tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post8750248807966607926..comments2024-03-19T08:42:45.690-04:00Comments on The Delaware Libertarian: Redistributive fallacies: Left, Right, ... and LibertarianSteven H. Newtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09097470960863103473noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-34160937986790631642008-10-30T00:26:00.000-04:002008-10-30T00:26:00.000-04:00The histories you cite, while informative, cannot ...The histories you cite, while informative, cannot be considered entirely relevant because they were partially or in some cases entirely histories of the colonial period, and there is plenty of evidence that by the last quarter of the 18th century many of the colonists were thoroughly disgusted with the policies of the king, and his governors & magistrates.<BR/><BR/>The Articles of Confederation and to a lesser extent the Constitution (despite the fact that large portions of it were drafted by Hamilton prior to the convention) show a clear desire for the most minimal <I>national</I> government possible. <BR/><BR/>For the most part they were content to grant the state governments essentially plenary powers, but there was also a widespread belief that the people could keep the state governments from getting out of hand due to their proximity, and the frequency of elections (most had terms of two years or less for all offices). Also, the early state constitutions almost universally created very weak executive branches and vested nearly all power in the legislatures.<BR/><BR/>Delaware's Constitution of 1776 (which has been described as "a change in sovereignty rather than in government") was probably the most conservative of the early state constitutions. Nevertheless, it substantially weakened the executive, switched from a single house to a bicameral legislature, adopted a strong Declaration of Rights, and threw out a considerable amount of the colonial law. <BR/><BR/>Other states, most notably Pennsylvania, made far more radical departures from the forms of their colonial governments.<BR/><BR/>Even the most statist of people in the late 18th & early 19th centuries could not have even imagined a time when nearly one third of the people worked either directly for the government, or in taxpayer funded jobs.tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06653459162258850269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-76439631375725254552008-10-28T21:02:00.000-04:002008-10-28T21:02:00.000-04:00Hey Tom want to help me organize a Delaware affili...Hey Tom want to help me organize a Delaware affiliate of the Boston Tea Party?Steven H. Newtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09097470960863103473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-7531253037881304302008-10-28T20:56:00.000-04:002008-10-28T20:56:00.000-04:00Whatever his beliefs, ironically, Thomas Jefferson...Whatever his beliefs, ironically, Thomas Jefferson is responsible for bringing one of the building blocks of modern industrialism to America:<BR/><BR/><I>"<A HREF="http://safari.oreilly.com/0321437381/ch01" REL="nofollow">Interchangeable Parts</A><BR/><BR/>Paris, France, July 1785. It was 18 months after the end of the Revolutionary War in America, and four years before the start of the French Revolution. The need for weapons was on everyone's mind when Honoré Blanc invited high-ranking military men and diplomats to his gunsmith shop in Paris. He had taken apart 50 firing mechanisms (called "locks") and placed the pieces in boxes. The astonished visitors took random parts from the bins, assembled them into locks, and added them to muskets. They found that the parts fit together perfectly. For the first time it seemed possible to make guns out of interchangeable parts.<BR/><BR/>Thomas Jefferson, a diplomat in Paris at the time, was at the demonstration. The future United States president saw a way to address a big problem in his fledgling country. The United States was facing a shortage of weapons to defend itself and expand its boundaries. If interchangeable parts could be easily produced, then relatively unskilled workers could assemble a lot of guns at low cost, a real boon to the start-up country that had neither the money to buy guns nor the craftsmen to make them.<BR/><BR/>The challenge of creating a manufacturing process precise enough to make interchangeable parts for guns was taken up by Eli Whitney, who had recently patented the cotton gin. In 1798 Whitney was awarded a government contract to make 10,000 guns in two years. Ten years and several cost overruns later he finally delivered the guns, and even then the parts were not fully interchangeable. Nevertheless, Whitney is considered a central figure in developing the "American system of manufacture," a manufacturing system in which semi-skilled workers use machine tools and precise jigs to make standardized parts that are then assembled into products.<BR/><BR/>During the 1800s the United States grew dramatically as an industrial power, with much of the credit given to the new manufacturing system. Meanwhile in Europe there was strong resistance to replacing craft production. In France, Honoré Blanc's work was terminated by a government that feared losing its control over manufacturing if unregulated workers could assemble a musket. In England, the inventors of machines that automated both spinning and weaving were attacked by angry crowds who feared losing their jobs. But in America, labor was scarce and there were few craft traditions, so the new industrial model of interchangeable parts took root and flourished."</I>tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06653459162258850269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-10514528695415655752008-10-28T20:28:00.000-04:002008-10-28T20:28:00.000-04:00It sort of depends on how authoritatively that ten...It sort of depends on how authoritatively that tenth book destroys your thesis. Even in hard sciences like physics or chemistry where you can cite repeatable experiments that clearly disprove a well-known theory or interpretation, it usually takes a generation or two to establish a new paradigm that radically alters the way things are done. <BR/><BR/>Most of the time you could probably remain intellectually honest by editing the paper in small ways to point out that most experts agree with you but X says this. If X does turn out to be another Copernicus or Einstein, there's always the time honored method of getting an extension and doing more research.tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06653459162258850269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7893272060787897238.post-59200483730395610262008-10-28T14:16:00.000-04:002008-10-28T14:16:00.000-04:00I think the debate here (in the DE blogosphere any...I think the debate here (in the DE blogosphere anyway) is one of "should". That is, Republicans largely favor a freer market with varying degrees. The liberal wing of the DE blogosphere seems to want to create the Ministry of Plenty. That is, any time there is some sort of gap it is to be filled with government. Healthcare unsatisfactory? Nationalize it. Talk radio leans right? Create "fairness" laws. etc.<BR/><BR/>Liberals are pro government<BR/>Republicans are pro business<BR/>Libertarians are pro marketThe Last Ephorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10546829944086243794noreply@blogger.com