Classical liberalism

[bripat9643]

The founders tried a very limited government with the Articles of Confederation and realized they didn't work.

Worked beautifully for the time period. We won the Revolutionary War under those laws. While the Constitution did expand the role of the federal government, it did so under a VERY SPECIFIC number of limited powers...which the fucking central planners have sought to overstep ever since. If that usurpation of power had resulted in improved results, you might have a case. However, as always, the increased central planning did more harm than good. Sorry, you DON'T know what's best for everyone else.

You did not make it through college, did you?

The AoC was good with geographical and territorial legislation. It sucked at the rest of government.

While the U.S. Articles of Confederation was a plan of government based upon the principles fought for in the American Revolutionary War, it contained crucial flaws. It had no power of national taxation, no power to control trade, and it provided for a comparatively weak executive. Therefore, it could not enforce legislation. It was a "league of friendship" which was opposed to any type of national authority. The Articles of Confederation's greatest weakness, however, was that it had no direct origin in the people themselves–it knew only state sovereignty. Each state, therefore, had the power to collect its own taxes, issue currency, and provide for its own militia. The government could not govern efficiently because of a general lack of power to compel states to honor national obligations. The government's main activity was to control foreign policy and conclude treaties. Economic credibility was a major problem because the government owed $42 million (more than $40 billion today) after the Revolutionary War, and the debt was mainly owed to American patriots. This financial obligation was not paid off until the early part of the 1800's.

It would have been very difficult for our country to have created a stronger second constitution without learning from the mistakes of the first. The Articles of Confederation served as a "transition" between the Revolutionary War and the Constitution.

https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-articles-confederation/

Thanks for cutting and pasting that government toady propaganda. We wouldn't understand the bootlicker's point of view without your tireless efforts to educate us, Fakey.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I did say I was an anarchist, but I was talking to NYcarbineer, not your ugly ass.

Your ugliness of answer merely underlines the correctness of my remark.

No, it underlines that your ass is ugly and stupid, like the rest of you.

You are an anarchist, which means that your opinion is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Worked beautifully for the time period. We won the Revolutionary War under those laws. While the Constitution did expand the role of the federal government, it did so under a VERY SPECIFIC number of limited powers...which the fucking central planners have sought to overstep ever since. If that usurpation of power had resulted in improved results, you might have a case. However, as always, the increased central planning did more harm than good. Sorry, you DON'T know what's best for everyone else.

You did not make it through college, did you?

The AoC was good with geographical and territorial legislation. It sucked at the rest of government.

While the U.S. Articles of Confederation was a plan of government based upon the principles fought for in the American Revolutionary War, it contained crucial flaws. It had no power of national taxation, no power to control trade, and it provided for a comparatively weak executive. Therefore, it could not enforce legislation. It was a "league of friendship" which was opposed to any type of national authority. The Articles of Confederation's greatest weakness, however, was that it had no direct origin in the people themselves–it knew only state sovereignty. Each state, therefore, had the power to collect its own taxes, issue currency, and provide for its own militia. The government could not govern efficiently because of a general lack of power to compel states to honor national obligations. The government's main activity was to control foreign policy and conclude treaties. Economic credibility was a major problem because the government owed $42 million (more than $40 billion today) after the Revolutionary War, and the debt was mainly owed to American patriots. This financial obligation was not paid off until the early part of the 1800's.

It would have been very difficult for our country to have created a stronger second constitution without learning from the mistakes of the first. The Articles of Confederation served as a "transition" between the Revolutionary War and the Constitution.

https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-articles-confederation/

Thanks for cutting and pasting that government toady propaganda. We wouldn't understand the bootlicker's point of view without your tireless efforts to educate us, Fakey.

The truth of the material is self evident as well as is the falsity of your anarchism.

 

[bripat9643]

You did not make it through college, did you?

The AoC was good with geographical and territorial legislation. It sucked at the rest of government.

While the U.S. Articles of Confederation was a plan of government based upon the principles fought for in the American Revolutionary War, it contained crucial flaws. It had no power of national taxation, no power to control trade, and it provided for a comparatively weak executive. Therefore, it could not enforce legislation. It was a "league of friendship" which was opposed to any type of national authority. The Articles of Confederation's greatest weakness, however, was that it had no direct origin in the people themselves–it knew only state sovereignty. Each state, therefore, had the power to collect its own taxes, issue currency, and provide for its own militia. The government could not govern efficiently because of a general lack of power to compel states to honor national obligations. The government's main activity was to control foreign policy and conclude treaties. Economic credibility was a major problem because the government owed $42 million (more than $40 billion today) after the Revolutionary War, and the debt was mainly owed to American patriots. This financial obligation was not paid off until the early part of the 1800's.

It would have been very difficult for our country to have created a stronger second constitution without learning from the mistakes of the first. The Articles of Confederation served as a "transition" between the Revolutionary War and the Constitution.

https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-articles-confederation/

Thanks for cutting and pasting that government toady propaganda. We wouldn't understand the bootlicker's point of view without your tireless efforts to educate us, Fakey.

The truth of the material is self evident as well as is the falsity of your anarchism.

It's only "self evident" to bootlicking toadies like you. For people who can commit logic, it's nothing but pure opinion.

 

[bripat9643]

Your ugliness of answer merely underlines the correctness of my remark.

No, it underlines that your ass is ugly and stupid, like the rest of you.

You are an anarchist, which means that your opinion is irrelevant to the discussion.

I find it hysterical that you think your opinion is relevant to anything, Fakey.

In this forum, you serve as an example of the worst kind of servility, and nothing more.

 

[JakeStarkey]

an·ar·chism /ˈanərˌkizəm/ belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.

https://www.google.com/#q=definition+of+anarchism

And that reactionaries of the wing nut far right are being defended by your type demonstrates their growing irrelevance in modern times.

 

[kaz]

Polly Parrot is showing her anger.

You are actually 8, aren't you?

I do admit you've been hitting a little too close to home. If you look out your window, there's a car across the street keeping an eye on you. Not that one, the blue one next to it. Yeah, there you go, yeah, that one.

Anyway, you were right, you haven't been imagining the reactionaries under your bed or in the closet, your parents were wrong. We really are there. BTW, nice Speed Racer pajamas.

Your bitterness is obvious, Polly. Any chance of the far right reactionaries affecting next year's elections in your favor ended in this last October and November.

Hell yeah I'm bitter. We all knew that Jake Starkey was the threat to our reactionary movement, we've spent more than a decade trying to deceive you and when that didn't work discredit you. Now it's over, you've called us out for what we are. Three men in our organization committed suicide after you did us in yesterday. One killed his entire family, said he was doing them a favor since they can't live in a reactionary country. Now we have no plan, no agenda, it's over, and all because of you. You won, we know that. But bitter? You better believe it.

 

[kaz]

Oh, go wah, Ms Polly. Amend the Constitution if you don't like SCOTUS Article III power. You are simply angry because you can't change it.

Hey, if I ever need a girlfriend to talk about my feelings with, you'll be the guy. However, in the meantime, man up and try to keep focused on the conversation and leave the emotional analysis to the girls. You also suck at it, you obviously have no idea how I feel.

Also, Judicial Review isn't in the Constitution, gay boy.

You are as a bitter as server who got gypped on her tip.

Your opinion is immaterial. Amend the Constitution with 2/2 2/3 3/4 if you don't like SCOTUS using its Article III power. Oh, that's right. You can't.

Judicial Review is not in Article III, gay boy.

 

[kaz]

You are shrieking like a Parrot, imitating the other libertarian and far right reactionaries on the Board who cannot put their arguments into the context of American life, values, and institutions.

I hear ya man. We're so deluded thinking we can run our own lives. Obviously we're just parroting that naive view. It's your well reasoned, independent thinking that makes you realize you need to cede your manhood to government. No one would think that would be the parroting view.

I do have a question about this though. If we're all just repeating each other that we can run our own lives and don't need government to do it for us like you want, then who actually created the idea? I mean how can we ALL be parrots? Say Rush Limbaugh, I always wanted to parrot Rush Limbaugh. Was it him?

 

[editec]

Classical liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.[1]

Classical liberalism

The Left today is NOT "classically" liberal.

That's correct.

But YOU are, right?

Cause like, you're special.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hey, if I ever need a girlfriend to talk about my feelings with, you'll be the guy. However, in the meantime, man up and try to keep focused on the conversation and leave the emotional analysis to the girls. You also suck at it, you obviously have no idea how I feel.

Also, Judicial Review isn't in the Constitution, gay boy.

You are as a bitter as server who got gypped on her tip.

Your opinion is immaterial. Amend the Constitution with 2/2 2/3 3/4 if you don't like SCOTUS using its Article III power. Oh, that's right. You can't.

Judicial Review is not in Article III, gay boy.

So if the Supreme Court didn't have the power of judicial review, how could a law such as a state or local ban on handgun ownership,

be struck down as unconstitutional?

 

[eflatminor]

This is easy........name a country in the eighteenth century that would qualify as a "large government"

Every centrally planned society since the beginning of civilization. Pharaohs, Kings, Czars, Dictators...every tyrant that was just SURE he knew what was best for everyone else.

You just couldn't be this dumb...

Yes, those small, non-centralized fiefdoms in Europe worked real well...

A hell of a lot better than the collectivists cultures in North America that couldn't manage to evolve out of the stone age. Your point?

The bottom line is that people with tyrannical personalities will ALWAYS work at controlling others, whether or not government is centralized.

A tyrant without a centralized government behind him is merely a bully. What matters is the central PLANNERS that have throughout history done far more harm than good, despite their continued assurances that they know best.

 

[rightwinger]

Classical liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.[1]

Classical liberalism

The Left today is NOT "classically" liberal.

That's correct.

But YOU are, right?

Cause like, you're special.

I see no difference between today's liberals and the so called "classical" liberals.

Today's liberal want a right sized government as determined by the voters. Just like the founding fathers got.

Everyone believes in freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets

 

[eflatminor]

The founders tried a very limited government with the Articles of Confederation and realized they didn't work.

Worked beautifully for the time period. We won the Revolutionary War under those laws. While the Constitution did expand the role of the federal government, it did so under a VERY SPECIFIC number of limited powers...which the fucking central planners have sought to overstep ever since. If that usurpation of power had resulted in improved results, you might have a case. However, as always, the increased central planning did more harm than good. Sorry, you DON'T know what's best for everyone else.

You did not make it through college, did you?

Two advanced degrees. Economics and Finance. Want to try again?

The AoC was good with geographical and territorial legislation. It sucked at the rest of government.

And yet, we successfully organized the colonies and won the Revolutionary War. I understand actual RESULTS mean little to the mind of the collectivist. It's INTENTIONS that count...

The Articles of Confederation served as a "transition" between the Revolutionary War and the Constitution.

Yes it did. Now if we could only get you central planner fucks to abide by the enumerated powers in that Constitution.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[quo
Two advanced degrees. Economics and Finance. Want to try again?

.

And where did you acquire the remarkable ability to conceal that education?

 

[eflatminor]

[quo
Two advanced degrees. Economics and Finance. Want to try again?

.

And where did you acquire the remarkable ability to conceal that education?

Golly, an ad hominem attack from the resident collectivist. Now that's not something you see every day...

 

[eflatminor]

Classical liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.[1]

Classical liberalism

The Left today is NOT "classically" liberal.

That's correct.

But YOU are, right?

Cause like, you're special.

I see no difference between today's liberals and the so called "classical" liberals.

Then you're not looking very hard...or you need a dictionary.

Today's liberal want a right sized government as determined by the voters. Just like the founding fathers got.

The founders gave us a Republic, not a democracy. A majority of votes does not get to overturn the rule of law or discard the enumerated powers that limits the size of the federal government. That is supposed to require an amendment to the law of the land, something the central planners in both parties have been side stepping for many years.

Everyone believes in freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets

Based on your history of comments here, you have no idea what a free market is.

 

[rightwinger]

That's correct.

But YOU are, right?

Cause like, you're special.

I see no difference between today's liberals and the so called "classical" liberals.

Then you're not looking very hard...or you need a dictionary.

Today's liberal want a right sized government as determined by the voters. Just like the founding fathers got.

The founders gave us a Republic, not a democracy. A majority of votes does not get to overturn the rule of law or discard the enumerated powers that limits the size of the federal government. That is supposed to require an amendment to the law of the land, something the central planners in both parties have been side stepping for many years.

Everyone believes in freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets

Based on your history of comments here, you have no idea what a free market is.

No shit Sherlock

We the people elect representatives to meet our needs. If those representatives are failing to meet our needs, we vote them out of office and replace them with those who will

That is how we "limit" government.

There is not and never has been a requirement to pass an amendment every time you pass a law. That is why amendments are few and far between

 

[eflatminor]

I see no difference between today's liberals and the so called "classical" liberals.

Then you're not looking very hard...or you need a dictionary.



The founders gave us a Republic, not a democracy. A majority of votes does not get to overturn the rule of law or discard the enumerated powers that limits the size of the federal government. That is supposed to require an amendment to the law of the land, something the central planners in both parties have been side stepping for many years.

Everyone believes in freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets

Based on your history of comments here, you have no idea what a free market is.

No shit Sherlock

Yes, you really do need a dictionary. That is clear. Tell us again how liberals and libertarians are the same...

We the people elect representatives to meet our needs.

Wrong. We elect representatives at the federal level to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". Again, get a dictionary.

If those representatives are failing to meet our needs, we vote them out of office and replace them with those who will

Not with gerrymandering we don't.

That is how we "limit" government.

And the enumerated powers in combination with the 10th amendment??? I suppose you think that means "whatever goes". Again,

There is not and never has been a requirement to pass an amendment every time you pass a law. That is why amendments are few and far between

Never said there was. But there sure as FUCK is if you want to expand the federal government's powers beyond the those enumerated in the Constitution.

Gee thee to a library toot suite...

 

[rightwinger]

Our Constitution does not contain the words "limited government" what it does contain is broad guidance on how our government should be constructed and what the roles of each branch are


Today's liberals, like the so called classical liberals want one thing out of government......do what needs to be done


Simple concept that has worked for 200 years