Posted on 09/30/2004 4:35:23 PM PDT by rmlew
You can post that quote or ANY quote by me, I don't care. But I refuse to allow statements which are false about our greatest patriots to pass without calling you on them.
Stop that crap and I wouldn't have much to talk to you about.
First of all, YOU concider Hamilton to be wonderful because he was an big government authoritarian like you.
Second, I never said anything false about him.
Third, you can disagree with someone on their opinion of things without all the personal crap you always fire at anyone who doesn't toe your goofy line on things.
Forth, you have declined again to make the deal, so one can only conclude that you like these little personal battles.
Now go lay down, you'll feel better.
The perfect corollary to that is what is happening in America regarding the responsibility for our lives.
Our central government is constantly assuming a greater and greater share of the responsibility for every phase of our lives. The result is that many Americans are behaving with proportionately less personal responsibility, which in turn results in the call for ever more laws, restrictions and government assumption of responsibility for us.
Hamilton's government was TINY so that is a LIE. And a ridiculous lie at that since the fedgov cost less than $10 per person during his day. Hamilton was the most brilliant of the Founders and the devotion Washington showed to him and the hatred Jefferson had for him is sufficient to give him credibility by themselves. Of course you will claim Washington was a "big government authoritarian." Which is as big a LIE as it is applying it to me.
You stated an absolute LIE when you claim he was no friend of freedom. He was one of Freedom's greatest friends but you would have to understand what the term means to understand that.
Any disagreement is not bad just lies about the subject at hand raises my dander. Had you stated an objective statement about Hamilton there would be no issue (though I might dispute it) but to state bald-faced Lies as you did will not get a pleasant response. However I NEVER lie about your comments.
I have no objection to "personal battles" nor name-calling nor insults and can take any of them without getting my panties in a twist and whining for the moderator.
The problem is not the government but the People. These laws and regulations are there because the People either WANT them or don't care enough to resist them.
Of course the lying RATmedia doesn't help this problem go away either.
Please: NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts.
Funny, I was driving home from fishing club last night with my good friend and neighbor, who is a retired bank executive and a "liberal."
Believes in the free market and free trade, spent much of his life representing his company abroad, but is voting for Kerry.
OTOH, as far as I can see, those opposing free trade are equally likely to be conservative or liberal.
Seems to me that many of those on the left who oppose free trade are the same people who would like the UN to exercise some power over the US in other areas.
As far as whether increased government power is the fault of the people or the government, I would agree with Thos. Jefferson that it is the nature of government to gather ever more power to itself. Not that the people do not encourage it as well, we are willing to sacrifice liberty in return for various things that government power can accomplish that seem for the moment to be desirable to us.
There is a difference between posting a LIE which is what you have done and being a LIAR which I never called you.
If you cannot understand the difference ask someone to explain it.
When you post a comment such as that I go out of my way to make people aware I am white as in post no. 175 that is just a LIE. What is one supposed to call a LIE but a LIE?
I consider Jefferson to be an expert on nothing though he was a good cabinet maker. Governments grow because of many factors but none can hold sway unless the People allow them.
Our fedgov was TINY until the Civil War when its growth became both natural and necessary. It shrank after the War but was still bigger. This has happened after every war though the Cold War caused it to maintain more of its growth than after other conflicts.
Governments grow just from the sheer increase in complexity of societies thus the government acceptable when the nearest neighbor was 20 miles away is not powerful or large enough when they are 20 feet away. It is an inescapeable fact of life.
They also grow when more rights are claimed by citizens. Thus, paradoxically the more rights we claim the larger the government must become to protect those rights.
Opposition to Free Trade is largely centered in the Left. You will see those claiming to be Right opposing it but they use the Concepts, slogans and rhetoric of the Left in making their arguments. Every contra argument on this thread validates this point.
54, white, widower, father of two sons, Financial Analyst, loves bridge, voracious reader, music lover, lover of beautiful women, born in Arkansas, now lives in Chicago, alumnus of Univ. of Chicago, Wayne State Univ., Univ. of Illinois, M.A in Economics, history minor, Member NRA, Federalist Society, Anthroposophical Society, Art Institute of Chicago, Oriental Institute, Elder Mayfair Presbyterian church. Actually member since impeachment as aka.
I challenge you to find any other bio on his site which proclaims a persons race so conspiciously.
I mtold no lie, I made an observation. Sorry you regard your race so importantly that you list it number two on your bio, much less at all.
Please stop calling me a liar, it is against posting guidelines.
I am aware of what my bio says. It is merely information. Only an idiot would believe this "conspiciously" or even conspicuously makes an issue of race.
So stop posting LIES like that and I will not have to point out they are LIES. That would please me enormously.
Now calling me an idiot in addition to a liar. Please adhere to posting guidelines.
Please: NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts.
I believe there is something of a paradox here, in that societies achieve complexity in direct proportion to the amount of freedom that they enjoy, the stricter the boundaries set by government in which a society must operate, the less complex and less successful it is likely to be. My opinion.
However, if government must regulate certain aspects of a complex society, as it must, the more local the authority doing the regulating, the better.
"This has happened after every war"
Regarding WWII, this was probably exaggerated by the fact that FDR had strong ambitions of increasing and moving leftward the powers of central government.
"Thus, paradoxically the more rights we claim the larger the government must become to protect those rights."
No arguing that point, when people think, as they now do, of their "rights" as services or remunerations that government can provide for them, then government must grow.
You are volunteering for the title "idiot" but I have no objection.
Actually the complexity of a society increases merely from population growth without regard to freedom. Freedom does allow MORE complexity as well but it is not necessary for it to occur.
Actually I believe most of the growth in government has been on the local/state level in the last 30 or 40 yrs.
FDR had a very difficult problem to deal with even before the War and was a stop gap to prevent an even GREATER leftwad shift. During the thirties there was great concern that there would be a communist revolution here. He had attackers from the Left from within his own party such as Huey Long.
I realize it is very popular here to attack FDR but I think in all fairness one must look at the context of the times he was attempting to operate within. When 25-30% of the work force is unemployed and NO ONE can figure out why there is a huge problem.
Well, I think that to the extent a society is totalitarian, and thus planned, it will be less complex by default than a society of limited government, since in totalitarian societies all the citizens are supposed to be working for the state goals instead of their own random goals. So the complexity they achieve is going to be in spite of government. I am sure one could say that Communist China is a complicated society because of its huge population, if only because it includes so many different ethnic groups. But I am sure it would be far more so if unleashed from its oppressive government.
I've been doing a little reading on FDR, it does seem that he was very sympathetic to socialist philosophy. I gather that he considerably increased federal powers, at least during his terms.
Whether a socialist revolution was likely during the Great Depression, I couldn't say, I have not heard that it was, although I'd agree that socialism had a much stronger foothold in the US then than it does now, notwithstanding the Democratic Party's adoption of so many socialistic principles and our general leftward movement of the last 40 or so years.
I was referring to the FEAR and expectation of many of a revolution that was rampant then. Socialism had essentially conquered the intelligensia of the West then due to its inability to get the truth about what was the real results. Then when our economies collapsed it made the appeal that much stronger because it seemed to many as if capitalism itself no longer worked.
Socialist was not synonimous with bigger government so I don't think what FDR was encouraging was socialism. But he saw no alternative to grow the government particularly after his initial steps (raising taxes to cut the deficit) made the situation worse. These were conservative measures and their failure forced him to consider more radical ones.
What the RAT party has adopted is welfarism not socialism. They are not the same.
As to the complexity of totalitarianism vs a free society you may be right but we have to consider the reality of totalitarianism vs the theory too. Black markets develop and unofficial methods for obtaining goods and services are also prevalent and these add enormous complexity. Certainly should these societies only have an official structure they would be less complex.
How long will foreigners keep putting money into the USA? Isn't the dollar going to fall against other currencies soon?
What about the concern that multi-nationals are setting up R&D overseas? If the RD is over there, where is the USA's comparative advantage?
Investment will continue within the US as long as capital's safety and growth continues. Theoretically, given equal safety, investment continues until rates of return to capital are equalized across countries.
An important factor in those rates of returns is labor productivity which is favorable to the US. However, if our educational systems continue to stress absurd subjects rather than reading, writing and rithmetic our productivity edge will disappear.
If Multinationals are forced to do this there is nothing you can do about it except resign yourself to slide into an economic backwater. After all Left wing propaganda has produced policies which lead to this and have for decades.
Diminishing RAT party power is the crucial factor in the retention of national greatness.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.