Political Liberty and The Right of Popular Rebellion Against Tyranny

[Skylar]

Only a small percentage of Americans want a government and corporate restrained America. Very few of them are in the GOP or Democratic Party.

A truly free America in terms of classical liberalism, would be one where most of these are the case:
- The government doesn't regulate most aspects of morality, including marriage.
- The governments focus is maintaing infrastructure and restraining corporations from establishing monopolies
- Taxes are voluntary and government services are on a use it you buy it principle.
- Everyone is taxed the same percentage.
- Property rights supersede utilitarian attitudes.
- Private healthcare, and no restrictions on operations like abortions, or stem-cell research. This goes with the government staying out of people's lives.
- Financial regulations are mostly removed, but there are no bailouts or subsidies. Just pure rise or sink capitalism.
- No government subsidies of any kind.
- Secular society where religion is a private sphere matter with no interference from the government.
- No welfare system, and obviously no food stamps.

That isn't the GOP platform, because it doesn't want small government any more than the Democratic Party. Without corporate donors and lobbyists, most US political parties wouldn't exist.

Most government legislation in America contains clauses that create subsidies or tax loopholes for a few corporations. This is not about building a free market, but using the government as a means to disadvantage other corporations or businesses.

There is no such thing as a 'small government party' in America, with the exception of the libertarian party. Only a few rebel factions exist in the two major parties - and like Ron Paul, they are ignored.

That's never been this country or any other.

The two in bold already do, at least according to the intent of the US Constitution - and don't forget the monopoly that the British Empire had on America (not just the tax and duties) before the war of independence.

ever read teh state constitution that preceded the national one? - Secular society where religion is a private sphere matter with no interference from the government.?

Which one, Massachusetts?

Article II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience, or for his religious profession or sentiments, provided he doth not disturb the public peace or obstruct others in their religious worship.

Never said the founders agreed over everything. The US Constitution was ultimately a compromise of various religious and political factions, and one of those compromises was a secular government*. State constitutions after the Federal constitution was passed effectively became secondary, hence the situation today where US state constitutions can forbid atheists from holding public office, yet such restrictions are overturned by the Federal US constitution.

*Secular government is a loose term however, and doesn't have to mean absence of religion in politics, such as a separation of church and state.

Massachusetts Constitution. First one and used as a model for national one. It provided for :

Article III. [As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.
Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts​

And where is the voluntary taxation part?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

That's never been this country or any other.

The two in bold already do, at least according to the intent of the US Constitution - and don't forget the monopoly that the British Empire had on America (not just the tax and duties) before the war of independence.

ever read teh state constitution that preceded the national one? - Secular society where religion is a private sphere matter with no interference from the government.?

Which one, Massachusetts?

Article II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience, or for his religious profession or sentiments, provided he doth not disturb the public peace or obstruct others in their religious worship.

Never said the founders agreed over everything. The US Constitution was ultimately a compromise of various religious and political factions, and one of those compromises was a secular government*. State constitutions after the Federal constitution was passed effectively became secondary, hence the situation today where US state constitutions can forbid atheists from holding public office, yet such restrictions are overturned by the Federal US constitution.

*Secular government is a loose term however, and doesn't have to mean absence of religion in politics, such as a separation of church and state.

Massachusetts Constitution. First one and used as a model for national one. It provided for :

Article III. [As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.
Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts​

And where is the voluntary taxation part?

Huh? please...

 

[Skylar]

Huh? please...

My bad. I thought you were responding to my post.

 

[georgephillip]

This one is, as were most all of the Founders. Or at least the ones who won the argument of the day

The Founders found democracy less useful after winning independence; why do you think they believed only property owners deserved a vote?

 

[Skylar]

Political Liberty and The Right of Popular Rebellion Against Tyranny: It is a liberal concept. So is democracy as well as republicanism. Conservatives in the USA come out of the liberal tradition.

We are all liberals. We're liberals of different stripes.

Sane, rational, and reasonable people know tyranny does not exist in the USA today. Why? We have representative government with open and free elections. The ultimate power resides in the vote, not money or political power.

Only a small percentage of Americans want a government and corporate restrained America. Very few of them are in the GOP or Democratic Party.

A truly free America in terms of classical liberalism, would be one where most of these are the case:
- The government doesn't regulate most aspects of morality, including marriage.
- The governments focus is maintaing infrastructure and restraining corporations from establishing monopolies
- Taxes are voluntary and government services are on a use it you buy it principle.
- Everyone is taxed the same percentage.
- Property rights supersede utilitarian attitudes.
- Private healthcare, and no restrictions on operations like abortions, or stem-cell research. This goes with the government staying out of people's lives.
- Financial regulations are mostly removed, but there are no bailouts or subsidies. Just pure rise or sink capitalism.
- No government subsidies of any kind.
- Secular society where religion is a private sphere matter with no interference from the government.
- No welfare system, and obviously no food stamps.

That isn't the GOP platform, because it doesn't want small government any more than the Democratic Party. Without corporate donors and lobbyists, most US political parties wouldn't exist.

Most government legislation in America contains clauses that create subsidies or tax loopholes for a few corporations. This is not about building a free market, but using the government as a means to disadvantage other corporations or businesses.

There is no such thing as a 'small government party' in America, with the exception of the libertarian party. Only a few rebel factions exist in the two major parties - and like Ron Paul, they are ignored.

That's never been this country or any other.

The two in bold already do, at least according to the intent of the US Constitution - and don't forget the monopoly that the British Empire had on America (not just the tax and duties) before the war of independence.

Yeah, but voluntary taxation? And government subsidies have a pedigree only 5 years or so less distinguished than our nation.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

This one is, as were most all of the Founders. Or at least the ones who won the argument of the day

The Founders found democracy less useful after winning independence; why do you think they believed only property owners deserved a vote?

after winning independence? btw, they also debated who should have the vote, so technically you are wrong on "what they believed"

 

[georgephillip]

after winning independence? btw, they also debated who should have the vote, so technically you are wrong on "what they believed"

"Originally, the U.S. Constitution did not define who was eligible to vote, allowing each state to determine who was eligible. In the early history of U.S., most states allowed only Caucasian males—who either owned property (i.e., at least 50 acres of land), or, had taxable incomes—to vote."
Voting rights in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

after winning independence? btw, they also debated who should have the vote, so technically you are wrong on "what they believed"

"Originally, the U.S. Constitution did not define who was eligible to vote, allowing each state to determine who was eligible. In the early history of U.S., most states allowed only Caucasian males—who either owned property (i.e., at least 50 acres of land), or, had taxable incomes—to vote."
Voting rights in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

yet you wrote that

"The Founders found democracy less useful after winning independence; why do you think they believed only property owners deserved a vote?"

 

[Two Thumbs]

Political Liberty and The Right of Popular Rebellion Against Tyranny: It is a liberal concept. So is democracy as well as republicanism. Conservatives in the USA come out of the liberal tradition.

We are all liberals. We're liberals of different stripes.

Sane, rational, and reasonable people know tyranny does not exist in the USA today. Why? We have representative government with open and free elections. The ultimate power resides in the vote, not money or political power.

Yer kidding, right?

seriously, get with the program or sit back and learn something.

No serious person would deny these facts

Is the ACA a form a tyranny?

yes or no please

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Political Liberty and The Right of Popular Rebellion Against Tyranny: It is a liberal concept. So is democracy as well as republicanism. Conservatives in the USA come out of the liberal tradition.

We are all liberals. We're liberals of different stripes.

Sane, rational, and reasonable people know tyranny does not exist in the USA today. Why? We have representative government with open and free elections. The ultimate power resides in the vote, not money or political power.

Yer kidding, right?

seriously, get with the program or sit back and learn something.

No serious person would deny these facts

Is the ACA a form a tyranny?

yes or no please

Of course not, unless of course you would consider a law passed by both chambers of the legislature, signed by the executive, and ruled constitutional by the judiciary as being tyrannous

 

[Two Thumbs]

Political Liberty and The Right of Popular Rebellion Against Tyranny: It is a liberal concept. So is democracy as well as republicanism. Conservatives in the USA come out of the liberal tradition.

We are all liberals. We're liberals of different stripes.

Sane, rational, and reasonable people know tyranny does not exist in the USA today. Why? We have representative government with open and free elections. The ultimate power resides in the vote, not money or political power.

Yer kidding, right?

seriously, get with the program or sit back and learn something.

No serious person would deny these facts

Is the ACA a form a tyranny?

yes or no please

Of course not, unless of course you would consider a law passed by both chambers of the legislature, signed by the executive, and ruled constitutional by the judiciary as being tyrannous

Tyranny; government by force or coercion.

we no have to buy health insurance or pay a fine (coercion)

therefore the aca is tyranny

 

[Katzndogz]

after winning independence? btw, they also debated who should have the vote, so technically you are wrong on "what they believed"

"Originally, the U.S. Constitution did not define who was eligible to vote, allowing each state to determine who was eligible. In the early history of U.S., most states allowed only Caucasian males—who either owned property (i.e., at least 50 acres of land), or, had taxable incomes—to vote."
Voting rights in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Originally there was no tax on income at all. The purpose of only allowing tax payers to vote was because only tax payers were stakeholders. Those who did not pay taxes would simply vote to benefit themselves at the expense of those who did pay taxes.

We should have kept it like that.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Political Liberty and The Right of Popular Rebellion Against Tyranny: It is a liberal concept. So is democracy as well as republicanism. Conservatives in the USA come out of the liberal tradition.

We are all liberals. We're liberals of different stripes.

Sane, rational, and reasonable people know tyranny does not exist in the USA today. Why? We have representative government with open and free elections. The ultimate power resides in the vote, not money or political power.

Yer kidding, right?

seriously, get with the program or sit back and learn something.

No serious person would deny these facts

Is the ACA a form a tyranny?

yes or no please

Of course not, unless of course you would consider a law passed by both chambers of the legislature, signed by the executive, and ruled constitutional by the judiciary as being tyrannous

Tyranny; government by force or coercion.

we no have to buy health insurance or pay a fine (coercion)

therefore the aca is tyranny

faulty logic

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

after winning independence? btw, they also debated who should have the vote, so technically you are wrong on "what they believed"

"Originally, the U.S. Constitution did not define who was eligible to vote, allowing each state to determine who was eligible. In the early history of U.S., most states allowed only Caucasian males—who either owned property (i.e., at least 50 acres of land), or, had taxable incomes—to vote."
Voting rights in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Originally there was no tax on income at all. The purpose of only allowing tax payers to vote was because only tax payers were stakeholders. Those who did not pay taxes would simply vote to benefit themselves at the expense of those who did pay taxes.

We should have kept it like that.

did you just make this shit up? taxpayers?

 

[hipeter924]

That's never been this country or any other.

The two in bold already do, at least according to the intent of the US Constitution - and don't forget the monopoly that the British Empire had on America (not just the tax and duties) before the war of independence.

ever read teh state constitution that preceded the national one? - Secular society where religion is a private sphere matter with no interference from the government.?

Which one, Massachusetts?

Article II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience, or for his religious profession or sentiments, provided he doth not disturb the public peace or obstruct others in their religious worship.

Never said the founders agreed over everything. The US Constitution was ultimately a compromise of various religious and political factions, and one of those compromises was a secular government*. State constitutions after the Federal constitution was passed effectively became secondary, hence the situation today where US state constitutions can forbid atheists from holding public office, yet such restrictions are overturned by the Federal US constitution.

*Secular government is a loose term however, and doesn't have to mean absence of religion in politics, such as a separation of church and state.

Massachusetts Constitution. First one and used as a model for national one. It provided for :

Article III. [As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.
Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts​

And where is the voluntary taxation part?

Voluntary taxation is a more recent classical liberal concept. Appeals essentially to the idea that taxation is only consentual when you have a choice not to pay.

 

[hipeter924]

Only a small percentage of Americans want a government and corporate restrained America. Very few of them are in the GOP or Democratic Party.

A truly free America in terms of classical liberalism, would be one where most of these are the case:
- The government doesn't regulate most aspects of morality, including marriage.
- The governments focus is maintaing infrastructure and restraining corporations from establishing monopolies
- Taxes are voluntary and government services are on a use it you buy it principle.
- Everyone is taxed the same percentage.
- Property rights supersede utilitarian attitudes.
- Private healthcare, and no restrictions on operations like abortions, or stem-cell research. This goes with the government staying out of people's lives.
- Financial regulations are mostly removed, but there are no bailouts or subsidies. Just pure rise or sink capitalism.
- No government subsidies of any kind.
- Secular society where religion is a private sphere matter with no interference from the government.
- No welfare system, and obviously no food stamps.

That isn't the GOP platform, because it doesn't want small government any more than the Democratic Party. Without corporate donors and lobbyists, most US political parties wouldn't exist.

Most government legislation in America contains clauses that create subsidies or tax loopholes for a few corporations. This is not about building a free market, but using the government as a means to disadvantage other corporations or businesses.

There is no such thing as a 'small government party' in America, with the exception of the libertarian party. Only a few rebel factions exist in the two major parties - and like Ron Paul, they are ignored.

Does the USA precede the advent of what we now describe as 'classical liberalism?'

hipeter924

'Classical liberalism' dates back to the 19th century, but liberalism as a political movement dates back to the enlightenment: Classical liberalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Depends on whether you identify with the liberal philosophies of the 18th century or the 19th - the US Constitution having been ratified in 1788, and before that the Articles of Confederation in 1777. The earlier shaped the initial beginnings of America, and classical liberalism came to hold a place in US politics after that.

So the people that founded the USA were not classical liberals?

I meant, it depends who you identify with, and whether you would consider the liberal philosophies of the 18th or 19th century (when 'classical liberalism' began) as more significant to the establishment of America.

If Classical Liberalism didn't exist before the founding then the founders could not have been influenced by classical liberalism

Classical Liberalism was one of the branches from 18th century liberalism, so it is the other way around. With the founders giving inspiration to classical liberalism. Some of the founders lived up to the 1830s as well, albeit retired from politics.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Political Liberty and The Right of Popular Rebellion Against Tyranny: It is a liberal concept. So is democracy as well as republicanism. Conservatives in the USA come out of the liberal tradition.

We are all liberals. We're liberals of different stripes.

Sane, rational, and reasonable people know tyranny does not exist in the USA today. Why? We have representative government with open and free elections. The ultimate power resides in the vote, not money or political power.

Yer kidding, right?

seriously, get with the program or sit back and learn something.

No serious person would deny these facts

Is the ACA a form a tyranny?

yes or no please

Of course not, unless of course you would consider a law passed by both chambers of the legislature, signed by the executive, and ruled constitutional by the judiciary as being tyrannous

Tyranny; government by force or coercion.

we no have to buy health insurance or pay a fine (coercion)

therefore the aca is tyranny

In addition to being faulty logic this is also factually wrong.

Those who do not have health insurance do not pay a 'fine,' as the ACA makes no provision for criminal penalties, fines, liens, levies, or other punitive measures.

Because no one is subject to punitive measures, the ACA is not 'tyranny.'

Citizens are at liberty to go without health insurance if they so desire.

 

[georgephillip]

yet you wrote that

"The Founders found democracy less useful after winning independence; why do you think they believed only property owners deserved a vote?"

Correct.
The Founders used property-less patriots to fight the British and then denied the same patriots the right to vote.

 

[georgephillip]

Originally there was no tax on income at all. The purpose of only allowing tax payers to vote was because only tax payers were stakeholders

What about colonists who fought for US independence?
Were they stakeholders?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Does the USA precede the advent of what we now describe as 'classical liberalism?'

hipeter924

'Classical liberalism' dates back to the 19th century, but liberalism as a political movement dates back to the enlightenment: Classical liberalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Depends on whether you identify with the liberal philosophies of the 18th century or the 19th - the US Constitution having been ratified in 1788, and before that the Articles of Confederation in 1777. The earlier shaped the initial beginnings of America, and classical liberalism came to hold a place in US politics after that.

So the people that founded the USA were not classical liberals?

I meant, it depends who you identify with, and whether you would consider the liberal philosophies of the 18th or 19th century (when 'classical liberalism' began) as more significant to the establishment of America.

If Classical Liberalism didn't exist before the founding then the founders could not have been influenced by classical liberalism

Classical Liberalism was one of the branches from 18th century liberalism, so it is the other way around. With the founders giving inspiration to classical liberalism. Some of the founders lived up to the 1830s as well, albeit retired from politics.

Something along this line is what I am referring to:

Classical liberalism
www.princeton.edu/.../Classical_liberalism.html
Princeton University
Although classical liberalism built on ideas that had already developed by the end of the eighteenth century, it advocated a specific kind of society, government .​

Most people using the term classical liberalism are speaking about this specific kind of society and government. It is at best specious, and at worst disingenuous of people to keep using the term in order to make a point about the Founders' intent(s).