If Jefferson founded the Republican Party what place do Democrats have in America?

[code1211]

Code, I have no problem with your last post, but I would point out that only a handful of either grasshoppers or ants exist as you have described them.

Haha, you're probably absolutely correct in this assumption. However. . . ant here.

Sounds like we might have grown up on (in?) the same hill.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

2. It's not apples and oranges. Literal lineage means what it means regardless of where you apply it. Your opinion that lineage means something different with political parties is exactly that: opinion. When I say, "actual lineage", that "actual" part should clue you in that I'm referring to fact, not opinion. Factually, lineage has a particular definition. Look it up.

literal and factual lineage is based on name and philosophy of both Jefferson and Greely,i.e., Republican. Greely used Republican specificially because of Jefferson's philosophy which was not represented by pro slavery Democrats

lin·e·age1    [lin-ee-ij] Show IPA
noun
1.
lineal descent from an ancestor; ancestry or extraction: She could trace her lineage to the early Pilgrims.
2.
the line of descendants of a particular ancestor; family; race.

Where do you get that lineage is based on name and philosophy? I refer you back to the argument that, even if my folks had named me Thomas J and I held to a philosophy that was -exactly- Jefferson's, he wouldn't suddenly appear in my family tree and become my ancestor.

Literal lineage, in the case of a political party, would be along the lines of, "This guy had control of the party, then it passed to this other dude, who renamed it That party in stead of This party, and then he passed it on to so and so, but some other dude and his friends within That party decided that it was some hardcore BS, so it ended up splintering in half. The new half took on the name, Other party, and when That party's poor economic policies led it to ruin some time down the road, Other party was still around. Now Other party is the last remaining fragment of This party."

Savvy?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Jefferson never would've approved of The Patriot Act,

Jefferson never would have approved of the secret purchase of Louisiana with greatly expanded presidential powers, but this and spying during war are very very trivial issues compared to the major issue of history: freedom from big liberal government. Here are some Jefferson quotes to serve as your first lesson in American History:

-That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.
"The path we have to pursue[when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature."

-The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

-The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.

" the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to grain ground; that the greater the government the stronger the exploiter and the weaker the producer; that , therefore, the hope of liberty depends upon local self-governance and the vigilance of the producer class."


-A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor (read-taxes) and bread it has earned -- this is the sum of good government.

-Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

-History, in general, only informs us of what bad government is.

-I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.

-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.

-My reading of history convinces me that bad government results from too much government.

-Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.

-Sometimes 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.

-The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.

-Most bad government has grown out of too much government.

-Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.

-Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

-I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious
"Agriculture, manufactures, commerce and navigation, the four
pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most
free to individual enterprise. Protection from casual
embarrassments, however, may sometimes be seasonably interposed."
--Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801.

"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens
free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."
--Thomas Jefferson to M. L'Hommande, 1787.

"[Ours is a] policy of not embarking the public in enterprises
better managed by individuals, and which might occupy as much
of our time as those political duties for which the public functionaries are particularly instituted. Some money could be
lent them [the New Orleans Canal Co.], but only on an assurance that it would be employed so as to secure the public objects."
--Thomas Jefferson to W. C. C. Claiborne, 1808.

"The rights of the people to the exercise and fruits of their own industry can never be protected against the selfishness of rulers
not subject to their control at short periods." --Thomas Jefferson
to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1816.

"Our wish is that...[there be] maintained that state of property,
equal or unequal, which results to every man from his own industry
or that of his fathers." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural
Address, 1805.

"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to
others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of
association--the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." --Thomas Jefferson: Note
in Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816.

"Private enterprise manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal." --Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806.

"The merchants will manage [commerce] the better, the more they are left free to manage for themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1800.


"If ever this vast country is brought under a single government, it will be one of the most extensive corruption, indifferent and incapable of a wholesome care over so wide a spread of surface." --Thomas Jefferson to William T. Barry, 1822. ME 15:389


Some] seem to think that [civilization's] advance has brought on too complicated a state of society, and that we should gain in happiness by treading back our steps a little way. I think, myself, that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. I believe it might be much simplified to the relief of those who maintain it." --Thomas Jefferson to William Ludlow, 1824. ME 16:75

The parties of Whig and Tory are those of nature. They exist in all countries, whether called by these names or by those of Aristocrats and Democrats, Cote Droite and Cote Gauche, Ultras and Radicals, Serviles and Liberals. The sickly, weakly, timid man fears the people, and is a Tory by nature. The healthy, strong and bold cherishes them, and is formed a Whig by nature." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823. ME 15:492

"Agriculture, manufactures, commerce and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise. Protection from casual embarrassments, however, may sometimes be seasonably interposed." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:337

"The power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State (that is to say, of the commerce between citizen and citizen) which remain exclusively with its own legislature, but to its external commerce only; that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Bank, 1791. ME 3:147

"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. ." - Thomas Jefferson


"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-- Benjamin Franklin

"We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute."

-- Thomas Paine


When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-- Benjamin Franklin

"We still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute."
-Thomas paine

"If the government robs Peter to pay Paul, it can always count on the support of Paul." [in America to bottom 45% pay no Federal taxes]
-Winston Churchhill

"The government of the United States [federal government] is a definite government confined to specified objects [powers]. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. CHARITY IS NO PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT."
-James madison
Jefferson: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."


Patrick Henry
Tell me when did liberty ever exist when the sword and the purse were given up?

Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."



I see,... and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that, too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power... It is but too evident that the three ruling branches of [the Federal government] are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1825. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson


James Madison: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions."

James Madison: "The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specific objectives. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

James Madison in Federalist paper NO. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."




I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." - Benjamin Franklin

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-Benjamin Franklin

"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." - Benjamin Franklin

One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Livingston, March 25, 1825
Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Wilson Nicholas, September 7, 1803


That these are our grievances which we have thus laid before his majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights as derived from the laws of nature, andnot as the gift of their chief magistrate.

Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America,
1774

The Constitution... is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge Spencer Roane, September 6, 1819


The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Taylor, May 28, 1816

They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.

Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on National Bank, 1791

My first lesson in American history? No amount of condescension will lend credence to your arguments or rob it from mine. Our points are either logical or they are not.

On top of that, from the perspective of the founders, whose small government philosophy I'm well aware of, thank you (much of my own political philosophy sees pretty much eye to eye with most of your list of quotes), the Patriot Act would -not- have been a trivial issue.

"One of the most controversial aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act is in title V, and relates to National Security Letters (NSLs). An NSL is a form of administrative subpoena used by the FBI, and reportedly by other U.S. government agencies including the CIA and the Department of Defense (DoD). It is a demand letter issued to a particular entity or organization to turn over various records and data pertaining to individuals. They require no probable cause or judicial oversight and also contain a gag order, preventing the recipient of the letter from disclosing that the letter was ever issued. Title V allowed the use of NSLs to be made by a Special Agent in charge of a Bureau field office, where previously only the Director or the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI were able to certify such requests.[122] This provision of the Act was challenged by the ACLU on behalf of an unknown party against the U.S. government on the grounds that NSLs violate the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution because there is no way to legally oppose an NSL subpoena in court, and that it was unconstitutional to not allow a client to inform their Attorney as to the order because of the gag provision of the letters. The court's judgement found in favour of the ACLU's case, and they declared the law unconstitutional.[123] Later, the USA PATRIOT Act was reauthorized and amendments were made to specify a process of judicial review of NSLs and to allow the recipient of an NSL to disclose receipt of the letter to an attorney or others necessary to comply with or challenge the order.[124] However, in 2007 the U.S. District Court struck down even the reauthorized NSLs because the gag power was unconstitutional as courts could still not engage in meaningful judicial review of these gags" - Wiki Article

Breaching the First and Fourth Amendments under the guise of preventing terrorism wouldn't have been a big deal to the founders? Since Franklin was among those quotes you flew at me in my "first lesson in American history", lemme fire one back at you.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

This is only one example. I refer you back to the gay marriage issue: Republicans seeking Federal power to prevent individuals from practicing a controversial but victimless lifestyle.

How about the war on drugs? Breaching the 10th Amendment by controlling individual consumption of substances from the federal level?

Here's a little fun fact for you. . . all those quotes you threw up while implying that I'm ignorant. . . those have nothing to do with whether or not the current GOP still holds to those philosophies. As I said before, I agree with your assessment that the GOP is -closer- to Jefferson's philosophy than the Democrats. However, any BLANKET STATEMENT that the GOP is a party of small government is either ignorant or dishonest.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

a descendant of Jefferson's Democratic Republicans

why would you say Democratic Republicans when I have bet you $10000 that there is no known use of that term in the 18th Century. Are you slow?

Not at all. I say Democratic Republicans because Democratic Republican party is the current commonly used term when referring to Jefferson's Republicans. I'm well aware that they called it the Republican party back then. However, if I say Republicans to refer to Jefferson's Republicans and the GOP both, it'll create confusion when trying to differ between which I'm referring to.

After all, on a -LITERAL- level, they are two different things.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

If Jefferson and the founders felt that opposing viewpoints should be ousted, they probably wouldn't have included freedom of speech in the Bill of Rights, no?

speech is one thing, being 100% opposed to the basic principle of the Constitution and then subverting the Constitution is another. Of course if they had known what would happen they would have been even clearer that liberals are the opposite of Americans.

It was a catch 22 for them. They had to allow all speech because evil governemnt could not be trusted to regulate it but that then opened the door to treasonous liberal speech.

So it wasn't a principle that speech shouldn't be silenced by those in power, simply a way of guaranteeing that said power wouldn't be turned on them?

The implication is that Jefferson would agree with the following: In a perfect world, the government would enforce my views on everyone else and oust those who opposed them, but would never enforce other views on me or those who agree.

Is that sentiment that you feel would be in keeping with the founders' philosophy, as opposed to a general appreciation of the value of individual freedom?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Code, I have no problem with your last post, but I would point out that only a handful of either grasshoppers or ants exist as you have described them.

Haha, you're probably absolutely correct in this assumption. However. . . ant here.

Sounds like we might have grown up on (in?) the same hill.

Perhaps. Mine are two tiny hills in the midst of two long time Democrat strong holds: Hawaii and Oregon.

 

[regent]

E. P. Link in his book, Democratic-Republican Societies 1790-1800, published in 1942 lists 42 societies with at least 15 labeled Democratic and two useing the hyphenated Democratic-Republican label.

 

[Dragon]

That may have been true of people when we were growing up. Now the size of government and particularly the cost will haunt our succeeding generations. 15 trillion in debt is nothing to sneeze at.

Debt is a function of imbalance between government revenues and spending. It is not a function of the size and scope of government. It is also fairly easy to remedy by actions which result in redistribution of wealth downward and hence in expanded economic performance, which results in increased revenues.

Less radically, we could fix it by reversing the Bush tax cuts and cutting back military spending to a level consistent with a mission of protecting the United States as opposed to protecting nebulously-defined American "interests" globally, the latter amounting to carte blanche to wage war anywhere, for any pretext. And we will do these things because there is no choice about it.

But that wouldn't come anywhere near the point of making the changes you and other libertarians would like to see.

Here's the way I see it. The equation of government size with government infringement on liberty is a false one. If you look at the tyrannies of history, some of the worst ones (ancient and medieval monarchies) were much smaller governments than today's democracies, which are far more benign. The modern big governments that can be categorized as tyrannies are exceptions and most of them are now defunct (Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, the Soviet Union). As the examples of the ancient monarchies demonstrate, it wasn't the SIZE of those totalitarian states that made them tyrannical, it was lack of public accountability, too much concentration of power into too few hands, and lack of protection for people's rights. And those are factors that have nothing to do with a government's size and scope one way or another.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

That may have been true of people when we were growing up. Now the size of government and particularly the cost will haunt our succeeding generations. 15 trillion in debt is nothing to sneeze at.

Debt is a function of imbalance between government revenues and spending. It is not a function of the size and scope of government. It is also fairly easy to remedy by actions which result in redistribution of wealth downward and hence in expanded economic performance, which results in increased revenues.

Less radically, we could fix it by reversing the Bush tax cuts and cutting back military spending to a level consistent with a mission of protecting the United States as opposed to protecting nebulously-defined American "interests" globally, the latter amounting to carte blanche to wage war anywhere, for any pretext. And we will do these things because there is no choice about it.

But that wouldn't come anywhere near the point of making the changes you and other libertarians would like to see.

Here's the way I see it. The equation of government size with government infringement on liberty is a false one. If you look at the tyrannies of history, some of the worst ones (ancient and medieval monarchies) were much smaller governments than today's democracies, which are far more benign. The modern big governments that can be categorized as tyrannies are exceptions and most of them are now defunct (Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, the Soviet Union). As the examples of the ancient monarchies demonstrate, it wasn't the SIZE of those totalitarian states that made them tyrannical, it was lack of public accountability, too much concentration of power into too few hands, and lack of protection for people's rights. And those are factors that have nothing to do with a government's size and scope one way or another.

Couple things I have to disagree with here. On the higher end of estimates I've seen, accounting for inflation and war related pentagon expenses (interest on war related loans) as well as money that went directly to the war effort, the high end of estimates I've seen put the cost to date at around 4 trillion. Average that out over the 10 years we've been in the desert playing nation builder and you're looking at an average of 400 billion a year.

Combine that with the Bush tax cuts. If we sunset the Bush tax cuts on the upper income bracket (>200k/year), but allow the Bush tax cuts for the lower brackets to remain, we're looking at an estimated revenue increase of 700 billion over 10 years. That's 70 billion per year.

So if we roll back those tax cuts and stop the war immediately, we're looking at increased revenues of about 470 billion per year. We have a budget deficit of 1.4 trillion per year. The only way we're pulling out of our deficit and debt by cutting the war and raising taxes is if we -seriously- raise taxes across the board. Without bleeding out our economy through stifling tax levels, the only way to make a serious effort at reducing the national debt is to address non military spending. The proportionate size of the big three, medicare, medicade, SS, leaves me struggling to believe that any honest attempt to eliminate our massive spending deficits can be made without addressing one or all of these.

I'm also not convinced that downward wealth redistribution is the big ticket out of economic problems. Seems counter intuitive to me that shuffling wealth out of the hands of some and into the hands of others so that the "some" can start working to get that money back is a surefire way at facilitating wealth creation, but I'm also not an economist so I won't claim to be particularly knowledgeable in this area.

Lastly, part of what many libertarians refer to with the term, "government size", is the scope of the government's power. However, even when we're talking about the government's size in the literal terms of federal employees, government organizations, and government facilities, I would have to contend that any increase in literal size is, to some degree, an increase in its power and an increase in its infringement on individual liberty. Virtually every literal expansion in the government's size is an increase for the purpose of creating/enforcing/facilitating regulation or an increase for the purpose of wealth redistribution. All regulation is a decrease in -someone's- individual liberty for the stated betterment of the country as a whole (not saying it's all good or evil, each regulation has its own merits), and all wealth redistribution is also a decrease in -someone's- individual liberty to do as they will with the wealth they acquire. Much of our own government's expansion in recent years has been, at least in my eyes, an unconscionable concentration of power into the hands of less and less people. We've recently passed a bill that enables the Federal executive branch to deem any citizen a terrorist and then imprison them offshore indefinitely with zero due process. On top of that, we've executive branch czars writing and executing their own legislation and, in some cases, even taking it upon themselves to "try" and penalize people and organizations based on this executive branch, non-executive order legislating (with an executive order the legislative branch actually has recourse). We've got organizations like the EPA that are run, with similarly unilateral legislative/judicial powers, by executive branch appointees who have no congressional oversight, actually override laws Congress passes when they decide it's the right thing to do, and override court decisions at will as well. Make no mistake, a slide in the general direction of unilaterally dictated totalitarianism is well underway.

 

[Dragon]

Couple things I have to disagree with here. On the higher end of estimates I've seen, accounting for inflation and war related pentagon expenses (interest on war related loans) as well as money that went directly to the war effort, the high end of estimates I've seen put the cost to date at around 4 trillion. Average that out over the 10 years we've been in the desert playing nation builder and you're looking at an average of 400 billion a year.

Combine that with the Bush tax cuts. If we sunset the Bush tax cuts on the upper income bracket (>200k/year), but allow the Bush tax cuts for the lower brackets to remain, we're looking at an estimated revenue increase of 700 billion over 10 years. That's 70 billion per year.

So if we roll back those tax cuts and stop the war immediately, we're looking at increased revenues of about 470 billion per year. We have a budget deficit of 1.4 trillion per year.

When I say to sunset the Bush tax cuts, I mean all of them, not just on the high bracket. When I say cut back the military, I don't just mean end the wars (although that's a good first step), I mean close down most (if not all) foreign military bases and redefine the military's mission as one of protecting the United States (not the world) against military attack. This would allow for a much smaller military force in being. This is something we are going to have to do if we want to remain economically competitive; far too much of our national wealth is going to uphold a military force that's as expensive as the rest of the world's combined. In a competitive global economy, we cannot afford that.

I'm also not convinced that downward wealth redistribution is the big ticket out of economic problems. Seems counter intuitive to me that shuffling wealth out of the hands of some and into the hands of others so that the "some" can start working to get that money back is a surefire way at facilitating wealth creation, but I'm also not an economist so I won't claim to be particularly knowledgeable in this area.

It's not difficult to understand, actually, and it works like this.

1) Economic growth and investment in real wealth production are functions of consumer demand.

2) The richer a person is, the less of his income is consumed and the more of it is saved or invested. Therefore, the more widely wealth is distributed, the more of it will be spent on consumption and the less will be saved or invested in the aggregate.

3) For that reason, when wealth is overly concentrated, as it is today, we have too much of it being saved and invested and not enough being spent, so that the economy rests on an inadequate base of consumer demand, and an unhealthy percentage of the investment goes to financial shell-games and rent-seeking rather than genuine production.

Redistributing wealth downward would simply be correcting for that imbalance. Note that I haven't said anything about exactly how that should be done; I would not recommend ham-handed tax-and-redistribute methods but there are other ways.

Lastly, part of what many libertarians refer to with the term, "government size", is the scope of the government's power. However, even when we're talking about the government's size in the literal terms of federal employees, government organizations, and government facilities, I would have to contend that any increase in literal size is, to some degree, an increase in its power and an increase in its infringement on individual liberty.

My disagreement here is with your last phrase, the one after the comma in the last sentence quoted above. An increase in the government's power is not (necessarily) an increase in its infringement on individual liberty. It will be, to the extent and only to the extent that the government is unaccountable to the people, overly concentrated in who holds the reins of its authority, or lacking adequate protection for the people's rights. If any or all of those is already true, then increasing the power of the government increases its potential infringement of liberty, yes. But it's those three factors, not the government's size, that are really determinative.

Once again, compare ancient and medieval monarchies to modern democracies. The old monarchies were tiny, weak things compared to modern governments, but also far more tyrannical. Clearly, increasing the size and power of government from medieval to modern times has not resulted in a corresponding loss of liberty -- exactly the reverse in fact.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Couple things I have to disagree with here. On the higher end of estimates I've seen, accounting for inflation and war related pentagon expenses (interest on war related loans) as well as money that went directly to the war effort, the high end of estimates I've seen put the cost to date at around 4 trillion. Average that out over the 10 years we've been in the desert playing nation builder and you're looking at an average of 400 billion a year.

Combine that with the Bush tax cuts. If we sunset the Bush tax cuts on the upper income bracket (>200k/year), but allow the Bush tax cuts for the lower brackets to remain, we're looking at an estimated revenue increase of 700 billion over 10 years. That's 70 billion per year.

So if we roll back those tax cuts and stop the war immediately, we're looking at increased revenues of about 470 billion per year. We have a budget deficit of 1.4 trillion per year.

When I say to sunset the Bush tax cuts, I mean all of them, not just on the high bracket. When I say cut back the military, I don't just mean end the wars (although that's a good first step), I mean close down most (if not all) foreign military bases and redefine the military's mission as one of protecting the United States (not the world) against military attack. This would allow for a much smaller military force in being. This is something we are going to have to do if we want to remain economically competitive; far too much of our national wealth is going to uphold a military force that's as expensive as the rest of the world's combined. In a competitive global economy, we cannot afford that.

I'm also not convinced that downward wealth redistribution is the big ticket out of economic problems. Seems counter intuitive to me that shuffling wealth out of the hands of some and into the hands of others so that the "some" can start working to get that money back is a surefire way at facilitating wealth creation, but I'm also not an economist so I won't claim to be particularly knowledgeable in this area.

It's not difficult to understand, actually, and it works like this.

1) Economic growth and investment in real wealth production are functions of consumer demand.

2) The richer a person is, the less of his income is consumed and the more of it is saved or invested. Therefore, the more widely wealth is distributed, the more of it will be spent on consumption and the less will be saved or invested in the aggregate.

3) For that reason, when wealth is overly concentrated, as it is today, we have too much of it being saved and invested and not enough being spent, so that the economy rests on an inadequate base of consumer demand, and an unhealthy percentage of the investment goes to financial shell-games and rent-seeking rather than genuine production.

Redistributing wealth downward would simply be correcting for that imbalance. Note that I haven't said anything about exactly how that should be done; I would not recommend ham-handed tax-and-redistribute methods but there are other ways.

Lastly, part of what many libertarians refer to with the term, "government size", is the scope of the government's power. However, even when we're talking about the government's size in the literal terms of federal employees, government organizations, and government facilities, I would have to contend that any increase in literal size is, to some degree, an increase in its power and an increase in its infringement on individual liberty.

My disagreement here is with your last phrase, the one after the comma in the last sentence quoted above. An increase in the government's power is not (necessarily) an increase in its infringement on individual liberty. It will be, to the extent and only to the extent that the government is unaccountable to the people, overly concentrated in who holds the reins of its authority, or lacking adequate protection for the people's rights. If any or all of those is already true, then increasing the power of the government increases its potential infringement of liberty, yes. But it's those three factors, not the government's size, that are really determinative.

Once again, compare ancient and medieval monarchies to modern democracies. The old monarchies were tiny, weak things compared to modern governments, but also far more tyrannical. Clearly, increasing the size and power of government from medieval to modern times has not resulted in a corresponding loss of liberty -- exactly the reverse in fact.

If we roll back the Bush tax cuts for -everyone-, we're then looking at about 103 billion per year in stead of 70 billion.

The entirity of the US military budget in 2011 was somewhere in the neighborhood of 690 billion.

So if we sunset -all- of the Bush tax cuts and literally cut Military spending to zero, we're looking at about 800 bil per year in savings. Closer to that magical 1.4 tril number, but still sadly short. (Though I must admit that I agree with the idea of cutting a lot of the more wasteful and heavy-handed military excursions. Self interest first. Fuck nation building and meddling in other peoples' conflicts.)



Next, as far as the basic, surface economic arguments of wealth redistribution, I've heard them all before, including this idea that wealth redistribution creates the consumer demand that drives the economy. While it does create that, it simultaneously reduces the capital available to the businesses being taxed, thus simultaneously reducing their ability to expand (and therefore reducing the economy's ability to expand). Shuffling the deck doesn't put more cards in it, and since so much wealth is literally consumed (food doesn't get resold after it's eaten), the -creation- of wealth is absolutely necessary to a healthy economy. Inhibiting creation to artificially inflate demand seems like it'd be self defeating.

I also think that this approach is overly simplistic in that it doesn't recognize the effects of our current regulatory and political environment in reducing the potential profit of the sort of investments in businesses that allow the economy to expand. 2 month tax cut extensions, continuing budgetary resolutions in stead of a solid, long term (even 1 year!) budget. . . these things cause uncertainty and are a large part of why wealthy investors (read people that know how to profit from investment) are putting money into things like Gold en masse rather than braving a shaky market to invest in actual economic expansion. If we had an environment wherein it was more profitable to do real business, more people would participate and everyone would benefit.

Then again, even this is probably overly simplistic. Unless we were to get into the grittier and more highly specialized details (the ones that require specialized education in economics), then neither of us are really making arguments that hold much water.



I do agree that much of the infringement of personal liberty is in large part to the extent that it is unaccountable to "the people", but not purely. The very term, power, means the ability to influence and control. For the government, power is the ability to influence and control the country ("the people"). An expansion of government power is, by nature, an expansion in their ability to tell people what and what not to do in a given arena.

Any expansion in government power also requires the manpower and infrastructure necessary to implement said power. These things cost money which is then taxed from individuals. Taxation, at any level, lessens the freedom a person has to do with their wealth as they wish.

Even if this power is -fully- accountable to "the people" (i.e. they can repeal it at any time via popular vote), saying that it is therefore not at all an infringement on -individual- liberty is simply false. The logical conclusion of this statement would be that absolute power of the popular vote (a true, pure democracy) would be the ultimate expression of individual freedom. I would argue that a society wherein 50.1 percent of the populous has the potential to completely subjugate the remaining 49.9 percent is hardly that expression.

The ultimate expression of individual freedom would be a complete lack of regulation on anybody, i.e. anarchy. Unfortunately, on a practical level, anarchy would never work simply because people can't be trusted not to subjugate each other via physical force when given potential immunity from recourse. Different argument though.

Lastly, your claim that the US government has more power than monarchies of the feudal era, -if- you're talking about the power it exercises over its own population, is simply false. Monarchies in the feudal era had absolute power in accordance with their own laws. Our laws don't allow our government absolute power. New laws saying the executive branch can brand someone a terrorist and imprison them indefinitely, off shore, with no due process, are certainly moving us in that direction. Not there yet, though.

 

[Dragon]

So if we sunset -all- of the Bush tax cuts and literally cut Military spending to zero, we're looking at about 800 bil per year in savings. Closer to that magical 1.4 tril number, but still sadly short. (Though I must admit that I agree with the idea of cutting a lot of the more wasteful and heavy-handed military excursions. Self interest first. Fuck nation building and meddling in other peoples' conflicts.)

I thought you'd probably agree with that.

How much of our current deficit is due to structural errors on either the spending or the revenue side, and how much is due simply to the economic downturn and the fact that we haven't fully recovered from it, a fact that both increases spending and cuts revenue? Remember that at the end of the Clinton administration we had a balanced budget even though military spending was still obscene, just because we had no Bush tax cuts, no wars, and no Medicare prescription drug plan. Those three things from the Bush years by themselves created a high deficit, and then the Great Recession pushed it through the roof.

Next, as far as the basic, surface economic arguments of wealth redistribution, I've heard them all before, including this idea that wealth redistribution creates the consumer demand that drives the economy. While it does create that, it simultaneously reduces the capital available to the businesses being taxed, thus simultaneously reducing their ability to expand (and therefore reducing the economy's ability to expand).

It does reduce available capital, but at present what we have is an excess of capital (strange as that may sound), so that's not a problem. Capital is not invested in real wealth-producing activities (by which I mean, activities that produce goods and services for the market) to the extent it exists, but only to the extent that unsatisfied consumer demand is believed to exist for the products and services to be produced. After that, if there is capital left over, it goes into nonproductive investments: speculation on commodities markets or similar bubble-blowing, rent-seeking of various types, and financial shell games that just transfer wealth from those investors who buy in at the wrong time to those who choose their buy/sell times better, rather than creating any new wealth.

Just look at the size of the U.S. economy's financial sector compared to its agriculture, manufacturing, or consumer-service sector, and you can see how out of balance things are. This illustrates that we have too much accumulated capital and not enough money distributed to the people.

It's certainly true that economic functionality can't be reduced to a single variable. I'm only bringing this up because it's one of the two areas where our current economy falls down worst, the other being environmental and resource sustainability.

I do agree that much of the infringement of personal liberty is in large part to the extent that it is unaccountable to "the people", but not purely. The very term, power, means the ability to influence and control. For the government, power is the ability to influence and control the country ("the people"). An expansion of government power is, by nature, an expansion in their ability to tell people what and what not to do in a given arena.

Yes, but that isn't necessarily a problem. It all depends on which people the government is telling what to and not to do, and what exactly it is telling them to or not to do. My freedom is seriously impacted by laws that restrict individual behavior, but I am benefited, not hindered, by laws and regulations that deprive businesses of the right to pollute my neighborhood, sell me defective and dangerous products, provide me with an unsafe workplace (if I had a regular job that is), and similar things. Whether it will exert power in a beneficial or a harmful manner comes down to the three things I mentioned above: public accountability, separation of powers, and explicit protection of rights.

Incidentally, I'm not saying that our current government is ideal in any of these three respects, especially the first one.

Any expansion in government power also requires the manpower and infrastructure necessary to implement said power. These things cost money which is then taxed from individuals. Taxation, at any level, lessens the freedom a person has to do with their wealth as they wish.

Yes and no. It depends on what the taxes are spent on, and whether this represents a net gain or loss. I assume you would not want taxes and hence government reduced to nonexistence, that you recognize value in various government services. In this, we may have a difference of where to draw the line beyond which further expansion of government does more harm than good, but we both recognize the principle -- that is, I don't believe you are an anarchist.

My belief is that where the line is drawn is a function of society's wealth and complexity. We need more government today than we did in the early 19th century, and we can also afford more. It's an observable fact that the richer a society becomes, the larger a percentage of its GDP goes to public spending. Clearly, the reason for that is because people see value in public services and would rather have them than have a little more pocket money, provided they are left with enough for what they want and need.

Please note that I listed THREE factors leading to good government as opposed to tyranny, not just one. Separation of powers and protection of rights are just as important as public accountability.

Lastly, your claim that the US government has more power than monarchies of the feudal era, -if- you're talking about the power it exercises over its own population, is simply false.

That isn't what I said. I said that it is larger and has a greater scope. It takes up a much larger share of GDP, and has laws impacting more aspects of life than, say, the French government of Louis XIV. But the king of France had the power of life or death over anyone in the country except the highest nobility, and could usually contrive it even where they were concerned. It was a much smaller government, but it had just about nothing in the way of public accountability, it was all concentrated into one man's hands ("L'etat, c'est moi"), and there were no restraints on it as to what it could lawfully do. The only restraints on it, in fact, were those imposed by lack of resources -- exactly what the libertarian argument would have us believe leads to liberty.

To the extent we have a good government, a non-tyrannical government, in this country, it is due to periodic elections, the federal system and separation of powers generally, and the Bill of Rights, and the size of the government is irrelevant.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

E. P. Link in his book, Democratic-Republican Societies 1790-1800, published in 1942 lists 42 societies with at least 15 labeled Democratic and two useing the hyphenated Democratic-Republican label.

and???????????????

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The implication is that Jefferson would agree with the following: In a perfect world, the government would enforce my views on everyone else and oust those who opposed them, but would never enforce other views on me or those who agree.

wrong wrong wrong: The implication is that knowledge exists, the Constitution reflects that knowledge, liberals are opposed to that knowledge, but, we can't trust government with the power to make treasonous liberals or their treasonous speech illegal.

Is that sentiment that you feel would be in keeping with the founders' philosophy, as opposed to a general appreciation of the value of individual freedom?

the Founders had no general appreciation for a liberals or other big government types individual freedom.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Republican Party - Conservapedia

The Democratic Party was the home to the conservatives until the middle 1960's. Then the liberals from the Republican Party moved to the Democratic Party and the conservatives in the Democratic Party moved to the Republican Party. You can read about it at a number of places, including, oddly enough, "Conservapedia". I posted a link above.

The Republican Party today maintains a racial make up of about 90% white. For a reason.

I would add as advice to the OP - google LBJ Civil Rights Act

THAT's what caused the swtich.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Not at all. I say Democratic Republicans because Democratic Republican party is the current commonly used term when referring to Jefferson's Republicans.

you mean commonly used by some current liberals who don't want to acknowledge that Democrats and their treasonous ideology had no place at the founding or in America.

WIKI: "The Democratic-Republican Party or Republican Party was an American political party founded in the early 1790s by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Political scientists use the former name, even though there is no known use of it in the 1790s, while historians prefer the latter one; contemporaries generally called the party the "Republicans", along with many other names. In a broader sense the party was the concrete realization of Jeffersonian democracy, i.e., continued aggressive opposition to the British monarchy, opposition to monarchy and strong central government in general, celebration of individual freedom and liberty from strong central government, and state's rights."

I'm well aware that they called it the Republican party back then.

and do you know why liberals must pretend otherwise?????

However, if I say Republicans to refer to Jefferson's Republicans and the GOP both, it'll create confusion when trying to differ between which I'm referring to.

do you know when term GOP became significant???

After all, on a -LITERAL- level, they are two different things.

Yes but so were Jefferson's Republicans and the National Republicans.

Most importantly its absurd to use the term Democratic Republican Party when it only existed for perhaps 15 years, while Republican has existed for all of American History

 

[regent]

E. P. Link in his book, Democratic-Republican Societies 1790-1800, published in 1942 lists 42 societies with at least 15 labeled Democratic and two useing the hyphenated Democratic-Republican label.

and???????????????

So according to some historians the term Democratic-Republicans was used before 1800.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

So if we sunset -all- of the Bush tax cuts and literally cut Military spending to zero, we're looking at about 800 bil per year in savings. Closer to that magical 1.4 tril number, but still sadly short. (Though I must admit that I agree with the idea of cutting a lot of the more wasteful and heavy-handed military excursions. Self interest first. Fuck nation building and meddling in other peoples' conflicts.)

I thought you'd probably agree with that.

How much of our current deficit is due to structural errors on either the spending or the revenue side, and how much is due simply to the economic downturn and the fact that we haven't fully recovered from it, a fact that both increases spending and cuts revenue? Remember that at the end of the Clinton administration we had a balanced budget even though military spending was still obscene, just because we had no Bush tax cuts, no wars, and no Medicare prescription drug plan. Those three things from the Bush years by themselves created a high deficit, and then the Great Recession pushed it through the roof.

Next, as far as the basic, surface economic arguments of wealth redistribution, I've heard them all before, including this idea that wealth redistribution creates the consumer demand that drives the economy. While it does create that, it simultaneously reduces the capital available to the businesses being taxed, thus simultaneously reducing their ability to expand (and therefore reducing the economy's ability to expand).

It does reduce available capital, but at present what we have is an excess of capital (strange as that may sound), so that's not a problem. Capital is not invested in real wealth-producing activities (by which I mean, activities that produce goods and services for the market) to the extent it exists, but only to the extent that unsatisfied consumer demand is believed to exist for the products and services to be produced. After that, if there is capital left over, it goes into nonproductive investments: speculation on commodities markets or similar bubble-blowing, rent-seeking of various types, and financial shell games that just transfer wealth from those investors who buy in at the wrong time to those who choose their buy/sell times better, rather than creating any new wealth.

Just look at the size of the U.S. economy's financial sector compared to its agriculture, manufacturing, or consumer-service sector, and you can see how out of balance things are. This illustrates that we have too much accumulated capital and not enough money distributed to the people.

It's certainly true that economic functionality can't be reduced to a single variable. I'm only bringing this up because it's one of the two areas where our current economy falls down worst, the other being environmental and resource sustainability.



Yes, but that isn't necessarily a problem. It all depends on which people the government is telling what to and not to do, and what exactly it is telling them to or not to do. My freedom is seriously impacted by laws that restrict individual behavior, but I am benefited, not hindered, by laws and regulations that deprive businesses of the right to pollute my neighborhood, sell me defective and dangerous products, provide me with an unsafe workplace (if I had a regular job that is), and similar things. Whether it will exert power in a beneficial or a harmful manner comes down to the three things I mentioned above: public accountability, separation of powers, and explicit protection of rights.

Incidentally, I'm not saying that our current government is ideal in any of these three respects, especially the first one.

Any expansion in government power also requires the manpower and infrastructure necessary to implement said power. These things cost money which is then taxed from individuals. Taxation, at any level, lessens the freedom a person has to do with their wealth as they wish.

Yes and no. It depends on what the taxes are spent on, and whether this represents a net gain or loss. I assume you would not want taxes and hence government reduced to nonexistence, that you recognize value in various government services. In this, we may have a difference of where to draw the line beyond which further expansion of government does more harm than good, but we both recognize the principle -- that is, I don't believe you are an anarchist.

My belief is that where the line is drawn is a function of society's wealth and complexity. We need more government today than we did in the early 19th century, and we can also afford more. It's an observable fact that the richer a society becomes, the larger a percentage of its GDP goes to public spending. Clearly, the reason for that is because people see value in public services and would rather have them than have a little more pocket money, provided they are left with enough for what they want and need.

Please note that I listed THREE factors leading to good government as opposed to tyranny, not just one. Separation of powers and protection of rights are just as important as public accountability.

Lastly, your claim that the US government has more power than monarchies of the feudal era, -if- you're talking about the power it exercises over its own population, is simply false.

That isn't what I said. I said that it is larger and has a greater scope. It takes up a much larger share of GDP, and has laws impacting more aspects of life than, say, the French government of Louis XIV. But the king of France had the power of life or death over anyone in the country except the highest nobility, and could usually contrive it even where they were concerned. It was a much smaller government, but it had just about nothing in the way of public accountability, it was all concentrated into one man's hands ("L'etat, c'est moi"), and there were no restraints on it as to what it could lawfully do. The only restraints on it, in fact, were those imposed by lack of resources -- exactly what the libertarian argument would have us believe leads to liberty.

To the extent we have a good government, a non-tyrannical government, in this country, it is due to periodic elections, the federal system and separation of powers generally, and the Bill of Rights, and the size of the government is irrelevant.

Haha, we're now close to common ground on all fronts.

The only place I disagree with the assessment of Clinton's surplus was that Clinton also had the internet boom to work with, which accounted for massive economic expansion throughout the nineties. Bush's deficits were also accentuated by an economic downturn after 9/11 (not to defend Bush). All that said, I can't say that I can account for the exact numbers back then, so I must admit that my level of understanding leaves room for the possibility that, in an economic recovery, rolling back Bush's tax cuts and military spending would be all that's necessary for the elimination of the deficit.

On the economics, I agree that a lot of the investment games regarding commodities, futures and derivatives markets (among others) don't seem like they'd contribute much to economic expansion and wealth creation, and I must admit that again my understanding leaves more than enough room for the possibility that rerouting that capital toward consumer demand, even artificially facilitated demand, could have positive effects on our economic situation. In any event, we've reached the level of depth in this argument where I must bow out and admit that my knowledge will allow me to speculate no deeper with any measure of confidence or honesty.

Yes, but that isn't necessarily a problem. It all depends on which people the government is telling what to and not to do, and what exactly it is telling them to or not to do. My freedom is seriously impacted by laws that restrict individual behavior, but I am benefited, not hindered, by laws and regulations that deprive businesses of the right to pollute my neighborhood, sell me defective and dangerous products, provide me with an unsafe workplace (if I had a regular job that is), and similar things. Whether it will exert power in a beneficial or a harmful manner comes down to the three things I mentioned above: public accountability, separation of powers, and explicit protection of rights.

On this we agree. Each expansion of power and regulation is good or bad on its own merits.

Yes and no. It depends on what the taxes are spent on, and whether this represents a net gain or loss. I assume you would not want taxes and hence government reduced to nonexistence, that you recognize value in various government services. In this, we may have a difference of where to draw the line beyond which further expansion of government does more harm than good, but we both recognize the principle -- that is, I don't believe you are an anarchist.

I still have to say that any taxation lessens individual freedom to do as they wish with the wealth that they have in that the taxed may not wish for their money to go toward even a financially beneficial government cause, but I do recognize that in many cases society experiences an overall increase in wealth based on taxation. Despite the likely connotations of my premise given my very libertarian sensibilities, I again feel that each case is good or bad on its own merit.

...It's an observable fact that the richer a society becomes, the larger a percentage of its GDP goes to public spending. Clearly, the reason for that is because people see value in public services and would rather have them than have a little more pocket money, provided they are left with enough for what they want and need.

Please note that I listed THREE factors leading to good government as opposed to tyranny, not just one. Separation of powers and protection of rights are just as important as public accountability.

No disagreement here.

That isn't what I said. I said that it is larger and has a greater scope. It takes up a much larger share of GDP, and has laws impacting more aspects of life than, say, the French government of Louis XIV. But the king of France had the power of life or death over anyone in the country except the highest nobility, and could usually contrive it even where they were concerned. It was a much smaller government, but it had just about nothing in the way of public accountability, it was all concentrated into one man's hands ("L'etat, c'est moi"), and there were no restraints on it as to what it could lawfully do. The only restraints on it, in fact, were those imposed by lack of resources -- exactly what the libertarian argument would have us believe leads to liberty.

To the extent we have a good government, a non-tyrannical government, in this country, it is due to periodic elections, the federal system and separation of powers generally, and the Bill of Rights, and the size of the government is irrelevant.

Not to nitpick, but you did actually say power.

Clearly, increasing the size and power of government from medieval to modern times has not resulted in a corresponding loss of liberty -- exactly the reverse in fact.

However, my "-if-" was my acknowledgement of the very good chance that you didn't mean power exercised over populace. In light of that clarification, I'd say we agree here as well. Lack of government funding protects freedom when that government is tyrannical, but in and of itself can't be said to have a guaranteed effect in either direction (toward guaranteeing freedom or tyranny).

And YES! Words on paper already provide no real shield against tyranny, especially when even those words allow for legal interpretation. Separation of powers is absolutely key.


So, I could be wrong in this, but it seems like our argument has pretty much played out. If that's the case, good discussion. It's been a lot of fun.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Clearly, increasing the size and power of government from medieval to modern times has not resulted in a corresponding loss of liberty -- exactly the reverse in fact.

medieval government and society was very very powerful and authoritarian compared to now where we live under a Republican Constitution.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

The implication is that Jefferson would agree with the following: In a perfect world, the government would enforce my views on everyone else and oust those who opposed them, but would never enforce other views on me or those who agree.

wrong wrong wrong: The implication is that knowledge exists, the Constitution reflects that knowledge, liberals are opposed to that knowledge, but, we can't trust government with the power to make treasonous liberals or their treasonous speech illegal.

Is that sentiment that you feel would be in keeping with the founders' philosophy, as opposed to a general appreciation of the value of individual freedom?

the Founders had no general appreciation for a liberals or other big government types individual freedom.

On that first bit, what you said doesn't actually contradict what I said. If someone says their views should be enforced and others should be ousted, the implication is that they believe their views are factually correct (knowledge and not opinion). Whether or not the founders' views were correct is purely incidental. What you're saying is still that they would have held to the belief that, in a perfect world (one in which govt could be trusted) their views (or facts, as you imply that they were) would be enforced and others would be ousted. Note that I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with this. I don't know what was in their hearts.

On that second bit, I posed what I said as a question because I must admit that I don't know. The Franklin quote that I posted could certainly be construed to support your opinion on this (i.e. that someone's opinion could affect whether they deserve freedom or security).