tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post1366481173232375314..comments2024-03-19T08:42:45.690-04:00Comments on The Delaware Libertarian: Oh, and about taxes...Steven H. Newtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09097470960863103473noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-51066348703285069862008-11-04T06:40:00.000-05:002008-11-04T06:40:00.000-05:00Forced collectivism = tyranny.Sorry, Dana, but cas...Forced collectivism = tyranny.<BR/><BR/>Sorry, Dana, but case closed on that. <BR/><BR/>Obviously you don't give the founders credit or respect, nor those who stood/stand on their shoulders since.<BR/><BR/>But then no one with an agenda of coerced utopianism would.Tyler Nixonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009459340275592274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-39991111756614143142008-11-03T22:56:00.000-05:002008-11-03T22:56:00.000-05:00Dana,You're beating a really dead horse here, with...Dana,<BR/>You're beating a really dead horse here, with the issue of the ratifiers' intent. Not only is there a voluminous correspondence extant, backed by transcripts of debates, but historians have been combing over them and analyzing them for years.<BR/><BR/>We've got an excellent idea about the main issues important to both the advocates and adversaries of ratification, and serious quantitative work has been done on how many people/delegates held which views.Steven H. Newtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09097470960863103473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-33074138299002085382008-11-03T22:18:00.000-05:002008-11-03T22:18:00.000-05:00Hi Tyler. I'm doing OK."The founders didn't antic...Hi Tyler. I'm doing OK.<BR/><BR/>"The founders didn't anticipate a lot, but they surely anticipated forcible collectivism and tried to put structural and systemic brakes on charlatan ideologies promising a cosmic free lunch, as long as you submit."<BR/><BR/>Wow, these founders were really quite psychic. They knew about a rough and ready threat of "collectivism" before such a concept was fully fleshed out and they even anticipated Milton Friedman's concept of the "free lunch." Very impressive. Could they also levitate objects just by using their thoughts alone?<BR/><BR/>Here's why I get the impression that Libertarians and Libertarianish Republicans make a FETISH of the founders. I also don't think that outcome would have pleased them.Delaware Watchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13619357338844485803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-27194743187021165852008-11-03T22:11:00.000-05:002008-11-03T22:11:00.000-05:00"Dana: you've also got to get over this notion tha..."Dana: you've also got to get over this notion that we don't know what the ratifiers thought: we absolutely do. There are over ten volumes of their writings extant in the Anti-Federalist papers and in the transcripts of the ratification debates."<BR/><BR/>Am I to take it that's 10 volumes of harmonious agreement...a nirvana of shared meaning? Of course not. The debate was filled w/ wide disagreement, meanings weren't generally shared but thinly parsed each according to either the meanings of his camp or peculiar interpretation or both. We don't know what the ratifiers intended because their intentions were so diverse that to suggest for one second that their was unitary meaning is to create a fairy tale. There were not even many records made of the ratification debates in the states. <BR/><BR/>What you suggest isn't real; it doesn't resemble the real world. And it's not supported by the historical record. These matters were debated furiously before and AFTER the ratification. Even Washington could find no relief from it in the "press" during his 2 terms.Delaware Watchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13619357338844485803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-23854932872117280282008-11-03T20:20:00.000-05:002008-11-03T20:20:00.000-05:00Dana: you've also got to get over this notion that...<I>Dana: you've also got to get over this notion that we don't know what the ratifiers thought: we absolutely do. There are over ten volumes of their writings extant in the Anti-Federalist papers and in the transcripts of the ratification debates.</I><BR/><BR/>Thanks for nailing this. It was the first thing I thought.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_Madison" REL="nofollow">Here's a whole page of highlights</A>.<BR/><BR/>"With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."Bowlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08368370082055845451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-48995592634276308962008-11-03T16:54:00.000-05:002008-11-03T16:54:00.000-05:00Dana: rants are usually rambling--anger tends to ...Dana: rants are usually rambling--anger tends to do that....<BR/><BR/>General Welfare in the 1780s-1790s had a very specific political meaning; and throughout the ratification debates the anti-Federalists always said words to the effect of, "Oh, they'll take that and stretch it until Congress can do anything," but the Federalists said, "Oh, you fear-mongers, everybody knows what General Welfare means. It's not going to change.<BR/><BR/>Dana: you've also got to get over this notion that we don't know what the ratifiers thought: we absolutely do. There are over ten volumes of their writings extant in the Anti-Federalist papers and in the transcripts of the ratification debates.<BR/><BR/>I don't accept the constitution as a living document for philosophical reasons, I accept it as such for historical reasons. I mean thus: every document is reinterpreted by the people in succeeding generations, whether that interpretation is logically consistent or ethically valid to the original purposes. That I acknowledge that fact is akin to acknowledging gravity: it does not matter if I like it or not.Steven H. Newtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09097470960863103473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-54421372021582023102008-11-03T13:35:00.000-05:002008-11-03T13:35:00.000-05:00Great piece, Steve. Easy to read and succinct. Try...Great piece, Steve. Easy to read and succinct. <BR/><BR/>Trying to make sense of collectivist orthodoxy and utopian social engineering (or as I like to call it - socialism) in practical application is at best to aim at a constantly shifting target obscured by lots of smoke and mirrors. <BR/><BR/>I think you nailed the essence here. The founders didn't anticipate a lot, but they surely anticipated forcible collectivism and tried to put structural and systemic brakes on charlatan ideologies promising a cosmic free lunch, as long as you submit. <BR/><BR/>As with all welfare state collectivist schemes, where there is a will they will find a way...including discarding the very fundamentals of a free people in a free republic for which the framers risked it all.<BR/><BR/>(Hey, Dana....no reference to you as to socialism. How YOU doin?)Tyler Nixonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009459340275592274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-77234023572521056232008-11-03T13:02:00.000-05:002008-11-03T13:02:00.000-05:00A rambling piece, Steve. Very hard to follow. "Ge...A rambling piece, Steve. Very hard to follow. <BR/><BR/>"General Welfare"--sounds like a broad term to me and one whose meaning cannot be established by a few statements by some framers and a few court cases, the latter being an appeal that ASSUME the court got it right in the first place. <BR/><BR/>I see no reason why "general welfare" cannot accommodate progressive taxation just as you do not see it limiting application to public education, public roads and some regulation--all never anticipated by neither the framers (whose intentions/meanings are nearly moot in any case) nor the ratifiers (whose meaning might matter but, alas, is largely unknown to us). <BR/><BR/>So you like everyone except a few constitutional Pharisaical nutcases accept the constitution as a living document and not the dead letter of a handful of propertied white guys. Good for you. That's an adult (read responsible) position.Delaware Watchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13619357338844485803noreply@blogger.com