Originally posted by whodeyI maintain that your analogy is and was ridiculous.
Did I say that Beck = Jefferson? Nope. I was only pointing to the fact that Beck is an ardent student of the founding fathers and hates Marxism.
Although Obama does not = Marx, it is clear the degree of influence Marx has had on the current political landscape. Redistribution is now the name of the game even though most educated people understand the fu ...[text shortened]... y of rigid Marxism.
Having said that, where does Jefferson advocate redistribution of wealth?
When did I make the claim that Jefferson advocated Redistribution of wealth? I made no claim one way or the other about Jefferson.
Originally posted by PsychoPawnRegardless, after last weeks fiasco, it is apparent that the Obama cabinet is scared out of their shorts by what not only Beck is talking about, but most of the other Fox reporters as well.
I maintain that your analogy is and was ridiculous.
When did I make the claim that Jefferson advocated Redistribution of wealth? I made no claim one way or the other about Jefferson.
Chris Wallace nailed Howard Dean just a few days back on the "forced resignation" of Sherrod.....
His credentials below
http://www.foxnews.com/bios/talent/chris-wallace/
Originally posted by Hugh GlassWhat does your post have to do with mine?
Regardless, after last weeks fiasco, it is apparent that the Obama cabinet is scared out of their shorts by what not only Beck is talking about, but most of the other Fox reporters as well.
Chris Wallace nailed Howard Dean just a few days back on the "forced resignation" of Sherrod.....
His credentials below
http://www.foxnews.com/bios/talent/chris-wallace/
I do agree that Obama or someone in the administration is too spineless to fight fox/beck on anything or to even stand up for themselves.
On the Chris Wallace thing, well, I have a different opinion but I really don't have much of a desire to get into that.
Originally posted by PsychoPawnnotta just hit the wrong tab,,,,
What does your post have to do with mine?
I do agree that Obama or someone in the administration is too spineless to fight fox/beck on anything or to even stand up for themselves.
On the Chris Wallace thing, well, I have a different opinion but I really don't have much of a desire to get into that.
2 edits
Originally posted by PsychoPawnhttp://www.associatedcontent.com/article/26338/hamilton_and_jefferson_the_rise_of.html
I maintain that your analogy is and was ridiculous.
When did I make the claim that Jefferson advocated Redistribution of wealth? I made no claim one way or the other about Jefferson.
actually I was the one who compared Jefferson to Marx.
Jefferson's ideal vision was for America to be a land made up of small independent "yeoman farmers". Sounds very egalitarian and utopian. The rise of industrial capitalism and the concentrated wealth that it brought would clearly have bothered Jefferson as much as it did Marx.
This is not to say that Jefferson's ideas would've been the same as Marx's. But since Jefferson died before the industrial revolution arrived, no one really knows what Jefferson's thinking about it would have been.
Originally posted by whodeyIn his famous letter to Rev. Madison of course:
Did I say that Beck = Jefferson? Nope. I was only pointing to the fact that Beck is an ardent student of the founding fathers and hates Marxism.
Although Obama does not = Marx, it is clear the degree of influence Marx has had on the current political landscape. Redistribution is now the name of the game even though most educated people understand the fu ...[text shortened]... y of rigid Marxism.
Having said that, where does Jefferson advocate redistribution of wealth?
"Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not, the fundamental right to labor the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment, but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state."
http://www.per-fidem.org/mobile/bookshelf/tjwealth.html
Originally posted by mrj0hn50nSo where in all that do you get redistribution of wealth? It seems to me that he was advocating for a means to help the poor by increasing their oppurtunity, not forcably taking from those with money and redistributing it.
In his famous letter to Rev. Madison of course:
"Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we ...[text shortened]... ost precious part of a state."
http://www.per-fidem.org/mobile/bookshelf/tjwealth.html
3 edits
Originally posted by whodeyHe doesn't say, "hey let's take some folks' land and give it to other folks." But he does say that "the laws of property" can be taken too far, to the point where they violate the "natural right" of the people to work the land. This should make libertarians more uncomfortable than anything Obama has ever said. Property is just a law and not, itself, a natural right? Nobody on the right today is going to go for that.
So where in all that do you get redistribution of wealth? It seems to me that he was advocating for a means to help the poor by increasing their oppurtunity, not forcably taking from those with money and redistributing it.
Especially when we add his conditional: "if we allow [land] to be appropriated" we need to make sure those who don't have land, are able to have jobs. What do you mean "if"? and "we"? He seems to mean that the commonwealth has a choice as to whether or not people should even be allowed to acquire property in land. And then he suggests that we should allow that "for the purposes of industry." From this we can see that he thinks that property laws should be written in the public interest. Do they make society better? Do they conform to natural rights?
Again, if I'm not mistaken, those who get upset about "redistribution of wealth" do so because they think that property ownership IS a natural right. They agree with the philosopher John Locke. Jefferson disagrees. And in this letter he makes a powerful argument for writing property law in a way that best suits the public interest. I'm sure he thought that free-market capitalism would best serve the public interest, but as Generalissimo points out, we can't be sure that he would still have held that view had he lived for another fifty years or so.
Also, if you read the whole letter he advocates for what we would call a progressive income tax.
........
I don't quite understand where you get your interpretation of the passage. What does "increasing opportunity" mean in this context? Jefferson seems to think that we should secure employment for those who don't have land, but I don't know how you could do that without violating the property rights of business owners and telling them who they have to hire.
Originally posted by whodeyYou must have a degree in political science.
Did I say that Beck = Jefferson? Nope. I was only pointing to the fact that Beck is an ardent student of the founding fathers and hates Marxism.
Although Obama does not = Marx, it is clear the degree of influence Marx has had on the current political landscape. Redistribution is now the name of the game even though most educated people understand the fu ...[text shortened]... y of rigid Marxism.
Having said that, where does Jefferson advocate redistribution of wealth?
Originally posted by whodeyIf the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree
Did I say that Beck = Jefferson? Nope. I was only pointing to the fact that Beck is an ardent student of the founding fathers and hates Marxism.
Although Obama does not = Marx, it is clear the degree of influence Marx has had on the current political landscape. Redistribution is now the name of the game even though most educated people understand the fu ...[text shortened]... y of rigid Marxism.
Having said that, where does Jefferson advocate redistribution of wealth?
[From Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Albert E. Bergh (Washington: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), 14:466.]