"Coward Democrats are threatening our freedom"

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

And "Jefferson only wrote words on paper, it was only Washington's guns that mattered."

On CSPAN this morning.

Some people are effing nuts.

[shadowknows69]

1. our legacy of war

how did it come to this? Why is it percieved that the only path to freedom is death.

[liberaliraqvet26]

2. another goddamn chickenhawk...

claiming he is soooooooooooooooo brave

[DrDan]

3. I heard that call - from somewhere in Calif

What an idiot - certainly a non-veteran chickenhawk - all talk, ear glued to Pigboy and Insanity all afternoon

[Beaver Tail]

4. This comment is actually true in a way

The coward Dems are the ones who voted for CAFTA

[brainshrub]

5. Fine. If the cons don't want Jefferson, we'll take him.

One of the ways Liberals lost the hearts and minds of Americans is by shunning the founding fathers. In the eyes of the Ivory Tower, the FF were white, slaving owning, landed gentry that needed debunking for the horrible people they were.

The RW snatched up the FF and made them their own; which is ironic because people like Jefferson & Washington were drastically Liberal for their time. (And our time, for that matter.)

Now that the conservatives have started to implode, they are jettensioning anything that smacks of enlightenment ideals. Jefferson is the latest.

Let them.

The FF are to good for RWers anyways.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

15. Well said, Brainshrub...

The dichotomy is deafening.

[mixedview]

20. the founders were libertarian, not liberal

They were radical for their time, and ours, I agree.

But they were classical liberals (libertarians).

All modern mainstream American ideology - both conservatism and liberalism - retain elements of libertarianism, to varying degrees, from right to left.

[brainshrub]

24. I have to disagree with you here.

You'd better define your terms.

A modern Libertarian is against most publicly-funded projects such as schools, housing programs for the poor and universal health-care. That hardly sounds like something the founders would have advocated. Ben Franklin, for example, helped found the first public library & fire department.

Classical Liberals believe that the govt has no role in legislating personal behavior, but they also believe that the govt does have an important hand in funding projects that improve the quality of life for everyone. (a.k.a.: "Blessings of Liberty.")

Case in point: Post Office.

IMO, a Libertarian is a person who thinks that he will someday get to be a part of the ruling elite.

[IrateCitizen]

25. No, modern libertarianism is classical liberalism...

The reason that classical liberalism was called "liberalism" in its day was that it was a rather revolutionary change in how people viewed society. In the 18th century, the traditional western society was still one based upon aristocracy, or the rights of noble birth. The shift that took place was borne of the Enlightenment, and it was the emergence of the bourgeois society -- one that was based on merit, rather than birthright.

The bourgeois society, or classical liberalism, was formed on the principle that those men with the greatest virtue and ability would naturally rise to the top of society. Therefore, any interference with this order of things was bound to impede the individual, and society as a consequence. And while there were certain moral codes that individuals were expected to conform to (the ideal of virtue), people were pretty much free to do whatever the hell they wanted so long as their actions did not impede on the liberty of others. Classical liberalism, especially in the American colonies and early US, was founded upon the ideal of the self-sufficient man. Jefferson's writings lionize this ideal probably more than anything else.

Over time, as bourgeois society became more entrenched, those proponents of classical liberalism became the conservatives. Modern libertarians perhaps now represent the closest thing to adherents of classical liberalism. Current conservatives are actually more reactionary than anything else, and current liberals actually share little with the philosophy of classical liberalism. A prime example of a classical liberal would actually by Milton Friedman or Hayek, IMHO.

[brainshrub]

26. The joy of Libertarianism. (Otherwise known as a monarchy.)

Modern Libertarianism advocates the full privatization of most resources, with the state being little more than a court system with enough guns to back up it's decisions. That is hardly what the FF had in mind when they drafted the Constitution.

Back in 17th century Europe, everything was privately owned by somebody. Water, land, law, police-services, education and military were all privatized. How else do you think the nobility were able to wield such power?

The FF created a Republic to act as a publicly-accountable steward to maintain the resources of the country for all the citizens. Hardly a Libertarian concept.

Rather than spend the rest of the afternoon discussing if the Founding Fathers would have approved of modern Libertarianism, read Thom Hartman's book What Would Jefferson Do?

###

Most Western European bourgeois didn't find the monarchy that much of burden, it was the poor who were crushed underneath the systems heels. Keep in mind that it wasn't until the end of WWI that the monarchist system started to implode in the face of socialist uprisings.

As an aside, if you want to get sense of what the Monarchist outlook was, read Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace. Tolstoy was a noble himself, and he didn't think that the monarchy hindered men with virtue or ability at all.

TTFN.

[IrateCitizen]

29. Modern libertarianism is an application of old concepts to new realities

Modern Libertarianism advocates the full privatization of most resources, with the state being little more than a court system with enough guns to back up it's decisions. That is hardly what the FF had in mind when they drafted the Constitution.

Really? You would do well to look at some of the opinions expressed by Thomas Jefferson, especially in his run for the Presidency in 1800. Jefferson was a strong believer in lasseiz-faire economics and the primacy of the individual rather than a committment to the "common good". Of course, back in those times, private ownership had a meaning beyond that of corporations or a few fabulously wealthy individuals -- on the whole, the United States at this time was far more egalitarian (at least for white males) than it is today. That's why I say that modern libertarians base their beliefs upon classical liberalism, even if that basis is one that better fits an 18th century world than a 21st century one.

Back in 17th century Europe, everything was privately owned by somebody. Water, land, law, police-services, education and military were all privatized. How else do you think the nobility were able to wield such power?

These things were owned by the NOBILITY in 17th century Europe, with ownership passed down by birthright. The most successful merchant in Paris would still have been reminded of his station at an aristocratic dinner, as he would have to retire to the servants' dining quarters as soon as the meal was served. The main shift with classical liberalism was, as I said before, that position in society was based upon merit and virtue rather than aristocratic birth.

The FF created a Republic to act as a publicly-accountable steward to maintain the resources of the country for all the citizens. Hardly a Libertarian concept.

They did? Then why was there such a need for TR to establish the National Parks System during his administration, if the Republic was already acting as a "publicly accountable steward to maintain the resources of the country for all its citizens"? The reason is that your argument is founded upon how you want to view history, rather than how it actually happened. Those who owned land -- and most white males did own at least some land in this time -- were free to do with that land as they chose. There was no public administration of land at this time.

Rather than spend the rest of the afternoon discussing if the Founding Fathers would have approved of modern Libertarianism, read Thom Hartman's book What Would Jefferson Do?

I don't need to, as I've read enough about what the FF's actually said and did during my pursuit of a history degree and teaching certificate. Hartmann is likely applying the way that Jefferson saw the world and trying to project it forward to today's circumstances. What I am arguing is that what Jefferson said and did in HIS time forms much of the basis of modern-day libertarians taking that static philosophy and applying it to present circumstances. What Jefferson would or would not have done/said is a matter of pure conjecture, not a factual basis for an argument.

Most Western European bourgeois didn't find the monarchy that much of burden, it was the poor who were crushed underneath the systems heels. Keep in mind that it wasn't until the end of WWI that the monarchist system started to implode in the face of socialist uprisings.

Really? I must have dreamt that whole "French Revolution" thingy. And the primary reason that England did not suffer the same fate as France was that they had their own bloodletting in the 1640's, which led the ruling class to conclude that it was much better to be more accommodating to the middle and lower classes than it was to be absolutist in their rule. In fact, the English Civil War helped lay the foundations of the much more gradualist nature of English politics and movements -- a nature that spread to the United States as well. The other nations of central Europe had other issues to deal with (such as unification, in Germany's case) that prohibited a monarchist backlash from occuring.

As an aside, if you want to get sense of what the Monarchist outlook was, read Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace. Tolstoy was a noble himself, and he didn't think that the monarchy hindered men with virtue or ability at all.

Russia was a completely different animal than Western Europe, and it remained in the grips of feudalism into the early part of the 20th century. And the fact that Tolstoy was a noble and endorsed the system speaks volumes to the basis of my argument -- that the political re-alignments that were borne out of the Enlightenment were primarily the assertion of bourgeois power over that of aristocratic power. It should be mentioned that Russia didn't really experience anything approaching an "Enlightenment" until the end of the Tsarist regime and the rapid modernization that occurred under communism -- a phenomenon that would actually undermine the very system that had spawned it.

[mixedview]

30. Modern day libertarianism is neo-classical liberalism, IMO.

Excellent post, just one nitpick:

...
Libertarians see their origins in the earlier 17th to 20th century tradition of classical liberalism, and often use that term as a synonym for libertarianism, particularly outside of the USA.
Some, particularly in the USA, argue that while libertarianism has much in common with the earlier tradition of classical liberalism, the latter term should be reserved for historical thinkers for the sake of clarity and accuracy. Others make the distinction to distance themselves from the socialist and welfare state connotations of the word "liberal" in American English. Still others, particularly outside the USA, use the words "libertarianism" and "classical liberalism" indifferently to denote the same tradition. Critics of this trend assert that there is a patterned difference between many libertarian and classical liberal thinkers as far as their beliefs about the degree to which the state should be restricted. These critics argue that a more accurate term to describe libertarianism would be neo-classical liberalism.
...
http://fixedreference.org/en/20040424/wikipedia/Libertarianism

I stated this incorrectly (libertarianism=classical liberalism) in my post above also.

[mixedview]

32. too late to edit my post, but I was thinking about it,

and "small l" libertarianism is a general term which has come to describe - in a broad sense - all variations of, and all concepts relating to classical liberalism.

The slight differences between neo-classical liberalism, classical liberalism and libertarianism are probably only relevant in political science discussions, but not in everyday usage, where the term "libertariansm" is used to describe the general concept of less regulation - government, economic, moral, social or otherwise - and greater personal freedoms.

[NewJeffCT]

6. you mean the sword is mightier than the pen?

Didn't somebody post on DU the other day a quote from Napoleon about how it was worse to have 4 newspapers against him than a 1000 bayonets? (something like that?

[Cassandra]

7. I kept wondering when...

he was enlisting.

[tsuki]

8. And you can fund public education, but you can't make them

read a book or learn.

[kcwayne]

9. People that think this way do not want freedom, they want totalitarianism

What freedom do you have when you cannot question your government?

What freedom do you have when you cannot voice dissent in public without being threatened by a mob, or face loss of personal security?

What freedom are these people talking about that is worth fighting and dying for?

I certainly will not die or allow my child to die to protect the totalitarian system coveted by right wingers. And I'll be damned if I can understand who they thing is standing on the doorstep trying to take our "freedoms" away. I don't think they understand just who that is either. The biggest threat to what freedom we have in the US is not external, it is the Republican party.

[zanne]

22. Bush is a "strong", resolute leader.

How often have we heard them say that? I think that any president with "R" after his name could convince these people to do, or tolerate, absolutely anything. I consider myself part of the 50% of this country that defends democracy against the other 50%. It would be just so easy for a dictator to pull the wool over their eyes.

[pointblank]

10. Private Blowhard...

of the 101st keyboarding brigade reporting fer duty sir!

[bunkerbuster1]

16. Private Parts

reporting to his commanding jack-officer, Major Woodie.

(sorry. slapping wrist in 5...4...3... )

[pointblank]

18. HYUK YUK

"General Dickless...your orders sir?"

"Alright Private, I want 20 posts bashing libruls at freerepuklick.com, an ass-kissing phone call to Insannity AND Limpballs and an anti-Cindy BBQ planned by Monday, I know its tough, but we all have to sacrifice or the turrists will win and you'll be praying to Allah...you got that soldier?"

"YES SIR"....I am willing to get CARPAL TUNNEL for my country SIR"


:eyes:

[SalmonChantedEvening]

11. Heaven forbid he mention those French ships at Yorktown...

Or General Lafayette.

:eyes:

[BiggJawn]

23. Or Charleville muskets, or French-made cannon...

Or French-produced powder and shot....
:evilgrin:

[Mizmoon]

27. My thoughts exactly n/t

[SalmonChantedEvening]

28. If you're sharing my thoughts, you have my deepest sympathy

;)

[DanCa]

12. I am so sick of the name calling

I am tired of them questioning my patriotism and christianity. How are you guys handeling it? Seriosly am ready to go postal on some of these good ole young republicans.

[Dees]

13. Say that to my face MF.....n/t

[SunDrop23]

14. That fuckstick says it from the comfort of his den...

Someone should have said "well tough guy why don't you pick up a weapon and head over."

[LandOLincoln]

17. I tried. Couldn't get through. As usual. n/t

[ComerPerro]

19. Wow

Just, wow.

[LSK]

21. i keep hearing this UTTERLY STUPID argument all the time

Ok, HOW EXACTLY are we threatening ANYONES FREEDOM??? Do any of these IDIOTS give specific examples????

[tabasco]

31. They say if we don't go conquer all the ay-rabs ...

then the ay-rabs will conquer us.

******************************************************************************************************

I'm not exactly sure how the Arabs will conquer us, but the neocon propaganda has idiots like this in a frenzy of fear and terror. This was probably the first guy at Lowes with a basket full of duct tape and plastic sheeting.