- So, in today's terms they would still IMO be Progressives - not all Progressives are liberal.
Okay, I see the point your making Lock. I still tend to differ in my view, but it's only a matter of degree.
Thank you for the link.
By the by, if your looking for an interesting, well researched read I highly recommend Madison and Jefferson byAndrew Burstein and Nancy Isenberg
- Permalink Reply by on
- I just read the Bio of Lysander Spooner. In the 1840 era he thought up a banking system after the 1837 financial crisis. Banks issued currency and it was used to encourage trade particularly in the West [of that time - Ohio area]. He brings up the problem with limits to hard [metal] currency because it tends to be concentrated in the big cities. This he noted was the same problem the colonies had with England which hoarded the metal coins thereby limiting the colonies to basic barter.Interesting is that he proposed letting banks issue currency that would be backed by the value of land and secured by mortgages that carried interest. This is very similar to how the Fed functions with the Treasury and the full faith and credit of the Federal Government. The main assets of the government is land along with the power to tax. So, we must then take the next step in questioning what happens when the Federal government is forced to liquidate land and assets to pay debts owed to Foreign nations?Does this create a depression of land prices and other real property assets or do the holders of the debt simply take land in lieu of cash. For one could view Treasury debt as a mortgage on the Federal Government. It might be a very interesting legal question as the nation faces a possible default on the nations debts.We all know that the government can not increase taxation to the point of it being able to pay all entitlements and to amortize the current national debt even over 50 years. The debt now is almost equal to the GDP and that amount can not be paid as that is the total production - not profit or excess cash. So, the Federal Government is now going to borrow and spend over 20% of the GDP. Where will this come from as few if any enterprises generate a profit of 20%.So, it appears that the government in order to function must force massive inflation so they can address the debt issue without total destruction of the economy. We all argue that the Congress is limited to the Article I section 8 enumerated powers. However the Courts and the Executive have joined the Legislative branch and usurped the Constitution. We are no longer a RULE - BY - LAW Republic but a RULE - BY - MAN Democracy with the majority voting to tax others so they might get free benefits.The Congress and the Government are using taxpayers re-distributed wealth to bribe a majority of voters to re-elect them in a never ending usurpation. In law it is called QUID PRO QUO and is a violation of the laws. How will this all end is unknown but the fact is that it will end because it is running out of other peoples money to fund the charade.
- Permalink Reply by on
- You say; The main assets of the government is land along with the power to tax.and then point out the dangers of using that land as colateral for loans - to property values if liquidation occurs, or foreign ownership if just transferred to eliminate the debt..
It raises my oft question - why is it a good idea for a government of,for,by the people to own excessive land, over and beyond what current operations require?
- Permalink Reply by on
- No where I have ever read in the Constitution was the Federal Government given the power to won land inside the States? I was part of the 1980 sage brush rebellion where we tried to get the States land back from the Federal government BLM and NFS. We failed in the Congress and the agencies.The Federal government has not good reason to own the lands and maybe that is why so many Progressive Presidents have created National Forests, National reserves, National Parks, Environmental set asides, animal and species protection zones, Have I missed any?
- Permalink Reply by on
- NO is the simple answer they can not be trusted with our greatest assets - for the lands contain the resources do they not?exactly - and in the private sector hands those resources are available for enhancement. in fed/gov's hands they are a liability to the private sector.not just a loss of productive enhancement, but an active drain on it as well.Hummm can you imagine a society built on abundance of natural resources and value added manufacturing creating an industrial revolution?
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lock you said that"Many of the FF were progressive as they came from a Kingdom view point and had the knowledge that the nobles were charged with caring for the peasants. So, in today's terms they would still IMO be Progressives - not all Progressives are liberal."YetJefferson is know by this statement."I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas JeffersonThis would hardly be a progressive statement.Jefferson was a student of John Lock who In the latter part of the 17th century had identified certain inalienable rights—the right to life, liberty and property. According to Locke, every man was the sole proprietor of his own person and capacities and that his right to property derived from his right to enjoy the fruits of his own labour." Equating Labor as property.Jefferson certainly argued that individual property in the means of one's own labour, that is, in the means of production, was necessary for the maintenance of liberty. Ownership of small property was the safeguard against both government tyranny and economic oppression. In Jefferson's conception, freedom from both arbitrary government and coerced labour was based on the individual private ownership of land and the means of production. the things all stress the importance of personal initiative and hard work. Not the progressive view that people should be suckled at the federal teat or that Capitalism is the root of evil and only small business should be promoted by government.As to whether Jefferson would embrace socialism/progressivism , that is another issue we can easily settle by an appeal to the man's own writing. My Webster's Dictionary and thesaurus define socialism as follows: "a system in which people as a whole, and not individuals, control and own all property."
In 1801, President Thomas Jefferson stated in his First Inaugural Address: "And let us reflect that having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions. . . (This would include communism, socialism, Nazism, dictatorships or any form of authoritarian government that strives to control the masses of the people by the despotic actions of a few.)
"Let us then, with courage and confidence, pursue our own federal and republican principles. . . enlightened by a benign religion. . . acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter.
"With all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow citizens, a wise and frugal government. . . which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. . ."
Hardly the ravings of a socialist/progressive!
- Permalink Reply by on
- Jefferson was above most a POLITICIAN. I say this because he was on both sides of many issues and like most other FF they were concerned over how and who should pay taxes. Franklin started progressive real estate taxes to pay for common things like fire and schools. He also proposed a business type tax to pay for and maintain a public library.We must look not only at Jefferson's work product but the communications to him from others to better understand where he was coming from. I posted some of the Adams letters about Jefferson or to Jefferson and you can see there was much disagreement. The point I am trying to make is that the FF were not all CONSERVATIVE BY TODAYS STANDARDS - they found progressive re-distribution TAXES OK in the cities and the States to protect and provide for the peasants. Remember these men were all college educated many in France and England - they studied the Masters and even could read and write in Latin.If fact a book I have been studying "THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION" by Robert Natleson [a retired Constitutional law Professor] - it was published by the Tenth Amendment Center. Inside Rob tells of problems determining the original intent as much of base work products and notes were in Latin and the translations are then always in question?If you look, you will also find many quotes that put down religion and showed it as a thing to be concerned with. They had serious problems with the ability of a Catholic to be elected President as there could be a problem with the power of Rome? Remember these work products were created over a 20+ year period of time in many cases so people change.Progressive is a belief system of government involvement and actions of everyday living of the citizen. Government should be a safety net and a guardian for the individual by government edict. An Example would be Nixon was a Progressive just as Clinton was.
- Permalink Reply by on
- lock at the heart of this belief system was nobless obliege`...(as you of all people already know)It was expounded on by a history teacher that tied it ot the giants of industry who went down on the Titanic and which had quite an affect on my young life at that time....you are giving us info from so many ways and from every possible angle that it is opening my mind up to a new perspective on the FF... You are showing us what their minds struggled with as they genuinely tried to do to the best of their ability to form this new nation ...and to break new ground in a new model that had never before been attempted...These men were the giants of their day and none of them were perfect..but in these struggles we can see that they wanted above all things to do right that was the common goal that united them.... as simple as that..
- Permalink Reply by on
- Here are some more. Jefferson was a very complex mind. I think the last three quotes show best his conflicts - After all he said it is very evident that he was first a POLITICIAN.Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor.
Thomas JeffersonI am an Epicurean. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greek and Roman leave to us.
Thomas JeffersonIn contrast to the Stoics, Epicureans showed little interest in participating in the politics of the day, since doing so leads to trouble. He instead advocated seclusion. His garden can be compared to present-day communes. This principle is epitomized by the phrase lathe biōsas λάθε βιῶσας. Plutarch elaborated in his essay Is the Saying "Live in Obscurity" Right? (Εί καλώς είρηται το λάθε βιῶσας - An recte dictum sit latenter esse vivendum) 1128c; Flavius Philostratus Vita Apollonii 8.28.12, meaning "live in obscurity", "get through life without drawing attention to yourself", i. e. live without pursuing glory or wealth or power, but anonymously, enjoying little things like food, the company of friends, etc.As an ethical guideline, Epicurus emphasized minimizing harm and maximizing happiness of oneself and others:It is neither wealth nor splendor; but tranquility and occupation which give you happiness.
Thomas JeffersonMerchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.
Thomas JeffersonMoney, not morality, is the principle commerce of civilized nations.
Thomas JeffersonSometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.
Thomas JeffersonThe natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.
Thomas JeffersonThe republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind.
Thomas JeffersonThe spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.
Thomas Jefferson
The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force.
Thomas JeffersonThere is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents.
Thomas JeffersonWe may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country.
Thomas JeffersonWhenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct.
Thomas JeffersonWere it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.
Thomas JeffersonThe advertisement is the most truthful part of a newspaper.
Thomas JeffersonThe man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.
Thomas Jefferson
- Permalink Reply by on
- Another fine post, Jon. I concur.
I ran across this link in my 'favorites' list and thought you might find it useful:
http://constitution.org/primarysources/primarysources.html
- Permalink Reply by on
- I am “entitled to protection from” government? Wow they didn’t teach me that in school.I am just reading a book "DEATH GRIP" by Clint Bolick and it took me back to the 14th amendment and the following case which redefined the 14th amendment and some of the individual protections from State governments. You might want to read both links and then even the Supreme record - it is interesting how it twists and changes the Natural Law and the 14th amendment which most thought created a UNITED STATES CITIZEN and not a citizen of the many States?
- Permalink Reply by on
- The 14 amendmentMost people living in the United States had almost no jurisdiction of government in their affairs. Opportunity for federal intervention in the lives of the average American was virtually nil. [Ah, the good old days!]By contrast, when the 14th Amendment was ratified, the United States government became the preeminent protector of every “right” of the persons granted citizenship by the Amendment. This meant that the federal government could tell the states how they could and could not deal with “its” citizens. In other words, a state legislature could vote to control this or that within it borders relating the proper view of life in that state, but the federal government had the right to say, “That’s fine for your citizens, but we won’t permit you to apply that law to our citizens (freed slaves) who may be living in your state”. This meant that for the first time in history, the United States government could haul a state official into federal court for enforcing a law duly passed by the elected officials of the state for which he worked!While this was a positive tool for protecting the recently freed black slaves from egregious state legislation such as the Black Codes, it flung the door open to federal intervention in the states in a way the Founding Fathers had never intended, nor would have permitted.For many people today they believe that the 14th amendment granted these powers to the federal government to enforce its will in laws pertaining to all citizens.Lets have a look at the amendment."By that portion of the fourteenth amendment by which no State may make orenforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of theUnited States, or take life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it hasnow become the fundamental law of this country that life, liberty, and property(which include 'the pursuit of happiness') are sacred rights, which the Constitutionof the United States guarantees to its humblest citizen against oppressivelegislation, whether national or local, so that he cannot be deprived of them withoutdue process of law.”Now what does this meanIt is important to understand that during the “Pre-bellum”( the period before the civil war) the black slaves were not considered a whole person.In Dred Scott, the Court referred to recently freed black slaves as: “the unfortunate race”; “the subject race” [as in “subjugated”]; “inferior class of beings”; “the unhappy race”; “the unhappy black race”In the 14th amendment recently freed slaves were referred to as”. “the humblest citizen.” In distinction to these less-than-flattering comments, the Court referred to the white race as “the dominant race”, but more importantly held that only white citizens of the states of the Union could be considered “Citizens of the United States” (as such phrase is used in the opening paragraph of the US Constitution).While it is hard to believe today, the most vocal abolitionists of the day did not seek“equality” for freed blacks. In fact, they had no intentions of making black citizens equal to white citizens. The very idea was considered ridiculous in that day. [It would be ninety years until the now defunct doctrine of “separate but equal” would be uttered.] The new black citizens were expected to be, and remain, “humble” in the face of white citizens. Even though black men and women (and certain other minorities) were no longer slaves, the vast majority of white Americans at that time expected the new black citizens to humble themselves at all time before whites. No one in that day seriously considered that ending slavery had anything to do with equality of the races.The rights granted by the 14th Amendment are still codified to this very day in Title 42 of the United States Code, at §1981:All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right inevery State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, giveevidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for thesecurity of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall besubject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of everykind, and to no other.You will see from the emphasized phrase that §1981 (which codifies the intention and limits of the 14th Amendment) makes it clear that “persons” [“a separate class of person” – Dred] are to be treated the same as “white citizens”. The meaning is so clear that it is amazing anyone would contend otherwise.From our analyze of the 14th amendment the conclusion is that it applied only to newly freed slaves and should be repelled as it no longer applies and has been superseded by civil rights legislation.
No comments:
Post a Comment