What are libertarians?

[Pogo]

Actually "libertarianism" didn't even exist yet. Fortunately Liberalism did.

 

[Bfgrn]

leftists don't accuse the founders of embracing Marxist principles.

The argument was not what leftists accuse anybody of. The argument was what language/metaphors Kaz is allowed to use according to Pogo.

I do concur with Kaz, however, that many leftists do attribute positions to the Founders that are Marxist in nature. People didn't start calling such positions Marxist until he presented his manifesto to the world any more than we used the terms Machiavellian or Orwellian before those guys became famous. But the concepts existed whether the men existed yet or not--we just have a way to label them now that saves a lot of time.

It's amusing how liberals won't read what each other write either.

It's amusing how libertarians ignore what our founders said (post #346), or how anti-laissez-faire they governed.

But carry on...

You don't understand how they designed our government, you don't understand laissez-faire, and you don't care. I only argue with liberals when there is something for non-liberals to read. You are useless. I don't think this one is a point non-liberals would particularly get anything out of.

leftists don't accuse the founders of embracing Marxist principles.

The argument was not what leftists accuse anybody of. The argument was what language/metaphors Kaz is allowed to use according to Pogo.

I do concur with Kaz, however, that many leftists do attribute positions to the Founders that are Marxist in nature. People didn't start calling such positions Marxist until he presented his manifesto to the world any more than we used the terms Machiavellian or Orwellian before those guys became famous. But the concepts existed whether the men existed yet or not--we just have a way to label them now that saves a lot of time.

It's amusing how liberals won't read what each other write either.

It's amusing how libertarians ignore what our founders said (post #346), or how anti-laissez-faire they governed.

But carry on...

You don't understand how they designed our government, you don't understand laissez-faire, and you don't care. I only argue with liberals when there is something for non-liberals to read. You are useless. I don't think this one is a point non-liberals would particularly get anything out of.

Here is your 'laissez-faire' limited government of our founders:

Debate and argument over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers has been going on for over 200 years by and between citizens, scholars, theologians and polemics. It is nothing new, and our founder's true intent on many issues has not become any closer to being resolved.

So when we have an example of how those same men applied all those principles, beliefs and ideas to actual governing, it serves as the best example of how they put all those principles, beliefs and ideas to use. Their actions carry the most weight.

Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.

Early laws regulating corporations in America

*Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.

*Corporations’ licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).

*The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved.

*The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.

*As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn’t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were “just doing their job” when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

*Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice).

*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

*Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

*Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

*State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

*All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents

 

[bripat9643]

Actually "libertarianism" didn't even exist yet. Fortunately Liberalism did.

Not your brand of liberalism. That awaited the publication of The Communist Manifesto.

 

[Pogo]

Finger Boy speaks! Did you do your homework? Where's your link from yesterday?

Emptyhanded huh?

That's what I expected, ya lying little smegma smear.

 

[Youch]

Try reading the post immediately after hers.
It's a link. Yesterday. Took me ten minutes, nine of which were spent reading her post, because I like to know what I'm talking about before I post.

I read it. Is the Patriot Act, something that took no rights away from you, all you got to argue with?

Uh, yes, it does. What you're trying to do above is conflate leftism with Liberalism. Let's quote the words of our illustrious OP, from another thread:

Prove "leftism" isn't modern liberalism. You cannot.

To the bottom part, yes I agree the RP is not (universally) representing conservatism. It's split. I went over this in detail (most recently) back here. Fair warning: it will require a bit more than the usual 15-second read time investment. This ain't Nosebook we're on.

What is nosebook?

Alexis de Tocqueville describes 2014 conservatism? Did somebody slip him the keys to the linear time defying machine? The one that the Founders used to take a run to the future store to buy a copy of Das Kapital?

I clearly stated he was describing the time of the founding, our conservative roots born from a struggle from oppression. Go ahead, read and quote it again.

This is one of those times then. Shoulda read that link.
"School", unless your experience was dramatically different from most, doesn't lay a basis for political science. I certainly had no interest in politics at age 17 when I finished HS. That came waaaaaaaay later. If that's the age where you formed yours, well that might essplain a few things.

I find you droll.

Civics and Social Studies used to teach civics and social studies. The Constitution, forms and branches of government. These courses are all but extinct in public schools today. Argue that if you want, but it would be silly. Or, you can keep talking about yourself...or a stranger....

Say aren't you the same guy who can't keep straight which poster said what? Remember when you apologized for that? That was cool.

Yes, I apologized for thinking so little of you that I didn't give much credence. I should not have done that. But that is a non sequitur that is irrelevant to the discussion and proof that maroons spend more time debating posters rather than issues. I'd be more impressed if you went back to Alexis de Tocqueville, our founding, the importance of conservatism, and the inevitable destruction of modern liberalism. But if obsessing over me is your thing, then I can roll with that....

The point at the end is that you shoot (posts) first and ask questions later, as is demonstrated -- and similarly demonstrated by your ignorance at the top of the post, declaring "you cannot" after I already referred you to a link, which lays all that out, which I put up there yesterday. Your ignorance of that background tells me you didn't bother to read it, simply went and then want to claim it isn't there. And that's dishonest.

I can't debate the dishonest. Finger Boy tried that yesterday, I called him out as you see above, and he ran away like the coward he is. How will you handle it?

I've yet to see you debate the topic. Of course, I don't spend any time following your posts. Perhaps your did. Who are you?

Do you want a specific discussion? Refute the posts of Foxfyre! Or engage me directly. I recall you are good at quoting and parsing....set up a dedicated thread on a dedicated topic of me, and I'll engage you specifically.

Heck, I don't expend much energy online, as you obviously do...so tell me, why must liberalism be mandated?

 

[Youch]

Foxfyre, bfgrn and F-Q2....all excellent posts. The libs cannot poke holes, so they ignore you.

 

[Foxfyre]

Here is your 'laissez-faire' limited government of our founders:

Debate and argument over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers has been going on for over 200 years by and between citizens, scholars, theologians and polemics. It is nothing new, and our founder's true intent on many issues has not become any closer to being resolved.

So when we have an example of how those same men applied all those principles, beliefs and ideas to actual governing, it serves as the best example of how they put all those principles, beliefs and ideas to use. Their actions carry the most weight.

Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.

Early laws regulating corporations in America

*Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.

*Corporations’ licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).

*The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved.

*The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.

*As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn’t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were “just doing their job” when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

*Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice).

*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

*Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

*Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

*State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

*All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents

The fallacy of you on the Left, however well intentioned, is that you focus on one aspect of history that you believe negates all the other history that you do not wish to embrace.

Thomas Jefferson was too frail and in too poor health to attend a 50th year celebration of the Declaration of Independence in 1826. But he sent this message to be read at the ceremony:

“May (July 4) be to the world, what I believe it will be -- to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all -- the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. That form (of government) which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.”
​

His (and others of the Founders) suspicion of corporations was regarding the English model in which government could use the corporation to control the people. In England, the government created corporations under a Royal Charter or an Act of Parliament and granted a monopoly over a specified territory. This is the polar opposite of laizzez faire and why the Founders were determined that no such corporate structure would develop in the USA.

As to whether they embraced the laizzez-faire theories of Adam Smith and his Wealth of Nations:

E. Millicent Sowerby, in her five-volume Catalogue of the Library of Thomas JeffersonThomas Mann Randolph recommending books for the study of law, Jefferson wrote: ... in political economy I think Smith’s wealth of nations the best book extant ...

Seventeen years later, on June 11, 1807, in a letter recommending books to John Norvell, Jefferson wrote:

... if your views of political enquiry go further to the subjects of money & commerce, Smith’s wealth of nations is the best book to be read, unless Say’s Political economy can be had, which treats the same subjects on the same principles, but in a shorter compass & more lucid manner ...
In Jefferson’s Prospectus for Destutt de Tracy’s Treatise on Political Economy, sent to Milligan for printing on April 6, 1816, one paragraph read:
Adam Smith, first in England, published a rational and systematic work on Political economy, adopting generally the ground of the Economists, but differing on the subjects before specified. the system being novel, much argument and detail seemed then necessary to establish principles which now are assented to as soon as proposed. hence his book, admitted to be able, and of the first degree of merit, has yet been considered as prolix & tedious.[6]

Jefferson made considerable use of Smith’s work, and frequently quoted from it on the subject of banks and paper money. A lengthy letter to John Wayles Eppes, written from Monticello in November 1813, contains numerous quotations from Wealth of Nations and comments on them.[7]
Wealth of Nations Thomas Jefferson s Monticello​

For sure the Wealth of Nations is about as tedious reading as you will find. But it heavily influenced not only Thomas Jefferson but a number of the Founders. Thomas Jefferson strongly embraced capitalism and laizzez-faire summed up in his quotation: "the least governed are the best governed."

And the following Thomas Jefferson quotations are pertinent. Each one means the same thing it does within its full context as it does standing alone:

"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 most bad government results from too much government."

"If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny."

"If government have a right of demanding ad libitum and of taxing us themselves to the full amount of their demand if we do not comply with it, this would leave us without anything we can call property."

"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 and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government."

 

[kaz]

The Founders believed in carefully delineated federal powers either broad (Hamilton) or limited (Jefferson, sometimes) but all believed in a more powerful state than libertarians purport to believe in. If ever there was a libertarian document it was the Articles of Confederation. There was no national power. The federal government could not tax. Its laws were not supreme over state laws. It was in fact, the hot mess that critics of libertarians believe their dream state would be… and it was recognized as such by the majority of the country and was why the Constitution was ratified. The Articles of Confederation is the true libertarian founding document and this explains the failure of libertarianism.

Gotcha, libertarians are anarchists. Note I'm the OP, and I even defined small government libertarians. Doesn't matter to you, we're still anarchists. You're a legend in your own mind. Though even you know that's dubious since you have to keep pointing it out, showing even you know it's not clear on it's own.

 

[kaz]

Foxfyre, bfgrn and F-Q2....all excellent posts. The libs cannot poke holes, so they ignore you.

dude, bfgrn is as lib as they come, you're confused somewhere

 

[kaz]

leftists don't accuse the founders of embracing Marxist principles.

The argument was not what leftists accuse anybody of. The argument was what language/metaphors Kaz is allowed to use according to Pogo.

I do concur with Kaz, however, that many leftists do attribute positions to the Founders that are Marxist in nature. People didn't start calling such positions Marxist until he presented his manifesto to the world any more than we used the terms Machiavellian or Orwellian before those guys became famous. But the concepts existed whether the men existed yet or not--we just have a way to label them now that saves a lot of time.

It's amusing how liberals won't read what each other write either.

It's amusing how libertarians ignore what our founders said (post #346), or how anti-laissez-faire they governed.

But carry on...

You don't understand how they designed our government, you don't understand laissez-faire, and you don't care. I only argue with liberals when there is something for non-liberals to read. You are useless. I don't think this one is a point non-liberals would particularly get anything out of.

leftists don't accuse the founders of embracing Marxist principles.

The argument was not what leftists accuse anybody of. The argument was what language/metaphors Kaz is allowed to use according to Pogo.

I do concur with Kaz, however, that many leftists do attribute positions to the Founders that are Marxist in nature. People didn't start calling such positions Marxist until he presented his manifesto to the world any more than we used the terms Machiavellian or Orwellian before those guys became famous. But the concepts existed whether the men existed yet or not--we just have a way to label them now that saves a lot of time.

It's amusing how liberals won't read what each other write either.

It's amusing how libertarians ignore what our founders said (post #346), or how anti-laissez-faire they governed.

But carry on...

You don't understand how they designed our government, you don't understand laissez-faire, and you don't care. I only argue with liberals when there is something for non-liberals to read. You are useless. I don't think this one is a point non-liberals would particularly get anything out of.

Here is your 'laissez-faire' limited government of our founders:

Debate and argument over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers has been going on for over 200 years by and between citizens, scholars, theologians and polemics. It is nothing new, and our founder's true intent on many issues has not become any closer to being resolved.

So when we have an example of how those same men applied all those principles, beliefs and ideas to actual governing, it serves as the best example of how they put all those principles, beliefs and ideas to use. Their actions carry the most weight.

Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.

Early laws regulating corporations in America

*Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.

*Corporations’ licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).

*The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved.

*The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.

*As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn’t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were “just doing their job” when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

*Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice).

*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

*Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

*Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

*State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

*All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents

LOL, so many of those points are actually dead on libertarian. Also, many of them are "State" because they didnt' give the feds that power, pure libertarian. We are the true liberals, you are an authoritarian leftist.

 

[Pogo]

Try reading the post immediately after hers.
It's a link. Yesterday. Took me ten minutes, nine of which were spent reading her post, because I like to know what I'm talking about before I post.

I read it. Is the Patriot Act, something that took no rights away from you, all you got to argue with?

Uh, yes, it does. What you're trying to do above is conflate leftism with Liberalism. Let's quote the words of our illustrious OP, from another thread:

Prove "leftism" isn't modern liberalism. You cannot.

To the bottom part, yes I agree the RP is not (universally) representing conservatism. It's split. I went over this in detail (most recently) back here. Fair warning: it will require a bit more than the usual 15-second read time investment. This ain't Nosebook we're on.

What is nosebook?

Alexis de Tocqueville describes 2014 conservatism? Did somebody slip him the keys to the linear time defying machine? The one that the Founders used to take a run to the future store to buy a copy of Das Kapital?

I clearly stated he was describing the time of the founding, our conservative roots born from a struggle from oppression. Go ahead, read and quote it again.

This is one of those times then. Shoulda read that link.
"School", unless your experience was dramatically different from most, doesn't lay a basis for political science. I certainly had no interest in politics at age 17 when I finished HS. That came waaaaaaaay later. If that's the age where you formed yours, well that might essplain a few things.

I find you droll.

Civics and Social Studies used to teach civics and social studies. The Constitution, forms and branches of government. These courses are all but extinct in public schools today. Argue that if you want, but it would be silly. Or, you can keep talking about yourself...or a stranger....

Say aren't you the same guy who can't keep straight which poster said what? Remember when you apologized for that? That was cool.

Yes, I apologized for thinking so little of you that I didn't give much credence. I should not have done that. But that is a non sequitur that is irrelevant to the discussion and proof that maroons spend more time debating posters rather than issues. I'd be more impressed if you went back to Alexis de Tocqueville, our founding, the importance of conservatism, and the inevitable destruction of modern liberalism. But if obsessing over me is your thing, then I can roll with that....

The point at the end is that you shoot (posts) first and ask questions later, as is demonstrated -- and similarly demonstrated by your ignorance at the top of the post, declaring "you cannot" after I already referred you to a link, which lays all that out, which I put up there yesterday. Your ignorance of that background tells me you didn't bother to read it, simply went and then want to claim it isn't there. And that's dishonest.

I can't debate the dishonest. Finger Boy tried that yesterday, I called him out as you see above, and he ran away like the coward he is. How will you handle it?

I've yet to see you debate the topic. Of course, I don't spend any time following your posts. Perhaps your did. Who are you?

That is a joke, right?

Do you want a specific discussion? Refute the posts of Foxfyre! Or engage me directly. I recall you are good at quoting and parsing....set up a dedicated thread on a dedicated topic of me, and I'll engage you specifically.

Heck, I don't expend much energy online, as you obviously do...so tell me, why must liberalism be mandated?

"Mandated"? You mean as in the Constitution? I wouldn't call that "mandate", more like "structure" -- under which specific laws are mandated. You don't really "mandate" a political philosophy methinks.

I thought we were supposed to be nailing down definitions. When last we tuned in to our exciting drama, you were denying the existence of mine rather than tackle it. I wonder how that would work as a football defense -- "guys, just ignore that guy with the ball" and declare he doesn't exist.

I don't see anything new here so.....

Cleanups on aisle above: once again you have posters conflated --- I wasn't the one who brought up the PATRIOT Act; that was FA_Q2. But I do agree with his point there.

And no, I do not, nor do I think anyone here anywhere on the board does, post their impressions of political machinations based on anything they learned long ago in "school". That's absurd. School doesn't have anything resembling that kind of reach.

 

[Pogo]

Foxfyre, bfgrn and F-Q2....all excellent posts. The libs cannot poke holes, so they ignore you.

Nothing to say besides then?

 

[Pogo]

A lot going on upstairs -- just to pick a point:

His (and others of the Founders) suspicion of corporations was regarding the English model in which government could use the corporation to control the people. In England, the government created corporations under a Royal Charter or an Act of Parliament and granted a monopoly over a specified territory. This is the polar opposite of laizzez faire and why the Founders were determined that no such corporate structure would develop in the USA.

OK.
So you're agreeing with the thrust of BFG's post? Just clarifying.

We certainly, given the 19th century and its legacy, were not able to sidestep that dynamic, were we? If it's not necessarily the gummint pulling the puppet strings of the corporation to control the people, it's certainly the two working in collusion to that end. Or if you will, as I would, the other way around: corporate control through pulling the government's puppet strings via the infamous DC Revolving Door.

​

 

[Bfgrn]

Here is your 'laissez-faire' limited government of our founders:

Debate and argument over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers has been going on for over 200 years by and between citizens, scholars, theologians and polemics. It is nothing new, and our founder's true intent on many issues has not become any closer to being resolved.

So when we have an example of how those same men applied all those principles, beliefs and ideas to actual governing, it serves as the best example of how they put all those principles, beliefs and ideas to use. Their actions carry the most weight.

Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.

Early laws regulating corporations in America

*Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.

*Corporations’ licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).

*The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved.

*The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.

*As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn’t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were “just doing their job” when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

*Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice).

*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

*Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

*Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

*State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

*All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents

The fallacy of you on the Left, however well intentioned, is that you focus on one aspect of history that you believe negates all the other history that you do not wish to embrace.

Thomas Jefferson was too frail and in too poor health to attend a 50th year celebration of the Declaration of Independence in 1826. But he sent this message to be read at the ceremony:

“May (July 4) be to the world, what I believe it will be -- to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all -- the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. That form (of government) which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.”
​

His (and others of the Founders) suspicion of corporations was regarding the English model in which government could use the corporation to control the people. In England, the government created corporations under a Royal Charter or an Act of Parliament and granted a monopoly over a specified territory. This is the polar opposite of laizzez faire and why the Founders were determined that no such corporate structure would develop in the USA.

As to whether they embraced the laizzez-faire theories of Adam Smith and his Wealth of Nations:

E. Millicent Sowerby, in her five-volume Catalogue of the Library of Thomas JeffersonThomas Mann Randolph recommending books for the study of law, Jefferson wrote: ... in political economy I think Smith’s wealth of nations the best book extant ...

Seventeen years later, on June 11, 1807, in a letter recommending books to John Norvell, Jefferson wrote:

... if your views of political enquiry go further to the subjects of money & commerce, Smith’s wealth of nations is the best book to be read, unless Say’s Political economy can be had, which treats the same subjects on the same principles, but in a shorter compass & more lucid manner ...
In Jefferson’s Prospectus for Destutt de Tracy’s Treatise on Political Economy, sent to Milligan for printing on April 6, 1816, one paragraph read:
Adam Smith, first in England, published a rational and systematic work on Political economy, adopting generally the ground of the Economists, but differing on the subjects before specified. the system being novel, much argument and detail seemed then necessary to establish principles which now are assented to as soon as proposed. hence his book, admitted to be able, and of the first degree of merit, has yet been considered as prolix & tedious.[6]

Jefferson made considerable use of Smith’s work, and frequently quoted from it on the subject of banks and paper money. A lengthy letter to John Wayles Eppes, written from Monticello in November 1813, contains numerous quotations from Wealth of Nations and comments on them.[7]
Wealth of Nations Thomas Jefferson s Monticello​

For sure the Wealth of Nations is about as tedious reading as you will find. But it heavily influenced not only Thomas Jefferson but a number of the Founders. Thomas Jefferson strongly embraced capitalism and laizzez-faire summed up in his quotation: "the least governed are the best governed."

And the following Thomas Jefferson quotations are pertinent. Each one means the same thing it does within its full context as it does standing alone:

"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 most bad government results from too much government."

"If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny."

"If government have a right of demanding ad libitum and of taxing us themselves to the full amount of their demand if we do not comply with it, this would leave us without anything we can call property."

"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 and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government."

WOW, a post RIFE with false quotes, misquotes and quotes out of context.

Better start doing your research before you embarrass yourself.

 

[Bfgrn]

leftists don't accuse the founders of embracing Marxist principles.

The argument was not what leftists accuse anybody of. The argument was what language/metaphors Kaz is allowed to use according to Pogo.

I do concur with Kaz, however, that many leftists do attribute positions to the Founders that are Marxist in nature. People didn't start calling such positions Marxist until he presented his manifesto to the world any more than we used the terms Machiavellian or Orwellian before those guys became famous. But the concepts existed whether the men existed yet or not--we just have a way to label them now that saves a lot of time.

It's amusing how liberals won't read what each other write either.

It's amusing how libertarians ignore what our founders said (post #346), or how anti-laissez-faire they governed.

But carry on...

You don't understand how they designed our government, you don't understand laissez-faire, and you don't care. I only argue with liberals when there is something for non-liberals to read. You are useless. I don't think this one is a point non-liberals would particularly get anything out of.

leftists don't accuse the founders of embracing Marxist principles.

The argument was not what leftists accuse anybody of. The argument was what language/metaphors Kaz is allowed to use according to Pogo.

I do concur with Kaz, however, that many leftists do attribute positions to the Founders that are Marxist in nature. People didn't start calling such positions Marxist until he presented his manifesto to the world any more than we used the terms Machiavellian or Orwellian before those guys became famous. But the concepts existed whether the men existed yet or not--we just have a way to label them now that saves a lot of time.

It's amusing how liberals won't read what each other write either.

It's amusing how libertarians ignore what our founders said (post #346), or how anti-laissez-faire they governed.

But carry on...

You don't understand how they designed our government, you don't understand laissez-faire, and you don't care. I only argue with liberals when there is something for non-liberals to read. You are useless. I don't think this one is a point non-liberals would particularly get anything out of.

Here is your 'laissez-faire' limited government of our founders:

Debate and argument over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers has been going on for over 200 years by and between citizens, scholars, theologians and polemics. It is nothing new, and our founder's true intent on many issues has not become any closer to being resolved.

So when we have an example of how those same men applied all those principles, beliefs and ideas to actual governing, it serves as the best example of how they put all those principles, beliefs and ideas to use. Their actions carry the most weight.

Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.

Early laws regulating corporations in America

*Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.

*Corporations’ licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).

*The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved.

*The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.

*As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn’t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were “just doing their job” when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

*Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice).

*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

*Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

*Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

*State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

*All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents

LOL, so many of those points are actually dead on libertarian. Also, many of them are "State" because they didnt' give the feds that power, pure libertarian. We are the true liberals, you are an authoritarian leftist.

NONE of those very strict laws are laissez-faire.

Laissez-faire is an economic environment in which transactions between private parties are free from intrusive government restrictions, tariffs, and subsidies, with only enough regulations to protect property rights.[1] The phrase laissez-faire is French and literally means "let [them] do," but it broadly implies "let it be," "let them do as they will," or "leave it alone."

 

[Foxfyre]

Here is your 'laissez-faire' limited government of our founders:

Debate and argument over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers has been going on for over 200 years by and between citizens, scholars, theologians and polemics. It is nothing new, and our founder's true intent on many issues has not become any closer to being resolved.

So when we have an example of how those same men applied all those principles, beliefs and ideas to actual governing, it serves as the best example of how they put all those principles, beliefs and ideas to use. Their actions carry the most weight.

Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.

Early laws regulating corporations in America

*Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.

*Corporations’ licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).

*The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved.

*The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.

*As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn’t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were “just doing their job” when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

*Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice).

*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

*Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

*Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

*State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

*All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents

The fallacy of you on the Left, however well intentioned, is that you focus on one aspect of history that you believe negates all the other history that you do not wish to embrace.

Thomas Jefferson was too frail and in too poor health to attend a 50th year celebration of the Declaration of Independence in 1826. But he sent this message to be read at the ceremony:

“May (July 4) be to the world, what I believe it will be -- to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all -- the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. That form (of government) which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.”
​

His (and others of the Founders) suspicion of corporations was regarding the English model in which government could use the corporation to control the people. In England, the government created corporations under a Royal Charter or an Act of Parliament and granted a monopoly over a specified territory. This is the polar opposite of laizzez faire and why the Founders were determined that no such corporate structure would develop in the USA.

As to whether they embraced the laizzez-faire theories of Adam Smith and his Wealth of Nations:

E. Millicent Sowerby, in her five-volume Catalogue of the Library of Thomas JeffersonThomas Mann Randolph recommending books for the study of law, Jefferson wrote: ... in political economy I think Smith’s wealth of nations the best book extant ...

Seventeen years later, on June 11, 1807, in a letter recommending books to John Norvell, Jefferson wrote:

... if your views of political enquiry go further to the subjects of money & commerce, Smith’s wealth of nations is the best book to be read, unless Say’s Political economy can be had, which treats the same subjects on the same principles, but in a shorter compass & more lucid manner ...
In Jefferson’s Prospectus for Destutt de Tracy’s Treatise on Political Economy, sent to Milligan for printing on April 6, 1816, one paragraph read:
Adam Smith, first in England, published a rational and systematic work on Political economy, adopting generally the ground of the Economists, but differing on the subjects before specified. the system being novel, much argument and detail seemed then necessary to establish principles which now are assented to as soon as proposed. hence his book, admitted to be able, and of the first degree of merit, has yet been considered as prolix & tedious.[6]

Jefferson made considerable use of Smith’s work, and frequently quoted from it on the subject of banks and paper money. A lengthy letter to John Wayles Eppes, written from Monticello in November 1813, contains numerous quotations from Wealth of Nations and comments on them.[7]
Wealth of Nations Thomas Jefferson s Monticello​

For sure the Wealth of Nations is about as tedious reading as you will find. But it heavily influenced not only Thomas Jefferson but a number of the Founders. Thomas Jefferson strongly embraced capitalism and laizzez-faire summed up in his quotation: "the least governed are the best governed."

And the following Thomas Jefferson quotations are pertinent. Each one means the same thing it does within its full context as it does standing alone:

"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 most bad government results from too much government."

"If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny."

"If government have a right of demanding ad libitum and of taxing us themselves to the full amount of their demand if we do not comply with it, this would leave us without anything we can call property."

"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 and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government."

WOW, a post RIFE with false quotes, misquotes and quotes out of context.

Better start doing your research before you embarrass yourself.

Well my sources are pretty broad, but the one primary source for that post that I linked is to the historical society at Monticello. If you would like to discredit their information, go for it, but I think you'll have a really tough time.

 

[Bush92]

If you believe the FDA should be abolished, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe the FAA should not exist, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe crack cocaine should be legal, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe the US military should be shrunk down to the size of a cub scout troop, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe all roads should be privatized, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe all federal safety regulations should be abolished, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe all child labor laws should be repealed, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe all insider trading and financial fraud regulations should be abrogated, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe human beings will be on their best behavior if there are no rules and regulations, you might be a libertarian.

If your one of the Founding Fathers, you might be a Libertarian.

 

[Pogo]

If you believe the FDA should be abolished, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe the FAA should not exist, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe crack cocaine should be legal, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe the US military should be shrunk down to the size of a cub scout troop, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe all roads should be privatized, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe all federal safety regulations should be abolished, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe all child labor laws should be repealed, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe all insider trading and financial fraud regulations should be abrogated, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe human beings will be on their best behavior if there are no rules and regulations, you might be a libertarian.

If your one of the Founding Fathers, you might be a Libertarian.

If you believe the FDA should not exist, you might have (or be) a Thalidomide baby.

If you believe the FAA should not exist, you enjoy sitting near airports watching 747s crash into each other.

If you believe human beings will be on their best behavior if there are no rules and regulations and that insider trading and financial fraud regulations should be abrogated, you might be clinically insane.

Etc etc etc - by the way you spelled "anarchist" wrong.

The FFs were Liberals, like it or lump it.

 

[Bfgrn]

Here is your 'laissez-faire' limited government of our founders:

Debate and argument over the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers has been going on for over 200 years by and between citizens, scholars, theologians and polemics. It is nothing new, and our founder's true intent on many issues has not become any closer to being resolved.

So when we have an example of how those same men applied all those principles, beliefs and ideas to actual governing, it serves as the best example of how they put all those principles, beliefs and ideas to use. Their actions carry the most weight.

Our founding fathers did not subscribe to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand'. They believed in very heavy regulations and restrictions on corporations. They were men who held ethics as the most important attribute. They viewed being paid by the American people for their services as a privilege not a right. And they had no problem closing down any corporation that swindled the people, and holding owners and stockholder personally liable for any harm to the people they caused.

Early laws regulating corporations in America

*Corporations were required to have a clear purpose, to be fulfilled but not exceeded.

*Corporations’ licenses to do business were revocable by the state legislature if they exceeded or did not fulfill their chartered purpose(s).

*The state legislature could revoke a corporation’s charter if it misbehaved.

*The act of incorporation did not relieve corporate management or stockholders/owners of responsibility or liability for corporate acts.

*As a matter of course, corporation officers, directors, or agents couldn’t break the law and avoid punishment by claiming they were “just doing their job” when committing crimes but instead could be held criminally liable for violating the law.

*Directors of the corporation were required to come from among stockholders.

*Corporations had to have their headquarters and meetings in the state where their principal place of business was located.

*Corporation charters were granted for a specific period of time, such as twenty or thirty years (instead of being granted “in perpetuity,” as is now the practice).

*Corporations were prohibited from owning stock in other corporations, to prevent them from extending their power inappropriately.

*Corporations’ real estate holdings were limited to what was necessary to carry out their specific purpose(s).

*Corporations were prohibited from making any political contributions, direct or indirect.

*Corporations were prohibited from making charitable or civic donations outside of their specific purposes.

*State legislatures could set the rates that some monopoly corporations could charge for their products or services.

*All corporation records and documents were open to the legislature or the state attorney general.

The Early Role of Corporations in America

The Legacy of the Founding Parents

The fallacy of you on the Left, however well intentioned, is that you focus on one aspect of history that you believe negates all the other history that you do not wish to embrace.

Thomas Jefferson was too frail and in too poor health to attend a 50th year celebration of the Declaration of Independence in 1826. But he sent this message to be read at the ceremony:

“May (July 4) be to the world, what I believe it will be -- to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all -- the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. That form (of government) which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.”
​

His (and others of the Founders) suspicion of corporations was regarding the English model in which government could use the corporation to control the people. In England, the government created corporations under a Royal Charter or an Act of Parliament and granted a monopoly over a specified territory. This is the polar opposite of laizzez faire and why the Founders were determined that no such corporate structure would develop in the USA.

As to whether they embraced the laizzez-faire theories of Adam Smith and his Wealth of Nations:

E. Millicent Sowerby, in her five-volume Catalogue of the Library of Thomas JeffersonThomas Mann Randolph recommending books for the study of law, Jefferson wrote: ... in political economy I think Smith’s wealth of nations the best book extant ...

Seventeen years later, on June 11, 1807, in a letter recommending books to John Norvell, Jefferson wrote:

... if your views of political enquiry go further to the subjects of money & commerce, Smith’s wealth of nations is the best book to be read, unless Say’s Political economy can be had, which treats the same subjects on the same principles, but in a shorter compass & more lucid manner ...
In Jefferson’s Prospectus for Destutt de Tracy’s Treatise on Political Economy, sent to Milligan for printing on April 6, 1816, one paragraph read:
Adam Smith, first in England, published a rational and systematic work on Political economy, adopting generally the ground of the Economists, but differing on the subjects before specified. the system being novel, much argument and detail seemed then necessary to establish principles which now are assented to as soon as proposed. hence his book, admitted to be able, and of the first degree of merit, has yet been considered as prolix & tedious.[6]

Jefferson made considerable use of Smith’s work, and frequently quoted from it on the subject of banks and paper money. A lengthy letter to John Wayles Eppes, written from Monticello in November 1813, contains numerous quotations from Wealth of Nations and comments on them.[7]
Wealth of Nations Thomas Jefferson s Monticello​

For sure the Wealth of Nations is about as tedious reading as you will find. But it heavily influenced not only Thomas Jefferson but a number of the Founders. Thomas Jefferson strongly embraced capitalism and laizzez-faire summed up in his quotation: "the least governed are the best governed."

And the following Thomas Jefferson quotations are pertinent. Each one means the same thing it does within its full context as it does standing alone:

"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 most bad government results from too much government."

"If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny."

"If government have a right of demanding ad libitum and of taxing us themselves to the full amount of their demand if we do not comply with it, this would leave us without anything we can call property."

"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 and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government."

WOW, a post RIFE with false quotes, misquotes and quotes out of context.

Better start doing your research before you embarrass yourself.

Well my sources are pretty broad, but the one primary source for that post that I linked is to the historical society at Monticello. If you would like to discredit their information, go for it, but I think you'll have a really tough time.

Wasting the labours of the people Quotation Thomas Jefferson s Monticello

Bad government results from too much government Quotation Thomas Jefferson s Monticello

snopes.com Thomas Jefferson on Medicine

http://books.google.com/books?id=HDQSAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA232&lpg=PA232&dq=demanding ad libitum and of taxing us themselves&source=bl&ots=rOGfnzeFuc&sig=ik-mxgq4aC_BTMYXDyOxloryT1M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BzQKVKy4IIj3yQSUn4DYCQ&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=demanding ad libitum and of taxing us themselves&f=false

The Avalon Project Jefferson s First Inaugural Address

 

[bripat9643]

If you believe the FDA should be abolished, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe the FAA should not exist, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe crack cocaine should be legal, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe the US military should be shrunk down to the size of a cub scout troop, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe all roads should be privatized, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe all federal safety regulations should be abolished, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe all child labor laws should be repealed, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe all insider trading and financial fraud regulations should be abrogated, you might be a libertarian.

If you believe human beings will be on their best behavior if there are no rules and regulations, you might be a libertarian.

If your one of the Founding Fathers, you might be a Libertarian.

If you believe the FDA should not exist, you might have (or be) a Thalidomide baby.

The FDA approved Thalidomide, you fucking dumbass.

If you believe the FAA should not exist, you enjoy sitting near airports watching 747s crash into each other.

If you believe only government can do air traffic control, you're a fucking dumbass.

If you believe human beings will be on their best behavior if there are no rules and regulations and that insider trading and financial fraud regulations should be abrogated, you might be clinically insane.

IF you believe people become angels the minute they take a job with the government, then you're a fucking dumbass. Laws against fraud are not "regulations," moron. Fraud has always been illegal, even before the SEC was created. Fraud is a crime. Regulations limit behaviour that doesn't infringe on anyone's rights.

Etc etc etc - by the way you spelled "anarchist" wrong.

Dumbass, dumbass, dumbass.

The FFs were Liberals, like it or lump it.

And I'm the Queen of England.