Hamiltonians were supply-siders, the Republican Party hasn't changed.

[Anarchist420]

Hamilton favored wholesale welfare. His favoring the navigation acts meant that people couldn't just buy whatever they wanted to and how they wanted to do it. The fact that the Constitution allows the govt to regulate trade (and regulation of trade is pretty much a cornerstone of the Constitution) is a huge issue because the Constitution inherently raised prices.

So basically, the Federalist Party/Republican Party is pro-supply side and always has been due to Hamilton's curse. It makes little difference whether it's neoliberalism (high income tax revenue with low marginal rates) or mercantilism (high tariffs)... they're just two sides of the same deceptive, statist, corporatist coin.

Discuss.

 

[momeNt]

Hamilton favored wholesale welfare. His favoring the navigation acts meant that people couldn't just buy whatever they wanted to and how they wanted to do it. The fact that the Constitution allows the govt to regulate trade (and regulation of trade is pretty much a cornerstone of the Constitution) is a huge issue because the Constitution inherently raised prices.

So basically, the Federalist Party/Republican Party is pro-supply side and always has been due to Hamilton's curse. It makes little difference whether it's neoliberalism (high income tax revenue with low marginal rates) or mercantilism (high tariffs)... they're just two sides of the same deceptive, statist, corporatist coin.

Discuss.

There isn't much to discuss when you post nothing but settled historical fact.

Hamilton and the elitist federalist party didn't want liberty, they wanted Great Britain type government with the control based in the states.

Jefferson carried on the libertarian legacy (despite completely abandoning it while in office, causing him great distress after his presidency) by indirectly influencing Jackson (once removed from Martin Van Buren and Benton). Jackson though sadly destroyed the Libertarian / True democratic liberal party by being on the wrong side of slavery. This may be a greater tragedy than Hamilton's existence.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Anarchist, have you ever considered starting a blog?

 

[Anarchist420]

There isn't much to discuss when you post nothing but settled historical fact. Hamilton and the elitist federalist party didn't want liberty, they wanted Great Britain type government with the control based in the states. Jefferson carried on the libertarian legacy (despite completely abandoning it while in office, causing him great distress after his presidency) by indirectly influencing Jackson (once removed from Martin Van Buren and Benton). Jackson though sadly destroyed the Libertarian / True democratic liberal party by being on the wrong side of slavery. This may be a greater tragedy than Hamilton's existence.

All true I was hoping to prove those wrong who are not as libertarian as you are.

Anarchist, have you ever considered starting a blog?

Yes, but AT is good enough for now.

 

[momeNt]

All true I was hoping to prove those wrong who are not as libertarian as you are.
Yes, but AT is good enough for now.

I think the truth will eventually help them understand that they are hysterically wrong about their views on government and will join us in returning America to a Jeffersonian Democracy, not sure if a party will be reformed or the libertarian party will displace one and cause the two existing parties to basically merge in their opposition to Jeffersonian Democracy. That remains to be seen over the next couple of decades.

 

[cwjerome]

Anarchist, you will grow out of this adolescent stage of callous rebelliousness and indifference to humanity.

America, the symbolic product of the Enlightenment took Locke and Hobbes and forged the freest, richest, and most powerful nation in the world. More than anyone, Hamilton thrust America (and the world) into economic modernity and essentially created the foundation of a new type of expansive national economy. He understood that government should grease the gears of capitalism and ride that engine of progress. He was basically the nucleus of all the legislation in the last 200+ years that has sought to promote opportunity, risk, growth, and investment while still maintaining some sense of stability and security. It's not about a heavy handed government trying to control things, it's about a government trying to make the awesome institution of capitalism work better for people.

Your whole position is based on theory and conjecture. You have no historical evidence to back up your positions even 1%. Where your system has worked in any real sense and where you get this idea that liberty for liberty's sake is good I have no idea. Welcome to the human race, we are all connected and we form governments to do those things mentioned in the Preamble of the US Constitution. Quit being a parasite on society and contribute something rather than pretending you're an island and you deserve to do whatever you want anytime you want. Particularly in this age of ever increasing globalization, it is astonishing that you spout this anarchist gibberish... the world hasn't just passed you by, it's laid a giant shat on your remarkably naive principles.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Hamilton favored wholesale welfare. His favoring the navigation acts meant that people couldn't just buy whatever they wanted to and how they wanted to do it. The fact that the Constitution allows the govt to regulate trade (and regulation of trade is pretty much a cornerstone of the Constitution) is a huge issue because the Constitution inherently raised prices.

So basically, the Federalist Party/Republican Party is pro-supply side and always has been due to Hamilton's curse. It makes little difference whether it's neoliberalism (high income tax revenue with low marginal rates) or mercantilism (high tariffs)... they're just two sides of the same deceptive, statist, corporatist coin.

Discuss.

First things first it was not the republican party , Second here explain what happened in this event . Because to just read whats written in one form is like buring head in sand .

New York State, but Hamilton's influence in his home state was strong enough to prevent a Burr victory. Taking offense at some of Hamilton's comments, Burr challenged him to a duel and mortally wounded Hamilton, who died within days. This is how it should be done , But Dem wouldn't last long . Ya have to have the balls to stand and take the shot. Burr was a good friend of andrew jackson. You know the only president to dissolve a national debt , At his death he said in his last words I beat the banks . The problem with demwits is they fighting wrong people for wrong reasons .

 

[momeNt]

Anarchist, you will grow out of this adolescent stage of callous rebelliousness and indifference to humanity.

America, the symbolic product of the Enlightenment took Locke and Hobbes and forged the freest, richest, and most powerful nation in the world. More than anyone, Hamilton thrust America (and the world) into economic modernity and essentially created the foundation of a new type of expansive national economy. He understood that government should grease the gears of capitalism and ride that engine of progress. He was basically the nucleus of all the legislation in the last 200+ years that has sought to promote opportunity, risk, growth, and investment while still maintaining some sense of stability and security. It's not about a heavy handed government trying to control things, it's about a government trying to make the awesome institution of capitalism work better for people.

Your whole position is based on theory and conjecture. You have no historical evidence to back up your positions even 1%. Where your system has worked in any real sense and where you get this idea that liberty for liberty's sake is good I have no idea. Welcome to the human race, we are all connected and we form governments to do those things mentioned in the Preamble of the US Constitution. Quit being a parasite on society and contribute something rather than pretending you're an island and you deserve to do whatever you want anytime you want. Particularly in this age of ever increasing globalization, it is astonishing that you spout this anarchist gibberish... the world hasn't just passed you by, it's laid a giant shat on your remarkably naive principles.

You think this because you apparently take a utilitarian cost benefit analysis view on the outcomes and forget entirely about the means. The fact remains that government is a completely immoral institution. There are very few things that a government does that if the same things were done by an individual you would look on them favorably. War and taxation are basically the two largest activities that the government partakes, I think you would feel that an individual should not be allowed to do these things, so why can the government? An individual actually has to get you want their product to get you to pay for it, the government can just tax you and force you to take it.

But I guess the harms of government are outweighed by benefits in your opinion? Libertarians would disagree with you, as the central axiom of libertarianism is to do no harm. I doubt that is something that Anarchist420 will simply grow out of.

True indifference to humanity begins with not respecting humanities right to themselves and the property that they create through their labor. Any good you feel that government provides, comes at the cost of those natural rights, and is inherently flawed and immoral.

 

[cwjerome]

You think this because you apparently take a utilitarian cost benefit analysis view on the outcomes and forget entirely about the means. The fact remains that government is a completely immoral institution. There are very few things that a government does that if the same things were done by an individual you would look on them favorably. War and taxation are basically the two largest activities that the government partakes, I think you would feel that an individual should not be allowed to do these things, so why can the government? An individual actually has to get you want their product to get you to pay for it, the government can just tax you and force you to take it.

But I guess the harms of government are outweighed by benefits in your opinion? Libertarians would disagree with you, as the central axiom of libertarianism is to do no harm. I doubt that is something that Anarchist420 will simply grow out of.

True indifference to humanity begins with not respecting humanities right to themselves and the property that they create through their labor. Any good you feel that government provides, comes at the cost of those natural rights, and is inherently flawed and immoral.

If the central axiom of libertarianism is to do no harm, than it confirms what I already know: libertarianism is a pie-in-the-sky theoretical thought experiment much like communism: it sounds ok on the surface but in reality is completely unworkable. Everyone has a covenant with everyone else but this covenant is easily broken and we need a contract as well. That is government. I don't see it as a necessary evil. It's necessary, and it can be evil, but thank god for government and the evolution mankind has taken to create governments that are better and better over time. A world without government is a Hobbesian nightmare and not one I would want anyone to live in. The fundamental question we need to address is how to make government better.

The root issue is one of morality. That which serves people and expands human life is the good. Libertarians like to pretend liberty is an end in itself, but liberty is only good insofar it serves human life. That is why we relinquish some absolute liberty and form government to act on our behalf in a collective setting. Until you get the "We" you cannot make a government. Making law for community is what makes it prosperous and binds it. A citizen is one who rules and is ruled... you can't be above the law or below the law. These are basic principles that have served us well and should be continually refined and perfected, not thrown out to devolve into some primitive hell on Earth.

 

[Nemesis 1]

If the central axiom of libertarianism is to do no harm, than it confirms what I already know: libertarianism is a pie-in-the-sky theoretical thought experiment much like communism: it sounds ok on the surface but in reality is completely unworkable. Everyone has a covenant with everyone else but this covenant is easily broken and we need a contract as well. That is government. I don't see it as a necessary evil. It's necessary, and it can be evil, but thank god for government and the evolution mankind has taken to create governments that are better and better over time. A world without government is a Hobbesian nightmare and not one I would want anyone to live in. The fundamental question we need to address is how to make government better.

The root issue is one of morality. That which serves people and expands human life is the good. Libertarians like to pretend liberty is an end in itself, but liberty is only good insofar it serves human life. That is why we relinquish some absolute liberty and form government to act on our behalf in a collective setting. Until you get the "We" you cannot make a government. Making law for community is what makes it prosperous and binds it. A citizen is one who rules and is ruled... you can't be above the law or below the law. These are basic principles that have served us well and should be continually refined and perfected, not thrown out to devolve into some primitive hell on Earth.

You sir likely believe in evolution . Yet when it comes to man you put yourself above animals because you preceive yourselves Top preditor. You don't get it , Free will . What did god do to caine when he killed able . He removed him fom the tribe of Adam and did curse him and his desendents . If your read the curse god imposed you will see it fits the Jewish people like a glove. It just so happens that Enoch was a desendent of Caine , Enoch never died went to heaven as a man same with Lilith. So Did caine kill able likely not.
You believe were animals but are not subject to the laws of nature were the strongest survive . This was never more clear . As the number of weak and sick people in the world has overtaken the strong and healthy. This is one reason Demwits have grown in numbers . There gene pool is corupt. I understand as a man of reason we protect and shelter the weak and poor . But that if you believe in God . If you believe your animal your subject to the same laws they are . NONE. Kill or be killed this is what pushes evolution forward . The min. you start having compassion you deny your basic beliefs and poison the gene pool

 

[Anarchist420]

More than anyone, Hamilton thrust America (and the world) into economic modernity and essentially created the foundation of a new type of expansive national economy. He understood that government should grease the gears of capitalism and ride that engine of progress. He was basically the nucleus of all the legislation in the last 200+ years that has sought to promote opportunity, risk, growth, and investment while still maintaining some sense of stability and security. It's not about a heavy handed government trying to control things, it's about a government trying to make the awesome institution of capitalism work better for people. Your whole position is based on theory and conjecture.

Hamilton did shit for laissez-faire capitalism. I don't like State capitalism which is what you are describing.

Also, keep in mind that a good balance of trade could've happened naturally, even if the 13 Original Colonies had never even formed a union. Hamilton was a social nationalist and his Federal system did jack dempsey shit for humanity.

Anarchist, you will grow out of this adolescent stage of callous rebelliousness and indifference to humanity.

That wouldn't, doesn't, and won't require me to be a pro-state individual.

First things first it was not the republican party ,

The Republican Party of today was the Whig Party which was the Federalist Party of Alexander Hamilton.
Thank you for your reply I'm sorry I can't be of more help.

I doubt that is something that Anarchist420 will simply grow out of.

+1.

 

[momeNt]

If the central axiom of libertarianism is to do no harm, than it confirms what I already know: libertarianism is a pie-in-the-sky theoretical thought experiment much like communism: it sounds ok on the surface but in reality is completely unworkable. Everyone has a covenant with everyone else but this covenant is easily broken and we need a contract as well. That is government. I don't see it as a necessary evil. It's necessary, and it can be evil, but thank god for government and the evolution mankind has taken to create governments that are better and better over time. A world without government is a Hobbesian nightmare and not one I would want anyone to live in. The fundamental question we need to address is how to make government better.

The root issue is one of morality. That which serves people and expands human life is the good. Libertarians like to pretend liberty is an end in itself, but liberty is only good insofar it serves human life. That is why we relinquish some absolute liberty and form government to act on our behalf in a collective setting. Until you get the "We" you cannot make a government. Making law for community is what makes it prosperous and binds it. A citizen is one who rules and is ruled... you can't be above the law or below the law. These are basic principles that have served us well and should be continually refined and perfected, not thrown out to devolve into some primitive hell on Earth.

That's where you are wrong. Free markets can provide redress for when people harm one another. Libertarianism doesn't simply fall apart once somebody does harm, it simply is the axiom which forms the structure of the system, not the key to it working.

Government cannot serve people better or more morally than a free market, government can only make you serve it. Any perceived efficiency all comes at the cost of government's coercive control and legal extortion of the citizens that it controls.

The only laws that are needed do not need government to provide them. They are self-evident, that each person is their own master and they are the master of their labor. Every just law is derives from that simple natural law.

I suggest you read some libertarian works. I recommend For a New Liberty by rothbard.

http://mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf

 

[Anarchist420]

I suggest you read some libertarian works. I recommend For a New Liberty by rothbard. http://mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf

+1 for You (mostly because your recommendation applies better than anything I could've thought of in
this case). It applies better partly because I have a fixation on conceived in liberty. Skimming through that wonderful book helped me realize more about the Founders and how the Constitution was planned by many from 1774... that is probably why Lincoln said America was founded in 1774 (even though America was never originally a country... Dishonest Abe may have known that or perhaps he was just too stubborn to know the truth).

Now that I've said all of that it may decrease his chances of reading anything from Rothbard.

 

[Nemesis 1]

The Republican Party of today was the Whig Party which was the Federalist Party of Alexander Hamilton.
Thank you for your reply I'm sorry I can't be of more help.

Well ya surprized me . Ya went and looked . Yes he was a whig . NOT A REPULSIVE . A whig party member boarders treason as alliance to the crown . Both parties today seem close to the crown . ALMOST all presidents decend from its tree.

 

[cwjerome]

That's where you are wrong. Free markets can provide redress for when people harm one another. Libertarianism doesn't simply fall apart once somebody does harm, it simply is the axiom which forms the structure of the system, not the key to it working.

It may be the axiom... so what then IS the key? Wishful thinking? No. A promise, or covenant as Hobbes masterfully explained, between the people will not work in the state of nature, ie, without governmental authority. Only government can successfully form a social contract and enforce it. You can not form a society based on people's promises to each other. This is so elementary and libertarians are at extreme odds with the greatest founding minds from Jefferson to Madison to nearly everyone else. A community -country- must turn on a common center.

Government cannot serve people better or more morally than a free market, government can only make you serve it. Any perceived efficiency all comes at the cost of government's coercive control and legal extortion of the citizens that it controls.

We do not give up our rights, they endure always and forever, but their reach my be shortened depending on context. We do not give up rights, we give up some power. We empower government to protect rights, after all, what good are natural rights when you can't fulfill them? Nothing is easier broken than a man's word... you need an enforcement mechanism to make our words true. You have liberty in nature (or this magical free market you speak of) but you can't enjoy it or preserve it. You have to join society to create a life worth living.

The only laws that are needed do not need government to provide them. They are self-evident, that each person is their own master and they are the master of their labor. Every just law is derives from that simple natural law.

There is no real evidence anywhere that having no government would improve people's lives but there is nothing but evidence showing government can create the conditions where people become much safer, happier, and prosperous. Governments that can properly align to and exploit the free market tend to do much better at this.

I suggest you read some libertarian works. I recommend For a New Liberty by rothbard.
http://mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf

I am familiar with Rothbard. Although I lean libertarian in many ways, I do not call myself a libertarian and I don't subscribe to much of his disturbingly foolish interpretation of American history (from his Revolutionairy revisionism to his worship of Jackson to his hatred for Lincoln). The bottom line is the libertarian fixation with liberty as an end in itself and liberty for liberty's sake is morally bankrupt. Liberty is awesome, and should generally be maximized whenever possible, but the reason for doing this is because it's more in line with reality, natural law, and creates societies that improve human life. It may seem counter-intuitive, but we need some government to maximize our functional liberty and I'm not going to believe libertarian talk that the state of nature, or free market, or whatever you want to call it, can improve people's lives better simply because, well, you say it will.