagie and you are embarassing yourself.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 5:24:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2013 5:15:05 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/6/2013 4:50:47 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/6/2013 4:00:00 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/6/2013 2:20:29 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/6/2013 1:11:05 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/6/2013 12:27:15 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/5/2013 3:20:50 PM, BigRat wrote:
Compare the size of the modern state with the size of the state in the early days of the USA.

As a share of GDP, it is about 10 times larger today (actually more). The founders were, for the most part, believers in free enterprise. Jefferson was a fan of Adam Smith's work. They created a society with a small state that did not interfere much with private activity.

You are a massive idiot, did you know that?

The founding father that you want to be citing here is Alexander Hamilton. He was the guy who advocated as you do.

Hamilton"s dream of national greatness depended on the United States developing a strong economy. In 1790, the nation"s economy was still based mainly on agriculture. Hamilton wanted to expand the economy and increase the nation"s wealth by using the power of the federal government to promote business, manufacturing, and trade.

In 1790, Hamilton presented Congress with a plan to pay off all war debts as quickly as possible. If the debts were not promptly paid, he warned, the government would lose respect both at home and abroad.

Hamilton"s plan for repaying the debts was opposed by many Americans, especially in the South. Most southern states had already paid their war debts. They saw little reason to help states in the North pay off what they still owed.


Jefferson, on the other hand, had different ideas about how the economy should work.

Like most Americans in the 1790s, Jefferson was a country man. He believed that the nation"s future lay not with Federalist bankers and merchants, but with plain, Democratic-Republican farm folk. "Those who labor in the earth," he wrote, "are the chosen people of God, if ever He had a chosen people."

Democratic-Republicans favored an economy based on agriculture. They opposed any measures designed to encourage the growth of business and manufacturing. (to make something into a product using raw materials)


http://mrkash.com...

I think this is a site that some 6th grade teacher put together, so I apologize for the simplicity with which it is all presented, but sh!t, man...if you understood any less about economics and civics, I'd have to believe you were comatose. For you, the 6th grade level is where we gotta start.



Wow. You are quite snarky. And, the funny part is that you make snarky comments right before saying things that are very stupid.

First off, you say that "Alexander Hamilton advocates what you do". And, they you go on to explain how Hamilton wanted an active government that actively helped business.

Again, wow. I literally said that Jefferson wanted Free enterprise where the government stayed out of the economy. Which is true. He opposed Hamilton who supported more intervention.

So, yes, what I said before was, literally, exactly right.

I don't think you realize how stupid you look when you tell someone how stupid they are for saying things that are true right before saying ridiculously ignorant things yourself.

Everything I said above was 100% true... and you were the one who got it all wrong.

I remember this exact same thing happened when you confused total government spending and just federal spending which also involved some snarky comments about "libertarians just ignore facts". Of course, people pointed out that you were making an elementary error.

In summary, making snarky comments and being the pot calling the kettle black doesn't make your stupid comments any less so.

You - Jefferson was a fan of Adam Smith's work. They created a society with a small state that did not interfere much with private activity.

Truth - They opposed any measures designed to encourage the growth of business and manufacturing. (to make something into a product using raw materials)

Snark - you're a retard



How stupid could you be?

The two things you wrote are totally consistent with each other.

As I said, nothing I said was wrong.

The fact that you think something you have said somehow contradicts something I said shows how stupid you are.

Doesn't understand English and can't prove his assertion with logic.

Me - 16

You - 0



I refer you to my other posts.

In summary, making up some phony score is a hilarious and pathetic example of how little you know and how little you have to offer intellectually.

I'm doen justifying your stupidity with my responses.

I am simply on a much higher level than you in terms of my knowledge of economics and history. I am done wasting my time on somebody with your lack of knowledge.

All you have is snarky comments (which are totally unjustified given how little you know) and some silly score you made up with no bearing in reality.

You're gonna have to be a little more knowledgable if you want to argue with somebody like me. As for now, you are simply out of your leagie and you are embarassing yourself.

Again - NOTHING

Me - 17

You - 0
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 5:39:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2013 5:24:00 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/6/2013 5:15:05 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/6/2013 4:50:47 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/6/2013 4:00:00 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/6/2013 2:20:29 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/6/2013 1:11:05 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/6/2013 12:27:15 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/5/2013 3:20:50 PM, BigRat wrote:
Compare the size of the modern state with the size of the state in the early days of the USA.

As a share of GDP, it is about 10 times larger today (actually more). The founders were, for the most part, believers in free enterprise. Jefferson was a fan of Adam Smith's work. They created a society with a small state that did not interfere much with private activity.

You are a massive idiot, did you know that?

The founding father that you want to be citing here is Alexander Hamilton. He was the guy who advocated as you do.

Hamilton"s dream of national greatness depended on the United States developing a strong economy. In 1790, the nation"s economy was still based mainly on agriculture. Hamilton wanted to expand the economy and increase the nation"s wealth by using the power of the federal government to promote business, manufacturing, and trade.

In 1790, Hamilton presented Congress with a plan to pay off all war debts as quickly as possible. If the debts were not promptly paid, he warned, the government would lose respect both at home and abroad.

Hamilton"s plan for repaying the debts was opposed by many Americans, especially in the South. Most southern states had already paid their war debts. They saw little reason to help states in the North pay off what they still owed.


Jefferson, on the other hand, had different ideas about how the economy should work.

Like most Americans in the 1790s, Jefferson was a country man. He believed that the nation"s future lay not with Federalist bankers and merchants, but with plain, Democratic-Republican farm folk. "Those who labor in the earth," he wrote, "are the chosen people of God, if ever He had a chosen people."

Democratic-Republicans favored an economy based on agriculture. They opposed any measures designed to encourage the growth of business and manufacturing. (to make something into a product using raw materials)


http://mrkash.com...

I think this is a site that some 6th grade teacher put together, so I apologize for the simplicity with which it is all presented, but sh!t, man...if you understood any less about economics and civics, I'd have to believe you were comatose. For you, the 6th grade level is where we gotta start.



Wow. You are quite snarky. And, the funny part is that you make snarky comments right before saying things that are very stupid.

First off, you say that "Alexander Hamilton advocates what you do". And, they you go on to explain how Hamilton wanted an active government that actively helped business.

Again, wow. I literally said that Jefferson wanted Free enterprise where the government stayed out of the economy. Which is true. He opposed Hamilton who supported more intervention.

So, yes, what I said before was, literally, exactly right.

I don't think you realize how stupid you look when you tell someone how stupid they are for saying things that are true right before saying ridiculously ignorant things yourself.

Everything I said above was 100% true... and you were the one who got it all wrong.

I remember this exact same thing happened when you confused total government spending and just federal spending which also involved some snarky comments about "libertarians just ignore facts". Of course, people pointed out that you were making an elementary error.

In summary, making snarky comments and being the pot calling the kettle black doesn't make your stupid comments any less so.

You - Jefferson was a fan of Adam Smith's work. They created a society with a small state that did not interfere much with private activity.

Truth - They opposed any measures designed to encourage the growth of business and manufacturing. (to make something into a product using raw materials)

Snark - you're a retard



How stupid could you be?

The two things you wrote are totally consistent with each other.

As I said, nothing I said was wrong.

The fact that you think something you have said somehow contradicts something I said shows how stupid you are.

Doesn't understand English and can't prove his assertion with logic.

Me - 16

You - 0



I refer you to my other posts.

In summary, making up some phony score is a hilarious and pathetic example of how little you know and how little you have to offer intellectually.

I'm doen justifying your stupidity with my responses.

I am simply on a much higher level than you in terms of my knowledge of economics and history. I am done wasting my time on somebody with your lack of knowledge.

All you have is snarky comments (which are totally unjustified given how little you know) and some silly score you made up with no bearing in reality.

You're gonna have to be a little more knowledgable if you want to argue with somebody like me. As for now, you are simply out of your leagie and you are embarassing yourself.

Again - NOTHING

Me - 17

You - 0


Lol. How pathetic.

I said I would stop justifying your silliness with responses, but this shall be my last.

You made up some game and kept score yourself. In no game would a contestant also be a judge keeping the score.

But, if you want it that way, I'll do that. This is my final response and the final score is:

Me: 999999

You: 0

Look. I win!!

Look how right I am.

(NOTE: I understand how ridiculous this is. But, this is exactly what Malcolm is doing.)

I'm sure you'll try to justify this ridiculous game somehow, but you will just make a fool of yourself again. Okay, I am done for real now unless you say something that justifies a response (something somewhat intelligient). You haven't said anything intelligent yet, so I probably wont be responding to anything else.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 8:35:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2013 5:39:17 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/6/2013 5:24:00 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/6/2013 5:15:05 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/6/2013 4:50:47 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/6/2013 4:00:00 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/6/2013 2:20:29 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/6/2013 1:11:05 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/6/2013 12:27:15 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/5/2013 3:20:50 PM, BigRat wrote:
Compare the size of the modern state with the size of the state in the early days of the USA.

As a share of GDP, it is about 10 times larger today (actually more). The founders were, for the most part, believers in free enterprise. Jefferson was a fan of Adam Smith's work. They created a society with a small state that did not interfere much with private activity.

You are a massive idiot, did you know that?

The founding father that you want to be citing here is Alexander Hamilton. He was the guy who advocated as you do.

Hamilton"s dream of national greatness depended on the United States developing a strong economy. In 1790, the nation"s economy was still based mainly on agriculture. Hamilton wanted to expand the economy and increase the nation"s wealth by using the power of the federal government to promote business, manufacturing, and trade.

In 1790, Hamilton presented Congress with a plan to pay off all war debts as quickly as possible. If the debts were not promptly paid, he warned, the government would lose respect both at home and abroad.

Hamilton"s plan for repaying the debts was opposed by many Americans, especially in the South. Most southern states had already paid their war debts. They saw little reason to help states in the North pay off what they still owed.


Jefferson, on the other hand, had different ideas about how the economy should work.

Like most Americans in the 1790s, Jefferson was a country man. He believed that the nation"s future lay not with Federalist bankers and merchants, but with plain, Democratic-Republican farm folk. "Those who labor in the earth," he wrote, "are the chosen people of God, if ever He had a chosen people."

Democratic-Republicans favored an economy based on agriculture. They opposed any measures designed to encourage the growth of business and manufacturing. (to make something into a product using raw materials)


http://mrkash.com...

I think this is a site that some 6th grade teacher put together, so I apologize for the simplicity with which it is all presented, but sh!t, man...if you understood any less about economics and civics, I'd have to believe you were comatose. For you, the 6th grade level is where we gotta start.



Wow. You are quite snarky. And, the funny part is that you make snarky comments right before saying things that are very stupid.

First off, you say that "Alexander Hamilton advocates what you do". And, they you go on to explain how Hamilton wanted an active government that actively helped business.

Again, wow. I literally said that Jefferson wanted Free enterprise where the government stayed out of the economy. Which is true. He opposed Hamilton who supported more intervention.

So, yes, what I said before was, literally, exactly right.

I don't think you realize how stupid you look when you tell someone how stupid they are for saying things that are true right before saying ridiculously ignorant things yourself.

Everything I said above was 100% true... and you were the one who got it all wrong.

I remember this exact same thing happened when you confused total government spending and just federal spending which also involved some snarky comments about "libertarians just ignore facts". Of course, people pointed out that you were making an elementary error.

In summary, making snarky comments and being the pot calling the kettle black doesn't make your stupid comments any less so.

You - Jefferson was a fan of Adam Smith's work. They created a society with a small state that did not interfere much with private activity.

Truth - They opposed any measures designed to encourage the growth of business and manufacturing. (to make something into a product using raw materials)

Snark - you're a retard



How stupid could you be?

The two things you wrote are totally consistent with each other.

As I said, nothing I said was wrong.

The fact that you think something you have said somehow contradicts something I said shows how stupid you are.

Doesn't understand English and can't prove his assertion with logic.

Me - 16

You - 0



I refer you to my other posts.

In summary, making up some phony score is a hilarious and pathetic example of how little you know and how little you have to offer intellectually.

I'm doen justifying your stupidity with my responses.

I am simply on a much higher level than you in terms of my knowledge of economics and history. I am done wasting my time on somebody with your lack of knowledge.

All you have is snarky comments (which are totally unjustified given how little you know) and some silly score you made up with no bearing in reality.

You're gonna have to be a little more knowledgable if you want to argue with somebody like me. As for now, you are simply out of your leagie and you are embarassing yourself.

Again - NOTHING

Me - 17

You - 0



Lol. How pathetic.

I said I would stop justifying your silliness with responses, but this shall be my last.

You made up some game and kept score yourself. In no game would a contestant also be a judge keeping the score.

But, if you want it that way, I'll do that. This is my final response and the final score is:

Me: 999999

You: 0

Look. I win!!

Look how right I am.

(NOTE: I understand how ridiculous this is. But, this is exactly what Malcolm is doing.)

I'm sure you'll try to justify this ridiculous game somehow, but you will just make a fool of yourself again. Okay, I am done for real now unless you say something that justifies a response (something somewhat intelligient). You haven't said anything intelligent yet, so I probably wont be responding to anything else.

Please try to score a point prior to responding next time. The score is starting to get embarrassingly lopsided.

Me - 60

You - 0
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 10:42:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 7:48:26 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Often, conservatives claim that the US government was founded upon the principles of [minimal government].

Indeed they do.

The the Framers' actions would indicate otherwise, however. Adams used the Aliens and Sedition Act to stifle freedom of speech.

A necessary measure in times of crisis, though (correctly) historically condemned on grounds of constitutional repugnancy. The "small government" rhetoric employed by conservatives, though, is generally the philosophical groundwork for their moral objection to higher taxes. The power to tax and spend is different, however, from the power of censorship -insomuch as whereas one is considered both necessary and legitimate, the latter is only so in times of crisis.

Washington put down anti-government rebellions and taxed the people more heavily than they were taxed under the British.

Washington, nevertheless, was elected and the taxes were at least theoretically imposed by the consent of those who were to be taxed. The issue was not the tax rate, but the fact that those taxed (the colonists, when they were colonists) were not consulted on the tax to be imposed.

All of the early presidents used the army to steal land that belonged to the Native Americans.

Native Americians had no concept of ownership, and where "stealing" means the unlawful taking of something 'owned' by someone else/some other group, the claim "stealing" does not apply because the Indians merely 'occupied' they did not possess -in a legal sense- anything.

The Framers were also Masons, [YYW interjects... LOL] and rather than use the funds they secured through taxes responsibly or on reducing the suffering of the indigent, they opted to construct monuments, such as statues and paintings of Washington becoming a god and secret tunnels under the Capitol building. In what sense were the Framers libertarians who supported responsible governmental action?

There is a value intangible to monuments, but "fiscal responsibility" as politicians champion it today, did not exist at either the foundation of this country or even really immediately after the ratification of the constitution. Amusingly enough, THE principle reason for the ratification of the constitution was the unabashed failure of the Articles of Confederation -principally involving the unwillingness of states to pay federal taxes which were necessary to repay debt the US acquired in the fighting of the Revolutionary War. However, your premise that modern (Tea Bagging/Libertarian) conceptions of the Framers is at once historically fallacious and treasonous to the meaning, function and ideals which they stood for. Historicopolitically, though, the reinvention of history and appropriation of its meaning to suit the conveniences and inform the dilemmas of the present is not uncommon. The South did it during the Civil war too...
Tsar of DDO
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 5:41:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 11:41:25 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/5/2013 7:48:26 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Often, conservatives claim that the US government was founded upon the principles of minarchy.

I don't think I've ever heard any Conservative ever use the word "Minarchy." In fact, I bet 99% of the Conservatives in the entire nation have never uttered the word "Minarchy." LOL!

Conservatives on the site are not the only conservatives in existence. There is a world outside of this site, right?
The the Framers' actions would indicate otherwise, however. Adams used the Aliens and Sedition Act to stifle freedom of speech.

We don't need fascist Hitlers running around forming militias to take over the U.S. and destroy freedom.

One thing is not permitted in freedom: non-freedom.

That's nonsense. Freedom of speech necessitates that I be permitted to make any speeches I want. I cannot actually take away anybody's freedom, but I can advocate taking it away. The Alien and Sedition Acts were implemented to prevent criticism of the government, Congress, and the President, by the way, and not to prevent fascist militias from forming. If Obama passed such an act today, you would call him a dictator, but because the Framers that you like to ancestor-worship did it, they were correct.
Washington put down anti-government rebellions

Yeah, get violent anti-Constitutionalists outta here.

Anti-Constitutionalism defended our freedoms. The only reason we have a Bill of Rights today is because the Anti-Constitutionalists protested the tyranny of the Constitution.
and taxed the people more heavily than they were taxed under the British.

Probably because the new government needed a quick boost to get rolling. Even businesses needed large lumpsums to begin operating.

Right, so because the government needed something, it could steal from the people? Obama's government needs the money, so why can't it raise taxes?
All of the early presidents used the army to steal land that belonged to the Native Americans.

Native Americans didn't own land. They don't believe in land ownership.

No, they believed in tribal and group ownership, as evidenced by the fact that they sometimes had skirmishes over territorial boundaries. Collective ownership is still ownership. If you don't think so, then please help me clean out you're parents' bank account since they probably own their money collectively and therefore don't own it at all. I would also like the deed to your family home since that is also owned collectively and therefore not at all.

Capitalism depends on collective ownership. That is why corporations and the stock market exist. If collective ownership is not ownership, I demand that I receive all of those things for myself so that someone can legitimately own them.
The Framers were also Masons,

They were also whistleblowers. George Washington wrote a letter warning against the Illuminati hoping that it didn't reach the United States.

This is irrelevant. They were practicing Masons. Can I see evidence of this letter?
and rather than use the funds they secured through taxes responsibly or on reducing the suffering of the indigent, they opted to construct monuments, such as statues and paintings of Washington becoming a god and secret tunnels under the Capitol building. In what sense were the Framers libertarians who supported responsible governmental action?

Rubbish.

LOL, ok. Look up the Apotheosis of Washington and George Washington Zeus. They also commissioned a Masonic artist for 25 years to make the Capitol building look like a palace. Why steal the public money for their comfort? They should have used their own money instead of spending it wastefully. I find it ridiculous that you think that spending so that people can eat is wasteful, but spending public funds on private cult statues and artwork is not.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 3:06:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/5/2013 7:48:26 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Often, conservatives claim that the US government was founded upon the principles of minarchy. The the Framers' actions would indicate otherwise, however. Adams used the Aliens and Sedition Act to stifle freedom of speech.
Notice how statists always use federalists as an example when referencing the founders. There is a reason the Federalist Party only had 1 president; they are nationalists.
The Tories from the revolution later became federalists, because the Federalist Party went against the princies this country was founded upon.

Washington put down anti-government rebellions and taxed the people more heavily than they were taxed under the British.

The wisky tax, which caused the wisky rebellion, started before the bill of rights went into effect.
The constitution gives the president the authority to put down rebellions, and it gives congress the authority to tax in order to pay debts.
All of the early presidents used the army to steal land that belonged to the Native Americans.
No they didn't. That was later generations.
The Framers were also Masons, and rather than use the funds they secured through taxes responsibly or on reducing the suffering of the indigent, they opted to construct monuments, such as statues and paintings of Washington becoming a god and secret tunnels under the Capitol building. In what sense were the Framers libertarians who supported responsible governmental action?

It's not the federal government's job to "reduce the suffering of the indigent". They used the money congress appropriated towards constructing the capital, when erecting monuments. The federal budget was much smaller than it is today.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle