5 Reasons Why Modern Wing-Nuts Would've Hated The Founding Fathers

[whitehall]

The Founding Fathers were so right wing in their beliefs that they wanted only property owners to be allowed to vote. The U.S. has moderated from the extreme anti-social viewpoint since then but it's also clear that democrats have drifted so far off the left side of the political equation that the party is lost and hopeless.

 

[Divine Wind]

The Founding Fathers were so right wing in their beliefs that they wanted only property owners to be allowed to vote. The U.S. has moderated from the extreme anti-social viewpoint since then but it's also clear that democrats have drifted so far off the left side of the political equation that the party is lost and hopeless.

The premise of "having skin in the game" isn't erroneous. Giving the vote to anyone regardless if they have a clue or not leads to the same disaster as this maxim predicts:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

 

[regent]

The Founding Fathers were so right wing in their beliefs that they wanted only property owners to be allowed to vote. The U.S. has moderated from the extreme anti-social viewpoint since then but it's also clear that democrats have drifted so far off the left side of the political equation that the party is lost and hopeless.

Voting was a state issue.

 

[BlueGin]

Left wing-nuts hate the founders for lots of reasons. Not just five.

Exactly.

Start with starting a revolution and go from there.

 

[g5000]

I've pointed out many times on this forum that Thomas Jefferson and his close friend Thomas Paine were proto-communists. I've also made the point many times that the Founders were not monolithic in their thinking.

 

[Divine Wind]

I've pointed out many times on this forum that Thomas Jefferson and his close friend Thomas Paine were proto-communists. I've also made the point many times that the Founders were not monolithic in their thinking.

Yes, you've pointed that out and it's still bullshit. They are also "proto-capitalists", proto-Democrats, proto-Republicans and whatever else any dipshit with a keyboard wants to tag on them.

In the end, facts are facts. They stood up for their rights and wanted to be treated as full British citizens instead of second class citizens. When that request was rebuffed, Americans began to rebel. In the end, they broke from the British Empire and the rest is history.

 

[g5000]

I've pointed out many times on this forum that Thomas Jefferson and his close friend Thomas Paine were proto-communists. I've also made the point many times that the Founders were not monolithic in their thinking.

Yes, you've pointed that out and it's still bullshit.

No, it is quite plain when you read their papers. Just because you don't like doesn't make it untrue.

Here, start with this: Agrarian Justice.

A sample:

Having thus in a few words, opened the merits of the case, I shall now proceed to the plan I have to propose, which is,

To create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property:

And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age.

Sound familiar?

 

[g5000]

Here's Jefferson writing to Madison about wealth redistribution which should be enacted in the United States, based on his observations in France which later led him to support the French Revolution which became extremely far left during the Reign of Terror:

The property of this country is absolutely concentered in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of them having as many as 200 domestics, not labouring. They employ also a great number of manufacturers, and tradesmen, and lastly the class of labouring husbandmen. But after all these comes the most numerous of all the classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason that so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are kept idle mostly for the aske of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be laboured. I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.

Equality: Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

 

[Divine Wind]

No, it is quite plain when you read their papers. Just because you don't like doesn't make it untrue.

Dude, you should read your own words since obviously my point flew right over your head.

Calling them "proto-communists" is like calling them "proto-capitalists". It means nothing since, if you read their papers, you'll see most were enlightened renaissance men building on the ideas ranging from the Greeks to John Locke, the "father of Liberalism". All points of which neither "modern liberals" nor "modern conservatives" can claim to be.

 

[g5000]

No, it is quite plain when you read their papers. Just because you don't like doesn't make it untrue.

Dude, you should read your own words since obviously my point flew right over your head.

Calling them "proto-communists" is like calling them "proto-capitalists". It means nothing since, if you read their papers, you'll see most were enlightened renaissance men building on the ideas ranging from the Greeks to John Locke, the "father of Liberalism". All points of which neither "modern liberals" nor "modern conservatives" can claim to be.

Jefferson and Paine were plainly proto-communists. They were definitely not proto-capitalists.

They had dreams of an agrarian society, not an industrialized one.

 

[Votto]

I found this article while looking around the Internet researching the Founding Fathers. Fair warning; it leans Left. However, it has several very interesting viewpoints of which I agree. In general, while it does lean left (just like the Founders!) it's mostly anti-authoritarian. There's no doubt in my mind modern US liberals are very authoritarian. "Nanny Staters" is a correct label for them. Modern conservatives are a mix; they are authoritarian on some issues, but individualist and anti-federalist on others. Of the two sides, I lean right, but am not partisan right because they can be as authoritarian as LWers on different issues.

That said, the article is factually correct and an interesting read:
5 Reasons Why Modern Wing-Nuts Would've Hated The Founding Fathers
If you’re a Democrat (or, for that matter, a progressive of any stripe) the chances are you’ve heard conservatives evoke the founding fathers when dismissing your beliefs on economic issues. The term “socialist” has become such a toxic epithet in our political culture that the two chief candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination have spent considerable time confronting the term – with Hillary Clinton correctly pointing out that it doesn’t apply to her center-left views, even as Bernie Sanders valiantly strives to remove its stigma by self-identifying as a “democratic socialist.”

In light of all this, one might be forgiven for assuming that America’s founders were unilaterally right-wing in their economic ideology. After all, if this wasn’t the case, liberals could easily debunk attempts to delegitimize them by simply citing the incontrovertible facts of American history......

You don't have to go as far back as the Founding Fathers to see how loony the left is today.

JFK once said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". Today all left wingers think the government should be an ATM for themeselves.

JFK also significantly reduced taxes and wanted to do away with the Fed.

Then after he created the Executive Order to do away with the Fed, they had to put him down.

 

[Divine Wind]

I found this article while looking around the Internet researching the Founding Fathers. Fair warning; it leans Left. However, it has several very interesting viewpoints of which I agree. In general, while it does lean left (just like the Founders!) it's mostly anti-authoritarian. There's no doubt in my mind modern US liberals are very authoritarian. "Nanny Staters" is a correct label for them. Modern conservatives are a mix; they are authoritarian on some issues, but individualist and anti-federalist on others. Of the two sides, I lean right, but am not partisan right because they can be as authoritarian as LWers on different issues.

That said, the article is factually correct and an interesting read:
5 Reasons Why Modern Wing-Nuts Would've Hated The Founding Fathers
If you’re a Democrat (or, for that matter, a progressive of any stripe) the chances are you’ve heard conservatives evoke the founding fathers when dismissing your beliefs on economic issues. The term “socialist” has become such a toxic epithet in our political culture that the two chief candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination have spent considerable time confronting the term – with Hillary Clinton correctly pointing out that it doesn’t apply to her center-left views, even as Bernie Sanders valiantly strives to remove its stigma by self-identifying as a “democratic socialist.”

In light of all this, one might be forgiven for assuming that America’s founders were unilaterally right-wing in their economic ideology. After all, if this wasn’t the case, liberals could easily debunk attempts to delegitimize them by simply citing the incontrovertible facts of American history......

You don't have to go as far back as the Founding Fathers to see how loony the left is today.

JFK once said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". Today all left wingers think the government should be an ATM for themeselves.

JFK also significantly reduced taxes and wanted to do away with the Fed.

Then after he created the Executive Order to do away with the Fed, they had to put him down.

Agreed with everything but the conspiracy nonsense.

 

[Votto]

I found this article while looking around the Internet researching the Founding Fathers. Fair warning; it leans Left. However, it has several very interesting viewpoints of which I agree. In general, while it does lean left (just like the Founders!) it's mostly anti-authoritarian. There's no doubt in my mind modern US liberals are very authoritarian. "Nanny Staters" is a correct label for them. Modern conservatives are a mix; they are authoritarian on some issues, but individualist and anti-federalist on others. Of the two sides, I lean right, but am not partisan right because they can be as authoritarian as LWers on different issues.

That said, the article is factually correct and an interesting read:
5 Reasons Why Modern Wing-Nuts Would've Hated The Founding Fathers
If you’re a Democrat (or, for that matter, a progressive of any stripe) the chances are you’ve heard conservatives evoke the founding fathers when dismissing your beliefs on economic issues. The term “socialist” has become such a toxic epithet in our political culture that the two chief candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination have spent considerable time confronting the term – with Hillary Clinton correctly pointing out that it doesn’t apply to her center-left views, even as Bernie Sanders valiantly strives to remove its stigma by self-identifying as a “democratic socialist.”

In light of all this, one might be forgiven for assuming that America’s founders were unilaterally right-wing in their economic ideology. After all, if this wasn’t the case, liberals could easily debunk attempts to delegitimize them by simply citing the incontrovertible facts of American history......

You don't have to go as far back as the Founding Fathers to see how loony the left is today.

JFK once said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". Today all left wingers think the government should be an ATM for themeselves.

JFK also significantly reduced taxes and wanted to do away with the Fed.

Then after he created the Executive Order to do away with the Fed, they had to put him down.

Agreed with everything but the conspiracy nonsense.

The real issue is, today's politicians have rejected the notion of a limited government and have instead embraced Big Brother.

It really is that simple.

To drive home the point, this is what the author of the Constitution, James Madison, had to say about the General Welfare Clause that is used to legitimize the Nanny State.

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."