IndyColtsFan
Lifer
- Sep 22, 2007
- 33,655
- 688
- 126
You really lose credibility when you try to twist some things so far - for example, Thomas Jefferson was the founder of the University of Virgnia, his proudest accomplishment.
Contrarian information is great, when based on accuracy, but you are trying to equate the fonding fathers here to Beavis and Butthead, and how accurate is that? It's not.
There's plenty of debunking available on the mythology, about the real men and their views, but calling them idiots isn't that debunking.
I know you mean well, but you are doing the same thing zealots on the right do to twist the facts.
Instead of arguing that socialism can be good by arguing that the constitution doens't have it and the founding fathers were idiots, why not try the argument that one of the founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin - a printer himself - created the public library system, a 'socialist' program at odds with 'capitalist ideology on bookstores', benefitting society. You can also mention that the founding fathers wanted the American people to evolve and change the system, not leave it undeveloped and static.
Why not argue instead of claiming they were idiots, that economics was far more primitive then, that socialism and Keynesian theory and such weren't really part of the debate?
That's more reasonable as a basis for saying their positions were not the best word on the right economic system.
Indeed, they founded a system where the entire federal revenue came almost entirely from tariffs - which is the opposite of today's bi-partisan free-trade ideology.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
A person starting a public library system is fine. It's when the Feds start dabbling in that type of socialism that it starts to run afoul of the Constitution.
Quit delaying. I need to know the answer so that the next time a gop pollster calls, I'll know how to answer. I really hated being caught unaware as I was in the last poll about the fact that medicare and medicaid are socialistic. I want to appear informed for these selfless pollsters.
Well, if you want to pursue the point beyond the one I was making in answering the charge of the founding fathers being 'barely high school education':
He actually said what he thought his three greeatest achievments were, and people are often surprised being US President is not on the list.
They are the Declaration of Independance, the statue for religious freedom in Virigina, and the founding of the University of Virginia.
Now, you are right about the issue that he was opposed to the centralized banking powers that Hamilton was for - an important issue in our nation splitting to two parties that in one sense really haven't changed all that muich, with one for the 'oligarchy' and one for the masses, IMO as a generalization. But he did not consider that one of his great achievments.
Circlenaut
Platinum Member
- Mar 22, 2001
- 2,175
- 5
- 81
Here's the definition of socialism. Why don't you go figure it out yourself. I also added "production" and "industry."
Thanks. I could study this for years but still might not use it as it's being used currently. If it's being used in conjunction with politics, I always ask. I always get varying answers proving my conjecture. There doesn't seem to be a consensus for "What's a liberal" and "What's a conservative" either.
They're really labels where the 'conservative' label is especially stretched thin. Indeed, it could be argued that modern conservativism was mostly invented in recent decades.
You can see all kinds of battles between factions of 'conservatives' - Teddy Roosevelt versus his hand-picked successor Taft, who he then ran against; Goldwater turning largely agaisnt the modern right and planning to co-author a book with John Dean, that Dean published called 'Conservatism without consicence' a play on Goldwater's classic book that invigorated the right in America, 'Consicence of a Conservative' - in a time when the Golwater and Rockefeller factions of the Republican party were at odds.
Look at the libertarians versus the corporatists versus the social conservatives and religious right such as dominionists versus the Neocons and so on.
Look at William F. Bucklet's son leaving National Review over its radicalism, look at the descendants of Dwight D. Eisenhower supporting Democrats for the first time ever.
The desire for power is a common factor among many, and like beer goggles, it leads people to rationalize alliances - or as the saying goes, make 'strange befellows'.
What that saying means, is that two parties who might be horrifed by what they see next to them in bed find is that they are there, because they share the desire for power.
In short, the issue is a lot about 'everyone' versus 'the few'. It's not black and white. 'Collectivist' approaches to things are often high on idealism and disastrous in implementation; concern for the public has terrible and great results, from communist tyranny to the best of America. Advocates for either side tend to pick the side that supports their position.
Liberals tend to ask, 'how can the world be made better', how can rights be protected and expanded, how can tyranny be opposed, the weak against the strong.
Conservatives tend to fear any such approach, saying they don't want any public organization trying to stand up against the powerful, because they'd sort of like the freedom to do what they want and to be powerful. They're less worried about protecting the weak than wanting to protect the strong and to tell the weak the solutoin for them is to become the powerful. Conservaitves are more going to notice an automaker helping a million people get places, while liberals are going to ask about the pollution.
The beauty of liberalism is 'the people' gaining power - and that's it's ugliness as well, because the people can be for osme pretty lousy things sometimes.
It's not black and white for either side - and that's a problem, because each side has more than enough anecdotal evidence about the flaws of the other to fuel their ideology.
Conserviatives say liberals have more good intentions than practical plans; they worry that liberals are going to bankrupts the society trying to fix every oops, and make things worse.
Liberals worry that conservative fixation on their own wealth and power will leave the society a hollow, immoral shell that has a mix of extreme suffering and wealth.
Both sides will claim to support or oppose some things, like supporting 'free speech', even while each has their own version - the liberals one in which corporations can't use the big lie technique by buying the repition of a lie so many times that it defeats the rational discussion our democracy is founded on; some of the conservatives (remember, they differ and this doesn't apply ti Libertarians) one in which dissent is limited and flag burning can be prosecuted.
Liberals look for how people can be helped by the public power - programs and laws. Conservatives look for how people can be protected from bad policies and laws.
Liberals looked at elder poverty and said, we will create social security. To be fair, they hardly bit off as much as it turned into - very few people were paid compared to now.
Conservatives looked at elder poverty, and ratonalized it, pointing out the benefits of not having social security - the freedom to fund your own retirement.
In short, though, each has allied with constituents on business issues that have two sides, and politics has largely become simply the pursuit of power to protect those interests.
Ha ha, we got a 'gotcha' photo of Dukakis looking like an idiot in a tank - that'a great for the interests the Republican party represents, and will trump 'issue discussions'.
Politics is largely a marketing game, where expert advertisers work to sell the public on their brand for no more purpose than protecting the power base. There's certainly more idealism in the system than that; people who know the politicians say that many on both sides 'care' about the people and think they are doing right. But that doesn't change how the system works, which has the elements I describe. Some do 'sell out' - the health insurance industry was able to hire 350 former members and staffers from Congress.
But on the definitions, they're flexible. Expediency was a factor in Robert Kennedy authorizing a wiretap on Martin Luther King, Jr., on John Kennedy delaying action on civil rights legislation. Bill Clinton was hardly 'liberal' in his support for hugely pro-corporate changes in our laws. Conservatives thought they knew what they stood for; they used to be the isolationist party decades ago but are sort of the opposite today; they thought they were for fiscal responsbility, but the system has made a mockery of that position as their leaders have bought political points with fiscal irresponsibility the way they accuse liberals of doing, they have backed increasing 'security state' measures violating their principles on civil rights as they trade 'liberty for security'.
The corruption adds an element of absurdity - the Republicans creating a 'faith-based' office in the White House while calling the religious right leaders idiots secretly. Being caught in a scandal of a former gay prostitute being set up to infiltrate the press corps and ask phony softball questions. Trading arms for hostages, through Israel obligating us to do them favors, to raise funds to illegaly fund terrorists who are called 'the moral equivalent of our founding fathers'. And then making the criminal facilitator a celebrity.
But should Ollie North's rewards be any surprise when his counterpart in the Nixon administration, criminal G. Gordon Liddy, got his own talk show too?
But I digress - there are basic differences, where liberals want to 'do more to help people', and conservatives want to oppose government - with big exceptions - and do things differently. It's fair to note that conservatives do donate more of their money to charity causes, while liberals tend to prefer government and donating by paying higher taxes to meet the needs.
I think it can be argued that there's a huge difference between conservative 'followers' and the powerful interests who like the benefits conservative policies bring them.
That difference further makes talking about the definitions hard - do we use the idealism of the follower or the 'real agenda' for wealth of the major funder?
Climate change is a good example, though - liberals viewing it as issue government can identify and plan to address, conservatives skeptical of the 'gullible' liberal claims, whether out of actual skepticism (followers) or business interets (such as Exxon who poured tens of millions into dozens of friendly 'think tanks' who would attack the issue). The issue fits each side's bad version of the other very well, liberals rushing to bankrupt the country without solid reason, and conservatives in idiotic denial and greed risking millions of lives.
Since the post wasn't long enough, here's a quip:
LIberals tend to understate the flaws of the government programs; conservatives tend to underestate the harms of not having the government programs.
Social Security is a good example - before we had it, the elder poverty was 'just the way things were', and conservatives, almost by definition, were not in a rush to change them.
They could more easily accept the continued poverty level - the devil they knew - than prefer embarking on a massive government program to improve the situation.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
Craig, this is probably one of the most partisan posts ever posted on P&N. Youre really a piece of work. I can be as partisan as the next guy, but in the end I realize we have more similarities than differences (you excluded), and I honestly dont believe the other side has some scheme to destroy America. You really are something. Congrats on being memorable in an otherise unmemorable world.
Don't be obtuse. When most people discuss Socialism in almost any context, they are referring to Marxist Socialism. If you want a definition, just read the The Communist Manifesto. It's obviously not as involved as Das Kapital (and Atlas Shrugged), but it'll get the point across. In any case, Marx is certainly more authoritative on the subject than Mirriam-Webster. And #10:
Which is really quite obvious even when viewed in the context of Mirriam-Webster's limited definition. Education is an industry and what it produces are workers.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Are you really that obtuse? The feds don't run it, they don't run the police, nor the DMV.
But in the end, the Constitution GRANTS the feds certain powers, and the rest fall to the states. So it's not up to me to show where it "forbids" them.
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Are you really that obtuse? The feds don't run it, they don't run the police, nor the DMV.
But in the end, the Constitution GRANTS the feds certain powers, and the rest fall to the states. So it's not up to me to show where it "forbids" them.
Not obtuse at all really. You stated the Feds dabbling in "public library Socialism" is unconstitutional. I'd like you to point out the line in the Constitution that forbids it.
The Constitution both grants and denies powers to the different branches of government. The first article grants Congress fairly broadly-defined rights with regards to providing to the needs of the people.
One could certainly make an argument that public libraries are providing for the general Welfare.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: BigDH01
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Are you really that obtuse? The feds don't run it, they don't run the police, nor the DMV.
But in the end, the Constitution GRANTS the feds certain powers, and the rest fall to the states. So it's not up to me to show where it "forbids" them.
Not obtuse at all really. You stated the Feds dabbling in "public library Socialism" is unconstitutional. I'd like you to point out the line in the Constitution that forbids it.
The Constitution both grants and denies powers to the different branches of government. The first article grants Congress fairly broadly-defined rights with regards to providing to the needs of the people.
One could certainly make an argument that public libraries are providing for the general Welfare.
:roll: The feds buying everyone a house could also fall under that clause if you want to bastardize the clause like that. The problem is, it wasn't and isn't a catch all for whatever liberal feel good whim of the day is.
And I did not state "public library Socialism" - please try reading what I post and then make sure you quote me correctly next time.
I'm not bastardizing it, that's what it says. You may not agree with the extent to which it is applied, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional. If you don't like how your representatives feel about general welfare, you are free to vote for someone else. That's the point. The Constitution provides broad scope here on purpose, not being able to foresee entirely the future and wanting to leave some room for flexibility. It's up to the people to decide what construes the general well-being of the US.
There's a difference between "unconstitutional" and "something I don't agree with."
And I did not state "public library Socialism" - please try reading what I post and then make sure you quote me correctly next time.
I was paraphrasing. If I was quoting you, I'd use quote tags.
Was my paraphrased version of your beliefs inaccurate? From your quote, it would seem you do believe public libraries are Socialistic in nature.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: BigDH01
I'm not bastardizing it, that's what it says. You may not agree with the extent to which it is applied, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional. If you don't like how your representatives feel about general welfare, you are free to vote for someone else. That's the point. The Constitution provides broad scope here on purpose, not being able to foresee entirely the future and wanting to leave some room for flexibility. It's up to the people to decide what construes the general well-being of the US.
There's a difference between "unconstitutional" and "something I don't agree with."
And I did not state "public library Socialism" - please try reading what I post and then make sure you quote me correctly next time.
I was paraphrasing. If I was quoting you, I'd use quote tags.
Was my paraphrased version of your beliefs inaccurate? From your quote, it would seem you do believe public libraries are Socialistic in nature.
Have you looked up what "welfare" meant back then? Likely not so here it is:
So in the context it's being used - the definition would be #2. As you might notice, this definition is markedly different than what you'd find in today's dictionary. However, it's completely inappropriate to use a definition of today to try to read/comprehend vocabulary of the past.
Still don't believe me? How about Jefferson on the welfare clause:
So again, it has to be specifically enumerated to fall under the general welfare clause - it's not a catch all.
I like how you take Thomas Jefferson's position on the issues (he was a big proponent of limiting federal powers) and completely ignore all of the other people who wrote the Constitution. If you want to play 'quote the framers', lets ask Alexander Hamilton what the 'general welfare' covers.
So no, quoting random people from the time does not make your argument correct. Interestingly enough Alexander Hamilton signed the original Constitution with the 'general welfare' clause, and Thomas Jefferson did not.
EDIT: Specifically the USSC has found that Congress can most certainly promote conduct that it considers to be favorable, like say... buying everyone in America a house if they wanted to.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
That deals more with the how than the what...but that too is likely lost on you.
Also, are you going to completely ignore the definition of the word as it existed back then?
No, it specifically states that the 'general welfare' was purposefully made incredibly broad so that Congress could deal with what it had to. You stupidly decided to quote one person on an issue that was very contentious at the time and decide that he spoke for everyone who wrote the Constitution. What makes it even worse is that you decided to quote someone who's position LOST in the Constututional debate.
I know you're never going to admit that you were wrong, because you're CAD. My post is simply to refute your misinformation if other people happen to read it.
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: BigDH01
I'm not bastardizing it, that's what it says. You may not agree with the extent to which it is applied, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional. If you don't like how your representatives feel about general welfare, you are free to vote for someone else. That's the point. The Constitution provides broad scope here on purpose, not being able to foresee entirely the future and wanting to leave some room for flexibility. It's up to the people to decide what construes the general well-being of the US.
There's a difference between "unconstitutional" and "something I don't agree with."
And I did not state "public library Socialism" - please try reading what I post and then make sure you quote me correctly next time.
I was paraphrasing. If I was quoting you, I'd use quote tags.
Was my paraphrased version of your beliefs inaccurate? From your quote, it would seem you do believe public libraries are Socialistic in nature.
Have you looked up what "welfare" meant back then? Likely not so here it is:
So in the context it's being used - the definition would be #2. As you might notice, this definition is markedly different than what you'd find in today's dictionary. However, it's completely inappropriate to use a definition of today to try to read/comprehend vocabulary of the past.
Still don't believe me? How about Jefferson on the welfare clause:
So again, it has to be specifically enumerated to fall under the general welfare clause - it's not a catch all.
And you'll notice that Jefferson's quote mentions a debate that was occurring. Specifically, I believe that quote refers to the debate about creating a national bank, something Jefferson specifically opposed because it had already been voted down at the convention. The federalists took a view that the clause granted much wider powers with regards to the general welfare. Hamilton (his name is on the Constitution, Jefferson's is not) had a very broad view of the government's rights.
You can view a book about the subject here. I believe the whole book is available online, but chapter 20 might be the most relevant.
It was the Madisonians that opposed him, which included Jefferson (although it should be noted that Jefferson believed in progressive taxation and a program that basically amounted to welfare as we envision it today, just not at the federal level, you should read his Virginia Constitution).
Before I go any further, it should be noted that the General Welfare Clause has been established as a separate power of government by US v Butler (1936). Any debate you and I are having is largely academic.
In this light, it must be noted that Jefferson repudiated his views when he made the Lousiana Purchase. In fact, the Republicans ratified the treaty with France as soon as possible without extended debate. Ironically enough, Republicans appealed to the general welfare of the people and Jefferson took the position that they should pass a Constitutional Amendment if need be.
From here.
Here is a Republican, like Jefferson himself, appealing to the General Welfare Clause when it was felt that it could be used to actually better the United States. I suppose it's politics as usual, but Republicans of the day were certainly not above appealing to this clause when they needed to. I think Jefferson actually viewed what he was doing as unconstitutional when he purchased the Louisiana Territory, but he recognized that it was beneficial to the country to do so. In this light you might say that Jefferson did what was best for the country, not the constitution.
Madison also repudiated his views. He opposed the first national bank on the grounds that it was unconstiutional (specifically not falling into the General Welfare Clause), but later created the second national bank as President.
You can read the letter describing his decision here.
Basically saying that the bank had been around a long time, had been a reasonable success, the people didn't seem opposed to it, and although he might be constitutionally opposed to it, it was better we had it than we didn't.
It would appear that even the most stringent Republicans of the day cared more for the welfare of the country than they did strict adherence to the enumerated powers of the Constitution.
However, this whole debate is rather inconsequential. This debate was not really about whether the people should have things like free public education, or any other Collectivist service, it's how about it should be administered. State or federal level.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Bigdh- I'm not sure where banks came in but it really doesn't matter. The point is - the "general welfare" clause is NOT some broad all encompassing clause. It was never intended to be one and still to this day is not thought to be that except by liberals and socialists who want to expand the FEDERAL gov't. The Constitution was quite clear and the original framers were quite clear about their fear of an all encompassing FEDERAL gov't spreading to wide.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter