Founding Fathers: Hamiltonian vs Jeffersonian and others

[lew]

Originally Posted by Publius

when you're on the fringe of the fringe, you've got to wonder about your beliefs.

I wouldn't really call Rothbard "fringe."


Rothbard is usually admired by most libertarians - those within the LP, the paleos led by Rockwell, and even the "Beltway libertarians" in D.C.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by lew

Most libertarians have a general agreement on most issues, so wtf are you arguing about?

You're either unaware of libertarian arguments, or you're lying

Let's take this one quote from a major libertarian figure, on a MAJOR issue, perhaps the mother of all issues in the libertarian party, and you tell me that all libertarians have the same view on it:

"enforced segregation or enforced integration, I myself would find it impossible not to choose integration."

or

"The Southern racists' claim of "states' rights" is a contradiction in terms: there can be no such thing as the "right" of some men to violate the rights of others. The constitutional concept of "states' rights" pertains to the division of power between local and national authorities, and serves to protect the states from the Federal government; it does not grant to a state government an unlimited, arbitrary power over its citizens or the privilege of abrogating the citizens' individual rights."

[Publius]

Originally Posted by lew

I wouldn't really call Rothbard "fringe."


Rothbard is usually admired by most libertarians - those within the LP, the paleos led by Rockwell, and even the "Beltway libertarians" in D.C.

I certainly appreciate everything Rothbard did, but he was too idealistic when it comes to politics. The biggest problem in the LP is that many members are unwilling to take a "something is better than nothing" approach to rolling back government in order to get people elected. It's all or nothing for them, and that stems pretty directly from Rothbard's school of thought.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

You're either unaware of libertarian arguments, or you're lying

Let's take this one quote from a major libertarian figure, on a MAJOR issue, perhaps the mother of all issues in the libertarian party, and you tell me that all libertarians have the same view on it:

"enforced segregation or enforced integration, I myself would find it impossible not to choose integration."

or

"The Southern racists' claim of "states' rights" is a contradiction in terms: there can be no such thing as the "right" of some men to violate the rights of others. The constitutional concept of "states' rights" pertains to the division of power between local and national authorities, and serves to protect the states from the Federal government; it does not grant to a state government an unlimited, arbitrary power over its citizens or the privilege of abrogating the citizens' individual rights."

I don't know of any libertarians that say that states can enslave people. Most libertarians view a state to be as despotic as the federal government, the only difference being that the state is usually less so.

Most any libertarian would agree with Rand's point. States do not have a right to enslave anybody. The division comes in when people discuss how to correct those problems. Some libertarians don't mind Lincoln killing 650,000 people to free the slaves, while other libertarians abhor Lincoln killing that many people and centralizing the power of the government, all while under the guise of freeing the slaves; especially when the slaves could have been freed in numerous other non-violent ways.

But the division there doesn't exist in the problem. The division exists in the solution. But their solutions are still very close on most issues.


The libertarians are no more divided than Democrats or Republicans on most issues, so not sure why you think they are.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by Publius

Rothbard helped form the party, but he was always a member of fringe groups within the party. He also quit the LP in the 1980s, choosing instead to "mend bridges" with the developing neo-conservative right.

Capital 'L' Libertarian is a slippery amorphous form just like Democrat or Republican.

The core of libertarianism is the principles of Individualism. Ron Paul is is a very principled Individualist and therefore libertarian. The Republican party principles are Individualist and Constitutionalist. That makes the Republican party principals libertarian in nature.

BTW... Hamilton sucks.

[Thorgrim]

I wasn't just talking about lincoln, I was talking about nullification of the early 19th century, or post-war segregation, or popular segregation, or even the very concept of states rights

as you guys already tipped your hand at...there are many shades of libertarians and they all disagree with each other on who they are, what should be done, etc etc

It's been remarked several times that all the Democratic candidates sounded like clones at the early debates, and only very recently when it's become about personality rather than issues has there been any clashing

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by Publius

I certainly appreciate everything Rothbard did, but he was too idealistic when it comes to politics. The biggest problem in the LP is that many members are unwilling to take a "something is better than nothing" approach to rolling back government in order to get people elected. It's all or nothing for them, and that stems pretty directly from Rothbard's school of thought.

The politics of compromise is the Hegelian approach to politics. The only outcome of compromise is a less than principled decision. There is no room for compromise in the rule of law. Once you enact laws beyond a clearly defined scope, you have entered the realm of arbitrary rule. Once you have arbitrary rule, the rule of law has failed.

It is like what T.J. said regarding Hamilton's bank:

"To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."~Thomas Jefferson

The politics of compromise is the making of deals with the devil.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

BTW... Hamilton sucks.

Hamilton wanted a Monarchy - thank God he had very little influence during the constitutional convention...plus he was a political slime ball and many of contributions would of happened anyway in the natural growth of the nation

Anyway back on topic..RP is done, its a shame. But he can do something with money left to secure his movement for the next election even if he doesn't run. I also disagree that the libertarian movement collapsed.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Hamilton wanted a Monarchy - thank God he had very little influence during the constitutional convention...plus he was a political slime ball and many of contributions would of happened anyway in the natural growth of the nation

Anyway back on topic..RP is done, its a shame. But he can do something with money left to secure his movement for the next election even if he doesn't run. I also disagree that the libertarian movement collapsed.

you guys buy too much into Jefferson's smear campaign after Hamilton's death. Hamilton was a strong and ardent supporter of the Constitution, and if you think we would have developed anywhere near as strong a financial system as we have without his efforts, you're naive.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Hamilton wanted a Monarchy - thank God he had very little influence during the constitutional convention...plus he was a political slime ball and many of contributions would of happened anyway in the natural growth of the nation

Anyway back on topic..RP is done, its a shame. But he can do something with money left to secure his movement for the next election even if he doesn't run. I also disagree that the libertarian movement collapsed.

When I was first read the Federalist papers, I remember thinking that I am reading the words penned by the spirit of freedom and liberty. This of course from the perspective of a kid growing up in the Peoples Republik of America.

The last time I read it, I perceived veiled, yet distinct threats. The message was that the people do not understand, we must think for them. The federal model will happen with force of arms if against the people if necessary, so you might as well all agree.

Suddenly the Whiskey Rebellion made perfect sense.

May one day the anti-federalists will win.

BTW... I used to work with one of Alexander Hammilton's direct male descendents. He used to hold his hair back and pose while holding up a 10$ bill. Amazing physical similarity. I didn't work their long. He was politically very similar to AH too.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by Publius

you guys buy too much into Jefferson's smear campaign after Hamilton's death. Hamilton was a strong and ardent supporter of the Constitution, and if you think we would have developed anywhere near as strong a financial system as we have without his efforts, you're naive.

He was Publius... with Madison, so of course he was a BIG supporter of the Constitution. The Constitution was not happily accepted by all because of the strong anti-federalist viewpoint of the people. Hamilton, captain federalist, pushed and was VERY successful in winning support for the imperfect Constitution that many thought to be the most insidious plan to rob the liberties of free men and women.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Publius

you guys buy too much into Jefferson's smear campaign after Hamilton's death. Hamilton was a strong and ardent supporter of the Constitution, and if you think we would have developed anywhere near as strong a financial system as we have without his efforts, you're naive.

Ok:

So Hamilton didn't want a much stronger constitution resembling more of an aristocracy or elected monarchy?

So Hamilton's Federalist party wasn't in favor of a much stronger presidency and government overall?

His party did not pass the Alien and Sedation acts in 1798?

Hamilton did not try to smear Jefferson and Madison under the name Pacificus?

Don't talk to me about naivety - we should be thankful government was not in the vision of Hamilton.

Yes he was one of the authors of the Federalist papers but he still wanted a much stronger government that went against the principles of the constitution he wrote about in the Federalist Papers. The only really great thing was establishing the credit of the new country

[Thorgrim]

they were all political hacks

just because they were a significant step up from the Hapsburgs does make them demi-gods

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

they were all political hacks

just because they were a significant step up from the Hapsburgs does make them demi-gods

If your talking about the founders then I have to disagree -

Jefferson
Madison
Adams
Franklyn
Jon Jay
George Mason
Gouverneur Morris

And more would run circles around any modern day politician and especially your candidate - Hillary

[Thorgrim]

Who said Hillary is saint?

On the founders you listed...

Two statements:
3/5ths clause
Electoral College

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Who said Hillary is saint?

On the founders you listed...

Two statements:
3/5ths clause
Electoral College

Jon Jay, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams weren't even at the convention

George Mason and Jon Jay were fervent abolishinists

Franklin I believe did not support slavery and neither did Morris

The rest were a product of their time, it does not excuse what they did but you can't paint them all with the same brush

As for the EC - I never said they were perfect

[Thorgrim]

If they didn't support slavery...

That's just the tip, of course I can point out all their flaws

They all decided to give up on their principles and whatever else to make a compromise...just like a bunch of fat cats in the backroom with cigars

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by Publius

Offer up something better that is workable.

I think that the convention should have listened more the anti-federalists.

The Constitution was rushed - the anti-federalists did not have the political power.

Chronology of the Pro- and Anti-Federalist Papers

[thomez]

lol @ anti-federalists giving us the Bill of Rights so they could limit what rights people believe they have, just as the federalists said would happen