You would identify as?

[Soaring]

Classical liberalism a la the founders of this country espouses a small federal government whose only real duties are to defend us from enemies within and without and adjudicate disputes - mostly commercial between the various fifty states. That Ideal has been essentially dead since FDR.

That idea has been essentialy unworkable since the dawn of the 19th century.

Like fuckin' hell.

It hasn't even been tried in the last hundred years.

And there is a reason why it hasn't been tried in the last hundred years, because the Federal papers were mostly penned by 18th century politicians such as Alexander Hamilton. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since that time, and shit has changed drastically worldwide with trading goods throughout the world that didn't pose a problem back then. Many wars have been fought since that time, and enemies have been identified since then that didn't exixt during Hamilton's time. Grow up.....

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That idea has been essentialy unworkable since the dawn of the 19th century.

Like fuckin' hell.

It hasn't even been tried in the last hundred years.

And there is a reason why it hasn't been tried in the last hundred years, because the Federal papers were mostly penned by 18th century politicians such as Alexander Hamilton. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since that time, and shit has changed drastically worldwide with trading goods throughout the world that didn't pose a problem back then. Many wars have been fought since that time, and enemies have been identified since then that didn't exixt during Hamilton's time. Grow up.....

It hasn't been tried not because it's supposedly "unworkable," but because politicians no longer believe in anything resembling a limited government.

 

[Oddball]

That idea has been essentialy unworkable since the dawn of the 19th century.

Like fuckin' hell.

It hasn't even been tried in the last hundred years.

And there is a reason why it hasn't been tried in the last hundred years, because the Federal papers were mostly penned by 18th century politicians such as Alexander Hamilton. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since that time, and shit has changed drastically worldwide with trading goods throughout the world that didn't pose a problem back then. Many wars have been fought since that time, and enemies have been identified since then that didn't exixt during Hamilton's time. Grow up.....

Wrong.

It hasn't been tried because a bunch of Fabian socialists who called themselves "progressives" seized power, and either destroyed the checks and balances that were put upon them (i.e. the Fed, 16th and 17th Amendments), or packed the courts with fellow travelers (i.e. FDR).

Get a grip on actual history.

 

[mal]

ahhh, short and sweet.

one thing,....define federalism and teh fight is on.

Difficult to do... Madison, Jay and Hamilton were not Brief when Explaining it...

The Federalist Papers - THOMAS (Library of Congress)



peace...

Nor were they always in agreement with each other.

That is Correct...

Nor will ANY of us EVER be...



peace...

 

[mal]

Like fuckin' hell.

It hasn't even been tried in the last hundred years.

And there is a reason why it hasn't been tried in the last hundred years, because the Federal papers were mostly penned by 18th century politicians such as Alexander Hamilton. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since that time, and shit has changed drastically worldwide with trading goods throughout the world that didn't pose a problem back then. Many wars have been fought since that time, and enemies have been identified since then that didn't exixt during Hamilton's time. Grow up.....

Wrong.

It hasn't been tried because a bunch of Fabian socialists who called themselves "progressives" seized power, and either destroyed the checks and balances that were put upon them (i.e. the Fed, 16th and 17th Amendments), or packed the courts with fellow travelers (i.e. FDR).

Get a grip on actual history.

I Understand your Complaint in this Context regarding the 16th, but your Inclusion of the 17th isn't as a Clear...

Could you Expand on it?



peace...

 

[G.T.]

I chose other because I hate politics; but, I love witnessing debate and I enjoy philosophy and so I diverge into the blogosphere looking to tweak my brain.

 

[editec]

Classical liberalism a la the founders of this country espouses a small federal government whose only real duties are to defend us from enemies within and without and adjudicate disputes - mostly commercial between the various fifty states. That Ideal has been essentially dead since FDR.

That idea has been essentialy unworkable since the dawn of the 19th century.

Like fuckin' hell.

It hasn't even been tried in the last hundred years.

More like 150 years, but that might be because it became increasingly unworkable since the industrial age.

Of course the Floundering Fathers understood that times change, hence their creation of a constitution flexible enough that future generations could change the responsibilities of government as needed.

Now, if your complaint that government might be doing too much, I'll agree somewhat, but that doesn't mean we could go back to the basically small government we had in 1820 and survive as a nation.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

I'm, ideally, a Libertarian Socialist, but pragmatically, a Social Democrat. Agnapostate would probably be horrified if he read the sentence, but well, I think Social Democracy is the most realistic path towards libertarian socialism in the future (a future that seems yet to be very far away from today).

 

[mal]

I'm, ideally, a Libertarian Socialist, but pragmatically, a Social Democrat. Agnapostate would probably be horrified if he read the sentence, but well, I think Social Democracy is the most realistic path towards libertarian socialism in the future (a future that seems yet to be very far away from today).

A Libertarian Socialist... Please, Expand...



peace...

 

[Oddball]

More like 150 years, but that might be because it became increasingly unworkable since the industrial age.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc nonsense.

Of course the Floundering Fathers understood that times change, hence their creation of a constitution flexible enough that future generations could change the responsibilities of government as needed.

Yeah...It was known as the amendment process.....Which has, for all practical purposes of any real substance, been ignored since the repeal of prohibition.

Now, if your complaint that government might be doing too much, I'll agree somewhat, but that doesn't mean we could go back to the basically small government we had in 1820 and survive as a nation.

Easy to say, since you can't prove it.

 

[mal]

Yeah...It was known as the amendment process.....Which has, for all practical purposes of any real substance, been ignored since the repeal of prohibition.

The Process that was Used for the 16th and 17th Amendments... Correct?

I Asked earlier, and Forgive me if I Missed it, but what was your Issue with the 17th again?...



peace...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yeah...It was known as the amendment process.....Which has, for all practical purposes of any real substance, been ignored since the repeal of prohibition.

The Process that was Used for the 16th and 17th Amendments... Correct?

I Asked earlier, and Forgive me if I Missed it, but what was your Issue with the 17th again?...



peace...

The 17th Amendment was another blow against Federalism. The Senators were supposed to promote the interests of the state whereas the House was supposed to represent the interests of the people. The founders didn't trust Democracy any more than they trusted a monarchy and wanted to have some checks on the more democratic aspects and by passing the 17th Amendment we took a big step towards a more direct democracy.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

I'm, ideally, a Libertarian Socialist, but pragmatically, a Social Democrat. Agnapostate would probably be horrified if he read the sentence, but well, I think Social Democracy is the most realistic path towards libertarian socialism in the future (a future that seems yet to be very far away from today).

A Libertarian Socialist... Please, Expand...



peace...

Err, sure:

Libertarian socialism (sometimes called socialist anarchism,[1][2] and sometimes left libertarianism[3][4]) is a group of political philosophies that aspire to create a society without political, economic, or social hierarchies, i.e. a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved (or at least drastically reduced in scope), and in their place every person would have free, equal access to the tools of information and production.[5]

This equality and freedom would be achieved through the abolition of authoritarian institutions that own and control productive means as private property,[6] so that direct control of these means of production and resources will be shared by society as a whole. Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that informs the identification, criticism and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of social life. Accordingly libertarian socialists believe that “the exercise of power in any institutionalized form – whether economic, political, religious, or sexual – brutalizes both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised.”[7]

Libertarian socialists place their hopes in trade unions, workers' councils, municipalities, citizens' assemblies, and other non-bureaucratic, decentralized means of direct democracy.[8] Many libertarian socialists advocate doing away with the state altogether, seeing it as a bulwark of capitalist class rule, while others propose that a minimal, non-hierarchical version is unobjectionable.[9]

Political philosophies commonly described as libertarian socialist include most varieties of anarchism (especially anarchist communism, anarchist collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism,[10] mutualism,[11] social ecology,[12] autonomism and council communism).[13] Some writers use libertarian socialism synonymously with anarchism[14] and in particular socialist anarchism.[1][15]

Libertarian socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Old Rocks]

Classical liberalism a la the founders of this country espouses a small federal government whose only real duties are to defend us from enemies within and without and adjudicate disputes - mostly commercial between the various fifty states. That Ideal has been essentially dead since FDR.

That idea has been essentialy unworkable since the dawn of the 19th century.

Like fuckin' hell.

It hasn't even been tried in the last hundred years.

The dawn of the 19th century was over two hundred years ago, child. Must you have even the most common things explained to you? The reason it has not been tried is that it is totally obvious to anyone of even the most basic intelligence that it would not work.

 

[mal]

I'm, ideally, a Libertarian Socialist, but pragmatically, a Social Democrat. Agnapostate would probably be horrified if he read the sentence, but well, I think Social Democracy is the most realistic path towards libertarian socialism in the future (a future that seems yet to be very far away from today).

A Libertarian Socialist... Please, Expand...



peace...

Err, sure:

Libertarian socialism (sometimes called socialist anarchism,[1][2] and sometimes left libertarianism[3][4]) is a group of political philosophies that aspire to create a society without political, economic, or social hierarchies, i.e. a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved (or at least drastically reduced in scope), and in their place every person would have free, equal access to the tools of information and production.[5]

This equality and freedom would be achieved through the abolition of authoritarian institutions that own and control productive means as private property,[6] so that direct control of these means of production and resources will be shared by society as a whole. Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that informs the identification, criticism and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of social life. Accordingly libertarian socialists believe that “the exercise of power in any institutionalized form – whether economic, political, religious, or sexual – brutalizes both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised.”[7]

Libertarian socialists place their hopes in trade unions, workers' councils, municipalities, citizens' assemblies, and other non-bureaucratic, decentralized means of direct democracy.[8] Many libertarian socialists advocate doing away with the state altogether, seeing it as a bulwark of capitalist class rule, while others propose that a minimal, non-hierarchical version is unobjectionable.[9]

Political philosophies commonly described as libertarian socialist include most varieties of anarchism (especially anarchist communism, anarchist collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism,[10] mutualism,[11] social ecology,[12] autonomism and council communism).[13] Some writers use libertarian socialism synonymously with anarchism[14] and in particular socialist anarchism.[1][15]

Libertarian socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I Knew that... I have Access to Wiki also... I was Wondering if the Textbook wasn't your Answer.

Thanks for Clarifying it though.



peace...

 

[Big Black Dog]

At the present time, I label myself as an Independent. I label myself as that because most of the political hacks these days claim to be a strong supporter of the Constitution but very few are actually interested in following it's guidelines. It's all politics as usual. What that means is the politicians say anything like usual just to stay in office.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Articles of Confederation never "failed," but rather than amending the articles James Madison and Alexander Hamilton set the stage to completely revamp the system of governance in the U.S.

the articles failed. they would've kept us in a state of banana republichood you idiot

No, they never failed. Madison and Hamilton simply decided to craft an entirely different form of government rather than revise the Articles of Confederation which is what they were supposed to do.

Well since the citizens at that time ratified IT ...what is your point?

Why eb such a dufus? Any argument against what was done by MAdison and Hamilton is made moot by the facts of what transpired.

sigh

 

[xotoxi]

Duxh'beqqueri

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No, they never failed. Madison and Hamilton simply decided to craft an entirely different form of government rather than revise the Articles of Confederation which is what they were supposed to do.

okay they never failed. that is why everyone was so friggin happy with them.

are you always this doltish? It is starting to make me think there is less to you than everyone says there is.

Maybe there is, maybe there isn't.

Most people were happy with them, generally. There were a few concerns and that's why a convention was called to revise them. However, as I said before, Hamilton and Madison saw that as their chance to create a much more powerful federal government.

What is this about this battle for the tiltle of Captain Obvious. I thought you were trying to make a point.

sigh

 

[Toro]

I'm a monarchist.

I think we should restore the monarchy back to its rightful place after 233 years.

Even though you say you are for a democracy, deep down you yearn to be ruled by the iron fist of a monarch.

God Save the Queen.

joking or not, you should be hanged for that...

Benedict Arnold was a patriot.