# The Gaming Den

Welcome to the Gaming Den.

Skip to content

## The Logical Conservative: Limited Federal Government

Mundane & Pointless Stuff I Must Share: The Off Topic Forum

Moderator: Moderators

Locked

- Print view

120 posts

- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next

tzor
  Prince
  Posts: 4266
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

### The Logical Conservative: Limited Federal Government

Post by tzor » Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:49 pm

One of the general principles of conservative / libertarian thought is the notion of limited government on the top most level. Since this principle is generally applied to a structure of leveled government we can also call this notion the “Vertical Separation of Powers” from the various levels of government, limiting the powers of any one level and reserving all powers not enumerated at the various levels to the people.
The purpose of the vertical separation of power is the same as the purpose of the horizontal separation of power (executive, legislative and judicial); the use of structure to create opposing forces to prevent the creation of a consolidated power that would lead to tyranny. Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” He also wrote, “An elective despotism was not the government we fought for, but one which should not only be founded on true free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among general bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.”
Within this notion of Federalism, the natural tendency towards consolidation must be in place in order to keep this vertical alliance. This is why we have laws, for example, to prevent the creation of monopolies but we need not worry about laws to prevent the breakup of near monopolies. James Madison in the Federalist Papers wrote, “Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them.”
James Wilson once wrote about this vertical pyramid structure, “The pyramid of government-and a republican government may well receive that beautiful and solid form-should be raised to a dignified altitude: but its foundations must, of consequence, be broad, and strong, and deep. The authority, the interests, and the affections of the people at large are the only foundation, on which a superstructure proposed to be at once durable and magnificent, can be rationally erected.”
If we look at government as a corporation, the notion of vertical separation of power becomes all the more logical and beneficial. It allows different parts of the organization to adapt to regional changes and pressures. Mashed potatoes, a general staple of KFC in the United States may not sell well in Japan and it may be necessary to substitute French fries in their menus and advertisements. The ability to be able to have local laws for the needs of local conditions as well as the ability to “roll out” new products (in the case of corporations) or laws (in the case of governments) to select areas in order to proof them before the are adopted by the whole.
The opposite of this notion is total control by the central authority (centralism). In the corporate world such a notion is often given a rather derogatory term, “micro management.” In more governmental terms the end result is often despotism.
Lou Dobbs wrote in 2007, “James Madison and our Founding Fathers would be proud that our republic remains, at least in part, functional and still capable of being public-spirited. Whereas states' rights have at times in our history been the refuge of those committed to the status quo, and at times used to retrograde impulses, the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which insures states' rights, now appears to be our brightest hope for an enduring republic.”
But a government is more than a corporation because it is in effect “run” by the customers, or in effect by the people. This is important, because we need to have a government “of the people, by the people and for the people” without leading to the mob rule of unfettered democracy. Fisher Ames wrote in 1788, “The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty.”
The principle of both vertical and horizontal separation of powers is both logical and reasonable from a programming and design standpoint and all good long lasting systems must be designed with reasonable structures that ensure smooth operations of all functions across as well as up and down the hierarchy. If this is true for impersonal systems how much more for systems and organizations of men who, if left to their own devices would always attempt to cheat the system and gain more power for themselves than is properly needed for the performance of their function within the structure.
Top

Username17
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 29894
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

Post by Username17 » Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:55 pm

And this explains why you guys spent the last eight years cheerleading the centralization of power in the executive... how?
Local control is not a liberal or conservative issue. It is a minority issue. Minorities want local controls in places where they are minorities. Always and forever.
-Username17
Top

Kaelik
  ArchDemon of Rage
  Posts: 14491
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

Post by Kaelik » Wed Jan 13, 2010 9:10 pm

So you think that this:
Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine.
is a list of Conservatives:
And this:
Alexander Hamilton, George W Bush, Dick Cheney.
is a list of liberals?
Just want to be clear how far you are willing to lie out your ass for this sort of thing.

> DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?

The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Top

Crissa
  King
  Posts: 6720
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Santa Cruz

###

Post by Crissa » Wed Jan 13, 2010 9:14 pm

Furthermore, it's not logical because the definition of limited changes depending upon who you talk to.
Remember, their 'limited federal government' has:

- A military budget larger than the rest of the world, combined.
- Restricts Women's rights.
- Nanny state with regards to sex, drugs partaken by minorities, who can marry whom.
- Large, entrenched bailouts for CEOs of various industries.
- No-bid lucrative 'contracts' with faith-based and profit-based outcomes to their friends.
- Wanton destruction of public and private property in the name of their friends' profits...

So, what is limited?

- Consumer protections.
- Property rights for home owners.
- Healthcare.
- Veteran's benefits.
- Public parks.
- Bridge repairs.
- Education.
- Privacy.
- The right against unjust search and seizure.
- Monetary expansion.
- Clean water, air, etc.

No two conservatives agree on what's limited, aside from things which demonstrably do good.
You could've chosen a 'logical' argument for something else, but nooo. You chose the one thing that you can't get any teabaggers to agree on.
-Crissa
'Government hands off my Medicare!' - Random teabagger old lady desiring the government to continue managing Medicare.
Last edited by Crissa on Wed Jan 13, 2010 9:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Top

tzor
  Prince
  Posts: 4266
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

Post by tzor » Wed Jan 13, 2010 9:22 pm

> Kaelik wrote:So you think that this:
> Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine.
> is a list of Conservatives:
> And this:
> Alexander Hamilton, George W Bush, Dick Cheney.
> is a list of liberals?
> Just want to be clear how far you are willing to lie out your ass for this sort of thing.

Jefferson is more of a conservative than a liberal in the modern sense of the word, although a better term would be a libertarian. The fact that he had the fiscal sense and responsibility of an idiot is beside the point.
(I can only imagine what he would say about a Federal Health Plan option.)
Alexander Hamilton wasn’t a liberal, he was a strong supporter of Federalism as much as any other; the question was how much power you needed at the Federal level. Too little and you had the failure of the Articles of Confederation. Too much and you had despotism. Hamilton’s bar was higher than Jefferson but neither wanted to throw away the States in the equation of the government. (Remember that the States power in the Federal government, until changed by amendment was given through the appointment of Senators, a notion that Jefferson wasn’t all to keen on.)
George W. Bush had some very distressing centralist tendencies. I would say one good example was his use of Federal power to keep California from allowing the medicinal use of marijuana. I don’t worship Bush, unlike some of you who worship Obama.
Top

Crissa
  King
  Posts: 6720
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Santa Cruz

###

Post by Crissa » Wed Jan 13, 2010 10:56 pm

> tzor wrote:George W. Bush had some very distressing centralist tendencies. I would say one good example was his use of Federal power to keep California from allowing the medicinal use of marijuana. I don’t worship Bush, unlike some of you who worship Obama.

Interesting. Since there are zero elected Republicans who opposed that move. Certainly a majority of conservatives, one might say.
Not even Ron Paul breaks ranks on that, even though he gives lipservice to it, because to do so would weaken federal impositions between women and their health care.
-Crissa
Last edited by Crissa on Wed Jan 13, 2010 10:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top

Josh_Kablack
  King
  Posts: 5317
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Online. duh

###

Post by Josh_Kablack » Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:35 am

> Kaelik wrote:So you think that this:
> Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine.
> is a list of Conservatives

Hrm

> wikipedia wrote: Jefferson's vision for American virtue was that of an agricultural nation of yeoman farmers minding their own affairs. His agrarianism stood in contrast to the vision of Alexander Hamilton, who envisioned a nation of commerce and manufacturing, which Jefferson said offered too many temptations to corruption. Jefferson's deep belief in the uniqueness and the potential of America made him the father of American exceptionalism.

> same wrote: Palin is a social conservative

> > linked definition of social conservative on that site wrote: Social conservatism is a political or moral ideology that believes government and/or society have a role in encouraging or enforcing traditional values or behaviors based on the belief that these are what keep people civilized and decent.

> wikipedia wrote: Carrying of arms
> Jefferson's commitment to liberty extended to many areas of individual freedom. In his "commonplace book," he copied a passage from Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria related to the issue of gun control. The quote reads, "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."[83][84][85]

> wikipedia wrote: A lifetime member of the National Rifle Association (NRA), Palin believes the right to bear arms includes handgun possession, and is against a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons.[240]

Linky

> wikipedia wrote: Jefferson's very strong defense of States' rights, especially in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, set the tone for hostility to expansion of federal powers.

> wikipedia wrote: Rebellion to restrain government and retain individual rights
> After the Revolutionary War, Jefferson advocated restraining government via rebellion and violence when necessary, in order to protect individual freedoms. In a letter to James Madison on January 30, 1787, Jefferson wrote, "A little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical…It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."[88] Similarly, in a letter to Abigail Adams on February 22, 1787 he wrote, "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all."[88]

I'm too lazy to look past the first google result

> wikipedia wrote: Trained as a lawyer, Jefferson was a gifted writer but never a good speaker

This one is too easy
"But transportation issues are social-justice issues. The toll of bad transit policies and worse infrastructure—trains and buses that don’t run well and badly serve low-income neighborhoods, vehicular traffic that pollutes the environment and endangers the lives of cyclists and pedestrians—is borne disproportionately by black and brown communities."
Top

Kaelik
  ArchDemon of Rage
  Posts: 14491
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

Post by Kaelik » Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:44 am

> tzor wrote:Jefferson is more of a conservative than a liberal in the modern sense of the word, although a better term would be a libertarian. The fact that he had the fiscal sense and responsibility of an idiot is beside the point.
> (I can only imagine what he would say about a Federal Health Plan option.)
> Alexander Hamilton wasn’t a liberal, he was a strong supporter of Federalism as much as any other; the question was how much power you needed at the Federal level. Too little and you had the failure of the Articles of Confederation. Too much and you had despotism. Hamilton’s bar was higher than Jefferson but neither wanted to throw away the States in the equation of the government. (Remember that the States power in the Federal government, until changed by amendment was given through the appointment of Senators, a notion that Jefferson wasn’t all to keen on.)
> George W. Bush had some very distressing centralist tendencies. I would say one good example was his use of Federal power to keep California from allowing the medicinal use of marijuana. I don’t worship Bush, unlike some of you who worship Obama.

And so you quoted a bunch of liberals who's idea was very liberal as your example of a conservative idea why?
I mean, if you want to talk about actual federalism, you can totally point to how Lopez and Riach are exactly the same fucking case, except one has to do with guns and the other drugs, so "conservatives" are opposed to the FBI interfering in state gun matters, but pro interfering in state pot matters.
That's a line to draw, and you can explain how it's conservative to hate pot and love guns. That's fine. But you can't call federalism a conservative idea when it was invented by liberals and the FBI was invented by conservatives.

> DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?

The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Top

Josh_Kablack
  King
  Posts: 5317
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Online. duh

###

Post by Josh_Kablack » Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:45 am

> Kaelik wrote:So you think that this:
> Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine.
> is a list of Conservatives

Hrm

> wikipedia wrote: Jefferson's vision for American virtue was that of an agricultural nation of yeoman farmers minding their own affairs. His agrarianism stood in contrast to the vision of Alexander Hamilton, who envisioned a nation of commerce and manufacturing, which Jefferson said offered too many temptations to corruption. Jefferson's deep belief in the uniqueness and the potential of America made him the father of American exceptionalism.

> same wrote: Palin is a social conservative

> > linked definition of social conservative on that site wrote: Social conservatism is a political or moral ideology that believes government and/or society have a role in encouraging or enforcing traditional values or behaviors based on the belief that these are what keep people civilized and decent.

> wikipedia wrote: Carrying of arms
> Jefferson's commitment to liberty extended to many areas of individual freedom. In his "commonplace book," he copied a passage from Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria related to the issue of gun control. The quote reads, "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."[83][84][85]

> wikipedia wrote: A lifetime member of the National Rifle Association (NRA), Palin believes the right to bear arms includes handgun possession, and is against a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons.[240]

> wikipedia wrote: Jefferson's very strong defense of States' rights, especially in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, set the tone for hostility to expansion of federal powers.

Linky

> wikipedia wrote: Rebellion to restrain government and retain individual rights
> After the Revolutionary War, Jefferson advocated restraining government via rebellion and violence when necessary, in order to protect individual freedoms. In a letter to James Madison on January 30, 1787, Jefferson wrote, "A little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical…It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."[88] Similarly, in a letter to Abigail Adams on February 22, 1787 he wrote, "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all."[88]

I'm too lazy to look past the first google result

> wikipedia wrote: Trained as a lawyer, Jefferson was a gifted writer but never a good speaker

This one is too easy
By current definitions, I think it likely that Jefferson would be labelled a centrist conservative and Hamilton likely would be called a sellout liberal or perhaps a Lieberman nutcase.
"But transportation issues are social-justice issues. The toll of bad transit policies and worse infrastructure—trains and buses that don’t run well and badly serve low-income neighborhoods, vehicular traffic that pollutes the environment and endangers the lives of cyclists and pedestrians—is borne disproportionately by black and brown communities."
Top

Crissa
  King
  Posts: 6720
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Santa Cruz

###

Post by Crissa » Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:54 am

Jefferson, however, was a firm believer in a secular state, and coined the separation of church and state. He would be roundly demonized as a weak, atheist liberal by 'true conservatives'. You forget that a majority of Democrats are religious.
Hamilton has many things in common with the Republican party, but once again would be soundly beaten for any mention of well-regulated being for commerce or trade. He would not like our current Senate at all, calling it mob rule by the minority - being against both mandated super majorities and directly elected officials.
-Crissa
Last edited by Crissa on Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top

Kaelik
  ArchDemon of Rage
  Posts: 14491
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

Post by Kaelik » Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:59 am

> Crissa wrote:Jefferson, however, was a firm believer in a secular state, and coined the separation of church and state. He would be roundly demonized as a weak, atheist liberal by 'true conservatives'.

Correction. He was already demonized as a weak atheist liberal while he was alive.

> DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?

The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Top

tzor
  Prince
  Posts: 4266
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

Post by tzor » Thu Jan 14, 2010 3:20 am

> Crissa wrote:Not even Ron Paul breaks ranks on that, even though he gives lipservice to it, because to do so would weaken federal impositions between women and their health care.

I would like to point out that the Great Ron Paul, last year, had the most amount of pork in the stimulus bill of any Republican. He talks the talk, but when he needs to walk the walk, he's as RINO as everyone else is.
Top

tzor
  Prince
  Posts: 4266
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

Post by tzor » Thu Jan 14, 2010 3:30 am

> Crissa wrote:Jefferson, however, was a firm believer in a secular state, and coined the separation of church and state.

Now quite. Jefferson would probably be classified as agnostic back then and a weak athiest today. He did coin the term "separation of church and state" but the term has to be seen in context, especially in the text of the Danburry letter that never made it to the final draft. Jefferson hated the King of England with a passion. He abhored the notion that the King of England was at the same time the Head of the Church of England.
Thus in Jefferson's eyes the notion of proclaiming a "Holiday" ie a "Holy Day" (or even a day of fasting or mourning) is a function for the head of a church, not the head of a state, and unlike that stupid King of England, (ok he didn't use the word stupid) the United States has a mechanism to prevent that; the "wall of seperation" as he put it.

> Mr. President
> To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
> Gentlemen
> The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.
> Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
> I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
> (signed) Thomas Jefferson
> Jan.1.1802.

Top

Crissa
  King
  Posts: 6720
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Santa Cruz

###

Post by Crissa » Thu Jan 14, 2010 5:38 am

Jefferson was a serious Christian, and to call him an agnostic is an insult to his name.
The other founding fathers? Sure, I'd let you call them agnostic. But Jefferson? No.
Don't be an asshole.
-Crissa
Funny that all the elected Republicans aren't real Republicans, and certainly not conservative enough for tzor.
Last edited by Crissa on Thu Jan 14, 2010 5:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top

CatharzGodfoot
  King
  Posts: 5668
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: North Carolina

###

Post by CatharzGodfoot » Thu Jan 14, 2010 6:39 am

> Crissa wrote:Funny that all the elected Republicans aren't real Republicans, and certainly not conservative enough for tzor.

Hey now! St. Ronald Regan was a Real Republican. And hell, give Bush a decade or two: he might make it into the hallowed ranks yet.
The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread, begging and sleeping under bridges.
-Anatole France
Mount Flamethrower on rear
Drive in reverse
Win Game.
-Josh Kablack
Top

The Lunatic Fringe
  Journeyman
  Posts: 152
  Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 7:51 pm

###

Post by The Lunatic Fringe » Thu Jan 14, 2010 8:33 am

Guys, the founders lived at a time when most of the population was made up of illiterate farmers, the standard system of government was monarchy, the Iroquois were a big deal, and slavery was both legal and widespread.
The internet, nuclear weapons, vaccines, electricity, Keynesian economics, airplanes, modern science, and modern statistical methodology did not exist (or were not widely used. I'm looking at you, electricity).
While the founders are important historically, your political ideas are not reinforced by quoting them. Even if you are Amish.
Top

tzor
  Prince
  Posts: 4266
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

Post by tzor » Thu Jan 14, 2010 3:07 pm

> Crissa wrote:Jefferson was a serious Christian, and to call him an agnostic is an insult to his name.

Serious Christian? Let's start off with his attempt at rewriting the Bible; The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was Thomas Jefferson's effort to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by the Four Evangelists.

> In an 1803 letter to Joseph Priestley, Jefferson states that he conceived the idea of writing his view of the "Christian System" in a conversation with Dr. Benjamin Rush during 1798–99. He proposes beginning with a review of the morals of the ancient philosophers, moving on to the ethics of the Jews, and concluding with the "principles of a pure deism" taught by Jesus, "omitting the question of his deity." Jefferson explains that he really doesn't have the time, and urges the task on Priestley as the person best equipped to accomplish the task.

This site lists him as "Episcopalian (Deist)" and links the following web page on his details:

> President Thomas Jefferson was a Protestant. Jefferson was raised as an Episcopalian (Anglican). He was also influenced by English Deists and has often been identified by historians as a Deist. He held many beliefs in common with Unitarians of the time period, and sometimes wrote that he thought the whole country would become Unitarian. He wrote that the teachings of Jesus contain the "outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man." Wrote: "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know." Source: "Jefferson's Religious Beliefs", by Rebecca Bowman, Monticello Research Department, August 1997 URL.
> ...
> By some of the more narrowly-conceived definitions of the word "Christian" which are in use today, particularly among Evangelicals since the 1940s, it is entirely possible that Jefferson's beliefs would mark him as a "non-Christian." Defining Jefferson as a non-Christian must be done purely on contemporary theological grounds, because he was clearly a Christian with regards to his ethics, conduct, upbringing, and culture. Furthermore, to define Jefferson as a "non-Christian" requires using definitions retroactively to classify Jefferson counter to his own self-concept and the commonly understood meanings of words during his own time.
> Adherents of other religious groups, including atheists and agnostics, also point to various writings of Jefferson which are in harmony with their positions. The difficulty in classifying Jefferson using a single word for religious affiliation does not stem from a lack of information, but rather a wealth of writing -- which can be interpreted differently depending on a person's perspective. Jefferson left a considerable amount of writing on political and philosophical issues, as well as writing about religion, including the "Jefferson Bible."

> Crissa wrote:Funny that all the elected Republicans aren't real Republicans, and certainly not conservative enough for tzor.

Odd how I never wrote that. I certainly don't know any real good Republicans on the Federal level, but then again my congressmen and senators are both Democrat and the details of those who do not represent me are not important. Whether or not they are "conservative" enough is not important.

> The Lunatic Fringe wrote:Guys, the founders lived at a time when most of the population was made up of illiterate farmers, the standard system of government was monarchy, the Iroquois were a big deal, and slavery was both legal and widespread.

Stop right there. The Iroquois were a big deal; they were such a big deal that the Founding Fathers could not take all of thier common sense ideas which were beyond revolutionary at the time. Both Women's equality and sufferage was a part of the confederacy.

> When Americans and Canadians of European descent began to study Iroquois customs in the 18th and 19th centuries, they observed that women assumed a position in Iroquois society roughly equal in power to that of the men. Individual women could hold property including dwellings, horses and farmed land, and their property before marriage stayed in their possession without being mixed with that of their husband's. The work of a woman's hands was hers to do with as she saw fit. A husband lived in the longhouse of his wife's family. A woman choosing to divorce a shiftless or otherwise unsatisfactory husband was able to ask him to leave the dwelling, taking any of his possessions with him. Women had responsibility for the children of the marriage, and children were educated by members of the mother's family. The clans were matrilineal, that is, clan ties were traced through the mother's line. If a couple separated, the woman kept the children. Violence against women by men was virtually unknown.
> The chief of a clan could be removed at any time by a council of the mothers of that clan, and the chief's sister was responsible for nominating his successor.
> (See Wagner, Sally Roesch (1999). "Iroquois Women Inspire 19th Century Feminists". National NOW Times. National Organization for Women. Retrieved 2009-03-21. )

Top

CatharzGodfoot
  King
  Posts: 5668
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: North Carolina

###

Post by CatharzGodfoot » Thu Jan 14, 2010 3:58 pm

> tzor wrote:

> > The Lunatic Fringe wrote:Guys, the founders lived at a time when most of the population was made up of illiterate farmers, the standard system of government was monarchy, the Iroquois were a big deal, and slavery was both legal and widespread.

> Stop right there. The Iroquois were a big deal; they were such a big deal that the Founding Fathers could not take all of thier common sense ideas which were beyond revolutionary at the time. Both Women's equality and sufferage was a part of the confederacy.

> > When Americans and Canadians of European descent began to study Iroquois customs in the 18th and 19th centuries, they observed that women assumed a position in Iroquois society roughly equal in power to that of the men. Individual women could hold property including dwellings, horses and farmed land, and their property before marriage stayed in their possession without being mixed with that of their husband's. The work of a woman's hands was hers to do with as she saw fit. A husband lived in the longhouse of his wife's family. A woman choosing to divorce a shiftless or otherwise unsatisfactory husband was able to ask him to leave the dwelling, taking any of his possessions with him. Women had responsibility for the children of the marriage, and children were educated by members of the mother's family. The clans were matrilineal, that is, clan ties were traced through the mother's line. If a couple separated, the woman kept the children. Violence against women by men was virtually unknown.
> > The chief of a clan could be removed at any time by a council of the mothers of that clan, and the chief's sister was responsible for nominating his successor.
> > (See Wagner, Sally Roesch (1999). "Iroquois Women Inspire 19th Century Feminists". National NOW Times. National Organization for Women. Retrieved 2009-03-21. )

Violent agreement has got to be my favorite state.
The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread, begging and sleeping under bridges.
-Anatole France
Mount Flamethrower on rear
Drive in reverse
Win Game.
-Josh Kablack
Top

shadzar
  Prince
  Posts: 4922
  Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:08 pm

###

Post by shadzar » Thu Jan 14, 2010 4:11 pm

> The Lunatic Fringe wrote:Guys, the founders lived at a time when most of the population was made up of illiterate farmers, the standard system of government was monarchy, the Iroquois were a big deal, and slavery was both legal and widespread.
> The internet, nuclear weapons, vaccines, electricity, Keynesian economics, airplanes, modern science, and modern statistical methodology did not exist (or were not widely used. I'm looking at you, electricity).
> While the founders are important historically, your political ideas are not reinforced by quoting them. Even if you are Amish.

Big important thing that slavery and how the founders owned some themselves while spouting independence by virtue of ALL men being equal and endowed with liberty.....yada-yada.
I was actually just talking about this with someone basing politics and the length of a politician in office based on Moore's Law, and how that person in office would be out of the loop and not be able to keep up and run even a small town while keeping up with technology of today, unlike when this country was created.
The conversation was spurred form the fact that the 101 year old mayor of Ocean Breeze Park, Florida passed away on the 11th while still in term of office.
When the country was founded, everything was a much much slower time, just counting the technology of travel, and communications.
I don't put much stake into the founding fathers except for the fact that they did something for their time.
Play the game, not the rules.

> Swordslinger wrote:Or fuck it... I'm just going to get weapon specialization in my cock and whip people to death with it. Given all the enemies are total pussies, it seems like the appropriate thing to do.

> Lewis Black wrote:If the people of New Zealand want to be part of our world, I believe they should hop off their islands, and push 'em closer.

good read (Note to self Maxus sucks a barrel of cocks.)
Top

The Lunatic Fringe
  Journeyman
  Posts: 152
  Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 7:51 pm

###

Post by The Lunatic Fringe » Thu Jan 14, 2010 4:32 pm

> tzor wrote: Stop right there. The Iroquois were a big deal; they were such a big deal that the Founding Fathers could not take all of thier common sense ideas which were beyond revolutionary at the time. Both Women's equality and sufferage was a part of the confederacy.

Er, I know. Was I unclear?
The Iroquios had a great influence on the founders. They are not a big deal in modern politics (except historically). That is, women's suffrage etc. can and do stand on their own in contemporary society.

My point was that the issues with which the founders had to deal were generally different that modern ones - making their political opinions and even the constitution wildly out-dated.
Last edited by The Lunatic Fringe on Thu Jan 14, 2010 4:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top

tzor
  Prince
  Posts: 4266
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

Post by tzor » Thu Jan 14, 2010 9:28 pm

> The Lunatic Fringe wrote: Er, I know. Was I unclear?

A little; your original quote was

> The Lunatic Fringe wrote:Guys, the founders lived at a time when most of the population was made up of illiterate farmers, the standard system of government was monarchy, the Iroquois were a big deal, and slavery was both legal and widespread.

This looked like it was equating monarchy, and slavery (both things with massive downsides) with the Iroquois as though you were saying, "they are so dumb they liked the Iroquois."
Top

tzor
  Prince
  Posts: 4266
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

Post by tzor » Thu Jan 14, 2010 9:37 pm

> shadzar wrote:Big important thing that slavery and how the founders owned some themselves while spouting independence by virtue of ALL men being equal and endowed with liberty.....yada-yada.

First of all, Thomas Jefferson was a walking paradox, but then again many people throughout history refuse to follow their own arguments to all possible conclusions. But it may have been the reason that he (like many other plantation owners in Virginia with the exception of Washtington who got out of the tobcaao market because he realized it was too unstable) were constantly in debt.

> Jefferson was an outspoken abolitionist, but he owned many slaves over his lifetime. Although these facts seem baffling, biographers point out that Jefferson was deeply in debt and had encumbered his slaves by notes and mortgages; he could not free them until he was free of debt, which never happened. As a result, Jefferson seems to have suffered pangs and trials of conscience. His ambivalence was also reflected in his treatment of those slaves who worked most closely with him and his family at Monticello and in other locations. He invested in having them trained and schooled in high quality skills. He wrote about slavery, "We have the wolf by the ears; and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other."

Last edited by tzor on Thu Jan 14, 2010 9:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top

The Lunatic Fringe
  Journeyman
  Posts: 152
  Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 7:51 pm

###

Post by The Lunatic Fringe » Thu Jan 14, 2010 10:31 pm

> tzor wrote:

> > The Lunatic Fringe wrote: Er, I know. Was I unclear?

> A little; your original quote was

> > The Lunatic Fringe wrote:Guys, the founders lived at a time when most of the population was made up of illiterate farmers, the standard system of government was monarchy, the Iroquois were a big deal, and slavery was both legal and widespread.

> This looked like it was equating monarchy, and slavery (both things with massive downsides) with the Iroquois as though you were saying, "they are so dumb they liked the Iroquois."

Ah. I apologize both to you, Catharz, Shadzar, and any Iroquois who might be reading this.
Sorry.
Top

Crissa
  King
  Posts: 6720
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Santa Cruz

###

Post by Crissa » Thu Jan 14, 2010 10:54 pm

Ya know, you can be a Christian and not think Jesus was God. In fact, it sounds really stupid when you say he is.
You can also be really religious and be into separation of church and state, too. Early Baptists were all staunch secular government supporters.
-Crissa
Top

CatharzGodfoot
  King
  Posts: 5668
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: North Carolina

###

Post by CatharzGodfoot » Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:25 am

> The Lunatic Fringe wrote:

> > tzor wrote:

> > > The Lunatic Fringe wrote: Er, I know. Was I unclear?

> > A little; your original quote was

> > > The Lunatic Fringe wrote:Guys, the founders lived at a time when most of the population was made up of illiterate farmers, the standard system of government was monarchy, the Iroquois were a big deal, and slavery was both legal and widespread.

> > This looked like it was equating monarchy, and slavery (both things with massive downsides) with the Iroquois as though you were saying, "they are so dumb they liked the Iroquois."

> Ah. I apologize both to you, Catharz, Shadzar, and any Iroquois who might be reading this.
> Sorry.

I thought your meaning was completely clear.
The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread, begging and sleeping under bridges.
-Anatole France
Mount Flamethrower on rear
Drive in reverse
Win Game.
-Josh Kablack
Top
Locked

- Print view

Display:
Sort by:
Direction:

120 posts

- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next

Return to “MPSIMS”

Jump to

- Main
- ↳ About the Gaming Den
- ↳ In My Humble Opinion...
- ↳ I Gave the Mouse a Cookie...
- ↳ In The Trenches
- ↳ It's My Own Invention...
- ↳ MPSIMS