22 Mar 10
Just out of curiosity, those who favor Obamacare and cap and trade and government takeovers of GM and AIG etc, what exactly is your perception of a Jeffersonian limited government, or does it even matter to you?
"It is incumbent on every generation topay its own debt as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world." - Jefferson
22 Mar 10
Originally posted by Sam The ShamThis is a good site to browse quotes of the various founders and others. It becomes clear that these men recognized government as a necessary evil. It had to be limited, controlled and checked constantly.
Can't make up my mind which quote of Jefferson I like best, they're all so great:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson.html
Anyone who thinks the basics have changed, just isn't thinking.
22 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyThe Framers' concept of a limited government did not preclude them from adopting a Constitution which vastly extended the powers of the central government, particularly in the field of economic activity.
Just out of curiosity, those who favor Obamacare and cap and trade and government takeovers of GM and AIG etc, what exactly is your perception of a Jeffersonian limited government, or does it even matter to you?
"It is incumbent on every generation topay its own debt as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world." - Jefferson
Jefferson certainly had one vision and Hamilton and Washington another on the issue of government involvement in the economy. The latter eventually prevailed.
It's hard to say what people of 220 years ago would have thought about present day issues, but I think most of the Framers wouldn't have much of a problem with universal health care esp. given that it has been the standard in liberal democracies for more than a half century. Unlike present day right wingers, the Framers weren't xenophobic or willing to ignore the experiences of other nations; the debates at the Constitutional Convention are filled with speakers making reference to experiences of other nations in policy areas to support their arguments. They were men of the world.
23 Mar 10
Originally posted by no1marauder"the debates at the Constitutional Convention are filled with speakers making reference to experiences of other nations in policy areas to support their arguments. They were men of the world."
The Framers' concept of a limited government did not preclude them from adopting a Constitution which vastly extended the powers of the central government, particularly in the field of economic activity.
Jefferson certainly had one vision and Hamilton and Washington another on the issue of government involvement in the economy. The latt ...[text shortened]... ces of other nations in policy areas to support their arguments. They were men of the world.
Absolutely! They were determined to learn the lessons of history, and to avoid repetition of the mistakes. What emerged was a document which mostly emphasized limitations on the new federal government, many more things they were prohibited from doing than they were enjoined to do.
23 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignReally? I suggest you look at the Constitution and you'll find your assertion is flat out wrong. Compare Article I, Section 8 to Article I, Section 9 and tell me there are "many more" in the latter. There were a lot more limitations on the Federal government in the Articles of Confederation; if they had hewn to your simplistic vision, they should have kept them.
"the debates at the Constitutional Convention are filled with speakers making reference to experiences of other nations in policy areas to support their arguments. They were men of the world."
Absolutely! They were determined to learn the lessons of history, and to avoid repetition of the mistakes. What emerged was a document which mostly emphasized ...[text shortened]... al government, many more things they were prohibited from doing than they were enjoined to do.
I suggest you study the "Supremacy Clause" of Article VI as well: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Like most right wingers, your knowledge of the Constitution and your own nation's history is limited and heavily distorted by your extreme ideological prism.
23 Mar 10
Originally posted by no1marauderYou didn't answer the question. What is your interpretation of what is meant by a limited government?
The Framers' concept of a limited government did not preclude them from adopting a Constitution which vastly extended the powers of the central government, particularly in the field of economic activity.
Jefferson certainly had one vision and Hamilton and Washington another on the issue of government involvement in the economy. The latt ...[text shortened]... ces of other nations in policy areas to support their arguments. They were men of the world.
23 Mar 10
1 edit
As far as I am concerned, the government should facilitate high social mobility; i.e. high freedom. I don't think being able to buy a Ferrari instead of a BMW 7-series constitutes an essential part of this freedom; however I do think that being able to attend a high quality university without handing over $100k does. For me, this is what "limited government" means - the government shouldn't tell you how to run your life.
23 Mar 10
Originally posted by whodeyOne thing Jefferson certainly didn't endorse was a superstitious reverence for the constitution. He expected that it would be revised and improved, as shown by this quotation:
Just out of curiosity, those who favor Obamacare and cap and trade and government takeovers of GM and AIG etc, what exactly is your perception of a Jeffersonian limited government, or does it even matter to you?
"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
23 Mar 10
Originally posted by normbenignWashington was certainly worried about the tyrannical potential of government, but I rather like the following retort by Mike Huben:
This is a good site to browse quotes of the various founders and others. It becomes clear that these men recognized government as a necessary evil. It had to be limited, controlled and checked constantly.
Anyone who thinks the basics have changed, just isn't thinking.
"Government, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." (Washington)
"Well, if we wish to use that analogy, let's note that we now exploit combustion for vastly more purposes, in vastly greater quantity, and for vastly greater benefit than George Washington would have dreamed of. Likewise modern liberal government." (Huben)
23 Mar 10
Originally posted by whodeyJefferson also intended for an agrarian republic consisting of independent yeoman farmers. Given that this did not come to pass, and that our democracy has been undermined by a corporate elite, it is questionable as to whether his opinion of 'limited government' would have remained the same.
Just out of curiosity, those who favor Obamacare and cap and trade and government takeovers of GM and AIG etc, what exactly is your perception of a Jeffersonian limited government, or does it even matter to you?
"It is incumbent on every generation topay its own debt as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world." - Jefferson
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28919
23 Mar 10
"we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex... Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." - Dwight D. Eisenhower
23 Mar 10
Originally posted by TeinosukeOk, so you have little reverence for the Constitution. Therefore, the rule of law should come down to the whims of our elected represetatives?
One thing Jefferson certainly didn't endorse was a superstitious reverence for the constitution. He expected that it would be revised and improved, as shown by this quotation:
"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a ...[text shortened]... a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
23 Mar 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSo not being able to afford a university equates government telling you what you can and can't do? It is then the repsonsibility of government to tell the university how much they should charge......but at the same time.....should not be telling us how to run our lives?
As far as I am concerned, the government should facilitate high social mobility; i.e. high freedom. I don't think being able to buy a Ferrari instead of a BMW 7-series constitutes an essential part of this freedom; however I do think that being able to attend a high quality university without handing over $100k does. For me, this is what "limited government" means - the government shouldn't tell you how to run your life.
23 Mar 10
8 edits
Originally posted by rwingettI conceed that large corporations take on a government like structure all its own. So you would then identify the private corporation as identical to the limited governmnent the Founding Fathers oppossed? Well then, what of the Goldman Sachs of the world influencing government? Did they not position themselves well in the midst of the credit crisis and is now positioning themselves for cap and trade etc? Even if you may not agree, I'm sure you can come up with a myriad of other examples of corporate America having its tentacles in Washington and vice versa. With the obvious incestuous relationship between our elected, and often times nonelected government officials, and corporate America, how then can we draw the line between them?
Jefferson also intended for an agrarian republic consisting of independent yeoman farmers. Given that this did not come to pass, and that our democracy has been undermined by a corporate elite, it is questionable as to whether his opinion of 'limited government' would have remained the same.