patrick.net

If the current Democrat in charge was like Thomas Jefferson, he would dump the Federal Reserve.

indigenous says

Since he helped frame the government as a Republic and was staunchly against the tyranny of democracy I take exception ito your contention.

Yeah, I said "not too many". The GOP don't contest it every time there's a Jefferson-Jackson day dinner. There must be a reason, since they claim Teddy Roosevelt and Lincoln. They'd certainly WANT to claim the title of the world's oldest political party, but don't, even if it strains credulity. Why not?

curious2 says

You seem to have shifted the question from "Democrat" to "liberal", two distinct terms with only partial overlap among voters

That wasn't a mistake, although I understand the confusion.

It is clear that Democrats and historians trace the Democratic Party back to TJ and have thus given the titular heritage to the Democratic Party.

That would be due to either:
a loose ideological consistency, or
an unbroken historical lineage or
a combination of both.

I'm wondering if:
A Liberal today believes him/herself to be an ideological heir to TJ, or
If the Democrats have an unbroken lineage or
Both.

Make sense?

Paralithodes says

indigenous says

Since he helped frame the government as a Republic and was staunchly against the tyranny of democracy I take exception ito your contention.

Most of them were against a democracy, especially those who wrote the Federalist Papers and the Constitution. Paraphrased, 'If every Athenian citizen were a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob."

Actually it was the anti federalists who created and pushed for the Republic. The federalists were fine with the Hamiltonian ideas.

CL says

Is there a consistent line from the D-R, to the Dems today? Is that it?

An excellent graph of the history of political parties in the United States

CL says

Make sense?

Yes, and liberals (e.g. Dan) have a much stronger claim to TJ's ideological estate than conservatives, Democrats, or Republicans. Jefferson was brilliant, but he did tend to spend beyond his means; by the end of his life, he had sold Monticello in a sale-and-leaseback transaction, then he had fallen behind on the rent, but the owners allowed him to stay because they appreciated all he had done for religious freedom. (In his Presidential campaign, opponents called him an atheist, which he didn't deny, although some of his writings did reference divinity directly or indirectly. He founded the University of Virginia without a chapel and without a school of divinity, both of which were customary in those days. And, he originated the famous "wall of separation between church and state," as his interpretation of the 1st Amendment, which he had co-authored.)

Dan8267 says

CL says

Is there a consistent line from the D-R, to the Dems today? Is that it?

An excellent graph of the history of political parties in the United States

That is awesome. It will take me some time to fully commit it to memory, but will help me out. Thanks!

curious2 says

Yes, and liberals (e.g. Dan) have a much stronger claim to TJ's ideological estate than conservatives, Democrats, or Republicans

That's what I'm wondering. If you were to list the top reasons you say that what would they be?

His atheism or tacit support of atheism?
Separation of Church and State? So his anti-Theocratic beliefs?
His anti-aristocratic beliefs?
His support of the people over the powerful?

CL says

Yeah, I said "not too many". The GOP don't contest it every time there's a Jefferson-Jackson day dinner. There must be a reason, since they claim Teddy Roosevelt and Lincoln. They'd certainly WANT to claim the title of the world's oldest political party, but don't, even if it strains credulity. Why not?

I don't know maybe you can tell me. Roosevelt was the one to initiate antitrust laws. Even though they were redundant and generally ignorant of the way the economy works. Lincoln probably did as much or more to destroy the Republic and the constitution as anyone. He did not give a rats ass about ending slavery, he completely violated states rights, he completely violated habeas corpus, he used insider information for personal gain, and got a million Americans killed unnecessarily, and he started the war by resupplying fort Sumtner, and he imposed tariffs on the southern states that were outrageous. IMO he was a democrat worried about union jobs being replaced by slaves.
E.G. the Emancipation Proclamation does not free any slaves outside of the southern states. The Gettysburg address conflated God and government which they should NOT be conflated save an insidious motive.

Funny AF picks up a minor point, in that it is an anachronism, and not unusual to the time. The main point is that imo if not for Jefferson we would not have the US of A. Yet AF like a cur dog wants to sully someone who is anything but.

Jackson got rid of the national bank.

I wish democrats followed these ideals today...

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

Duh! Duh! C-A-T! CAT! C-R-A! RHODE ISLAND!

There is no evidence of that

CL says

curious2 says

Yes, and liberals (e.g. Dan) have a much stronger claim to TJ's ideological estate than conservatives, Democrats, or Republicans

That's what I'm wondering. If you were to list the top reasons you say that what would they be?

Probably all the reasons you listed and more, but I won't presume to speak for Dan - much better to let him answer if he chooses.

One I might add to your list is the founders' deep suspicion of imperial/executive wars, which is why they vested in the Senate the power to declare war. The founders wrote Senators should be chosen by state governments, so that the Senate would answer to domestic patronage networks. Since the Constitution was amended to provide direct election of Senators, the Senate and the voters seem to cheer the military like a winning sports team, with the result that we see war all over the world, "shock and awe" (or at least shock). The undeclared and illegal war in Viet Nam, which President Johnson expanded hugely, and conscripted Americans to fight and die in, seems a poignant and dramatic difference compared to the legacy of Thomas Jefferson.

Fair enough, but I think by a lot of measures the Founding Fathers don't live up to their own legacies/reputations!

Johnson to me seems like a lesson in not trusting your advisers too much. I'm not trying to exonerate him, but I always felt like the wise men were smarter than he was. Bush did the same in his first term, and probably Obama in his.

Dan8267

Chart is confusing. It shows Jackson as a democrat yet he wanted small government, no tariff protection, no national banks, no fiat money.

In the same party following Jackson was Martin Van Buren who is thought of as one of the Very best presidents by the Austrians. WTF?

indigenous says

Chart is confusing. It shows Jackson as a democrat yet he wanted small government, no tariff protection, no national banks, no fiat money.

This is true, because the two parties switched ideologies in 1980.

carrieon says

This is true, because the two parties switched ideologies in 1980.

1980 or 1880?

indigenous says

I don't know maybe you can tell me. Roosevelt was the one to initiate antitrust laws. Even though they were redundant and generally ignorant of the way the economy works. Lincoln probably did as much or more to destroy the Republic and the constitution as anyone. He did not give a rats ass about ending slavery, he completely violated states rights, he completely violated habeas corpus, he used insider information for personal gain, and got a million Americans killed unnecessarily, and he started the war by resupplying fort Sumtner, and he imposed tariffs on the southern states that were outrageous.

At least someone here knows their U.S. History.

curious2 says

CL says

curious2 says

Yes, and liberals (e.g. Dan) have a much stronger claim to TJ's ideological estate than conservatives, Democrats, or Republicans

That's what I'm wondering. If you were to list the top reasons you say that what would they be?

Probably all the reasons you listed and more, but I won't presume to speak for Dan - much better to let him answer if he chooses.

My understanding is that Thomas Jefferson like many of the founding fathers were deists. Deism is the belief in a non-intervening clockmaker god. So basically, they didn't believe in the Christian god or Jesus, but didn't want to offend the masses of ignorant people who did. However, they were not atheists, although had they been born in the past 50 years, they probably would be.

Of course, one could argue that a clockmaker god isn't a god in the monotheist sense. After all, there is nothing to imply that a clockmaker god
- Is all powerful
- Is all knowing
- Is good
- Is aware of the sentient beings in the universe he created
- Is the only one of his kind

Put simply, clockmaker god could be Sheldon Cooper running an experiment in a particle accelerator. Even if Cooper created our entire universe, would you worship him?

More interesting, in my opinion, then Jefferson's theological beliefs is that he is an INTJ like me. See here and here

Jefferson thought much like I do, not surprising since INTJs are very systematic and tend to think alike regardless of which nation or century they live in. He's the founding father whose political writings I most agree with. Also, Jefferson and I also both have philosophies very similar to Immanuel Kant, another INTJ.

The following video explains some of Kant's insights into the nature of knowledge. It may sound familiar as some of my arguments against the existence of a god and the fact that we can indeed be certain of the non-existence of god and the afterlife are strongly related to the three types of knowledge.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/Qk4AGXrmLJw

Some of Kant's quotes.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/VkE8YxHokj8

Back to Jefferson. The one thing that perplexes me about Jefferson is that he was a slave owner even though he advocated liberal philosophy even to the point of including the slave trade as one of the grievances against the king of England in the first draft of the Declaration of Independence -- it was later removed out of fear of losing support for the revolution from southern states.

I suppose one could simply chuck up this contradiction as hypocrisy, but INTJs abhor contradiction. Nor can I simply accept that Jefferson had slaves because it was common practice for the rich to do so in his time. Liberals are rebels; they don't do things that contradict their philosophies simply to conform to conventions. So I really don't have a good explanation of why Jefferson continued to own slaves while advocating liberty and freedom.

indigenous says

Chart is confusing. It shows Jackson as a democrat yet he wanted small government, no tariff protection, no national banks, no fiat money.

As I mentioned, the political parties have changed completely over the past 100+ years. Andrew Jackson was indeed a Democrat. In fact, he was a founding member of that party.

Andrew Jackson was the seventh president of the United States. He is known for founding the Democratic Party and for his support of individual liberty.

carrieon says

This is true, because the two parties switched ideologies in 1980.

More like the 1950s to 1960s.

All Founding Fathers espoused whatever ideology is currently fashionable in the Republican Party.

Everyone knows that!

Dan8267 says

The one thing that perplexes me about Jefferson is that he was a slave owner

Occam's razor: He was an asshole.

No human being is consistent. Those Virginia landowners who were troubled by slavery - as it dawned on them that it was morally, uh, questionable - were in the inconvenient position of choosing between bankruptcy and owning slaves. And when a man is presented with that choice, he almost always sticks to beliefs consistent with his finances. Late in life he was usually at or near bankruptcy anyway - his projects always exceeded his capital means.

I love Jefferson, but people aren't all good or all bad.

Dan8267 says

Jefferson continued to own slaves while advocating liberty and freedom.

All the founding fathers in that time period thought that blacks, whether free or not were inferior to them. But even Jefferson wanted to free blacks however, he wanted to deport them all back to Africa.

Dan8267 says

I suppose one could simply chuck up this contradiction as hypocrisy, but INTJs abhor contradiction.

On your link they list famous INTJs:

Lance Armstrong

Charles Rangel

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Woodrow Wilson

If they are any example maybe that would explain why Jefferson had slaves?

The first Video the sound stops at about 6 minutes.

How is this different than astrology? IOW in a nut shell why is it useful?

Same with Kant's ideas?

Dan8267 says

carrieon says

This is true, because the two parties switched ideologies in 1980.

More like the 1950s to 1960s.

The passage of the civil rights act completely reset the ideology of both parties with the wholesale conversion of conservative southern democrats to the republican party. There is no way to trace the current democratic party to Jefferson or the current republican party to Lincoln.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

El HydroCabron says

All Founding Fathers espoused whatever ideology is currently fashionable in the Republican Party.

Everyone knows that!

All the founding fathers would beg to be sodomized by Ann Coulter if they were alive today.

Wouldn't you? Dikes are a real turn on.

indigenous says

Actually it was the anti federalists who created and pushed for the Republic. The federalists were fine with the Hamiltonian ideas.

To a degree. Remember that the quote I paraphrased above came from the Federalist Papers. Although it might have been Madison who specifically referenced Athens in that quote, Hamilton was one of the authors of the Papers.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

All the founding fathers would beg to be sodomized by Ann Coulter if they were alive today.

As opposed to the current POTUSs who incessantly chant BOHICA...

Dan8267 says

My understanding is that Thomas Jefferson like many of the founding fathers were deists. Deism is the belief in a non-intervening clockmaker god. So basically, they didn't believe in the Christian god or Jesus, but didn't want to offend the masses of ignorant people who did.

Many might have been deists, and many were clearly Christians. Even though Jefferson most probably was a deist, he very clearly believed that rights did not come from government, they came from nature or "God." Grab a book with his writings and you'll find that he uses word "God" all over the place, in a way that you would personally dislike very much.

Dan8267 says

More interesting, in my opinion, then Jefferson's theological beliefs is that he is an INTJ like me. See here and here

Jefferson thought much like I do, not surprising since INTJs are very systematic and tend to think alike regardless of which nation or century they live in. He's the founding father whose political writings I most agree with. Also, Jefferson and I also both have philosophies very similar to Immanuel Kant, another INTJ.

As a fellow INTJ who has actually studied MTBI to a degree, I point out that your use of the MTBI here as some form of validation for your own philosophies is a complete misapplication of it. A little study of what MTBI is really about would teach you that.

As far as INTJ's abhorring contradiction: One way to avoid contradiction is to pretend it doesn't exist, or... try to turn your own contradiction onto those who disagree with you, as if another's contradiction excuses your own.

Paralithodes says

To a degree. Remember that the quote I paraphrased above came from the Federalist Papers. Although it might have been Madison who specifically referenced Athens in that quote, Hamilton was one of the authors of the Papers.

The anti federalist papers were the ones who pushed the republic and insisted on states rights. Hamilton wanted a central bank and central government. The constitution would not have been ratified if not for the anti federalist papers who also required the bill of rights.

indigenous says

Paralithodes says

To a degree. Remember that the quote I paraphrased above came from the Federalist Papers. Although it might have been Madison who specifically referenced Athens in that quote, Hamilton was one of the authors of the Papers.

The anti federalist papers were the ones who pushed the republic and insisted on states rights. Hamilton wanted a central bank and central government. The constitution would not have been ratified if not for the anti federalist papers who also required the bill of rights.

No argument regarding Hamilton and the Federalists vs. anti-federalists. The Federalist papers themselves sold the concept of a specifically limited central government (perhaps to appease the anti-Federalists?). In any case, I interpreted the initial comment regarding republic vs. democracy as the founders being specifically against a direct democracy (e.g., simple majority voting by everyone, vs. elected representatives), for which even the Federalists (via the Federalist Papers) were clear on that matter. Ultimately the Constitution guarantees (to the degree that anything can be guaranteed" a Republic and a republican form of government (vs. a direct democracy).

Paralithodes says

In any case, I interpreted the initial comment regarding republic vs. democracy as the founders being specifically against a direct democracy (e.g., simple majority voting by everyone, vs. elected representatives), for which even the Federalists (via the Federalist Papers) were clear on that matter. Ultimately the Constitution guarantees (to the degree that anything can be guaranteed" a Republic and a republican form of government (vs. a direct democracy).

The specific purpose of the anti federalists was to push states rights which would have been undermined willy nilly if not specifically delineated in the constitution.

In these discussions, the term "states' rights" should be understood as southern landowners' attempt to seize federal power disproportionate to their states' populations. Such power, desirable in itself, was also important to preserve their right to own people against outside meddling by those who did not understand the unique culture of owning people.

The Senate, the electoral college (hence, the presidency), the allocation of at-large reps to states with a population meriting less than half a rep, and the three-fifths rule are all devices to ensure that large slave holders would remain powerful. Now such features have evolved to protect the right to close abortion clinics and deny basic rights to gays.

Nothing was put in the constitution that would prove offensive to southern white supremacists: so began the tradition, upheld through today, of appeasing the offended sensibilities of this most sensitive and, in their own minds, victimized, demographic.

Rest assured, the southern libertarians know this. It was not by chance that Reagan opened his 1980 campaign with a speech about "states' rights" in the south: translate this to "I am as afraid of niggers as you are - wink wink, nudge nudge say no more!"

El HydroCabron says

In these discussions, the term "states' rights" should be understood as southern landowners' attempt to seize federal power disproportionate to their states' populations.

What were the southern states at the time the constitution was ratified?

I don't think so

El HydroCabron says

In these discussions, the term "states' rights" should be understood as southern landowners' attempt to seize federal power disproportionate to their states' populations.

Above is indicative of someone who either through ignorance or through the lens of political ideology either does not understand history or intentionally chooses to reinterpret it.

El HydroCabron says

Occam's razor: He was an asshole.

Occam's Razor does not state that the simplest answer is correct. William of Occam's words were "We should not multiply entities needlessly.". The meaning of these words, in clearer modern terms is...

Whenever there are two explanations and one makes an additional assumption, the one will the fewer assumptions should be preferred if the two explanations produce identical results.

For example, given the question Why does the universe exist?
Explanation 1: The universe existed since the beginning of time. Nothing created it.
Explanation 2: God created the universe. God existed since the beginning of time. Nothing created god.

The two explanations produce the same results, but the second one makes an additional assumption; it multiplies entities needlessly. Therefore the first explanation should be preferred.

Occam's Razor does not say that given two explanations with different consequence, the simpler is probably true. The universe is full of examples where the simpler explanation is wrong and nature is deeper and more complex than first thought.

Paralithodes says

Many might have been deists, and many were clearly Christians. Even though Jefferson most probably was a deist, he very clearly believed that rights did not come from government, they came from nature or "God." Grab a book with his writings and you'll find that he uses word "God" all over the place, in a way that you would personally dislike very much.

I never claimed that all the founding fathers were deists. Of course some of the dumber ones were Christian. But as I stated, many were deists.

Oh, and Jefferson despised the supernatural bullshit foundation of Christianity so much, he literally rewrote the bible removing all such supernatural bullshit.

In any case, appeal to authority is logical fallacy. It does not matter which religious beliefs our founding fathers personally advocated. There is zero reason to believe they were right in their religious beliefs. What is important is they created a secular state that was meant to be free from religious control. The separation of church and state is one of the most important principles of our nation.

As Enlightenment thinkers, the founders adjusted their beliefs as they learned more over the course of their lives. They were raised mostly in traditional religious environments, but became less religious as time went on. Ben Franklin is a particular example: in his younger years, he wrote in religious terms, but then he stopped; when asked at age 84 whether he believed in the divinity of Jesus, he declined to answer, saying at his age he expected to find out soon enough.

Paralithodes says

As a fellow INTJ

If you are an INTJ, I'm Helen Keller.

Paralithodes says

s a complete misapplication of it

Asserting that a proof if incorrect is not mathematically sufficient. One must formally show the flaw.

Paralithodes says

One way to avoid contradiction is to pretend it doesn't exist

"How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?

Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." - Abraham Lincoln

Paralithodes says

try to turn your own contradiction onto those who disagree with you, as if another's contradiction excuses your own

Only according to Republican philosophy. The rest of us believe that two wrongs don't make a right. And no INTJ would accept the premise you stated.

Dan8267 says

Only according to Republican philosophy. The rest of us believe that two wrongs don't make a right. And no INTJ would accept the premise you stated.

Well, Helen Keller... According to your own standards, given your own behavior in both the discussion about CU as well as your dodging and failure to address contradictions in your military spending thread, by trying to focus on the contradictions of others, you are most certainly a Republican.

MTBI is not a mathematical model. And if you think that you can type someone based on their demeanor on an internet forum, or due to your broad yet absolutist generalities of their political "philosophies," then clearly you know as much about MBTI as you do the CU decision - That is ... absolutely nothing...

Anyone who has even a basic understanding of the MBTI beyond simply knowing their type as determined at a certain time, knows that you have no clue what you are talking about. Go ahead and try to dodge your way out of this one.

Dan8267 says

What is important is they created a secular state that was meant to be free from religious control.

What is even more important was that their philosophy was that the government was not the grantor of rights. Rights did not come from the government, they came from "nature" or "God."
There is zero getting around the fact that this is how Jefferson and others saw it, whether deists, Christians, or otherwise. If you actually pick up a book with Jefferson's writings about this (which you might find interesting if you actually do so - Comedy Central and MSNBC are never substitutes for the real thing), you might more clearly understand them.

Paralithodes says

According

Honey, you bitch a lot, but provide nothing substantial to argue about.

Paralithodes says

What is even more important was that their philosophy was that the government was not the grantor of rights. Rights did not come from the government, they came from "nature" or "God."

Whether or not the founding fathers believed that rights came from a god is irrelevant. In our government, rights are defined by law. They come from Congress, not your fictitious god. Get over it.

Paralithodes says

Comedy Central and MSNBC are never substitutes for the real thing

Honey, Comedy Central and MSNBC are infinitely better than Fox News. But don't make the mistake of thinking that because I post a Daily Show clip showing the absurdity of conservatives that I don't draw from a vast collection of highly respected resources including NPR, PBS, government docs, and peer-review journals.

Speaking of which, you might remember this peer-review journal I quoted in one of our previous debates, In Soviet Russia Bachmann is a professor of current affairs.

Dan8267 says

read this wonderful mathematical proof that Gore won

You remember that argument. It's the one where I quoted the American Political Science Review while you quoted Wikipedia, the go to source for idiots.

You don't get to claim the position of quality when it comes to evidence gathering.