This is really the nugget that's at the core of our arguments:
[1] Man is fundamentally flawed and should not be given control.
[2] Man is fundamentally flawed and should not be given freedom.
I could write a book the size of Paritsan's explaining why I think the way I do; it would not change your mind. The fact is that the nature of man is opposed to both self-rule and rule of others. There's little we can do about it.
We've chosen our paths, unfortunately, yours seems to include trashing TJ, JM, REL, BG, apparently RR, and others whom I consider great Americans, or have at least contributed something positive to America's history. Hamilton did as well, which is why you won't see me laying into him and throwing epithets such as "Limousine Liberal of his day" at him. That I cannot tolerate one does not imply that I must engage in the other.
That you feel the need to take it to such extremes leads me to believe that perhaps you just haven't looked objectively at the argument before us. When I see things like:
[Takeit] You can read Hamilton's plan for America, it begins, "We the people..."
I can't help but jump in - if nothing else than to protect those who might believe such statements having no historical data to rely on. Hamilton's plan was rejected - it was Madison's Virginia Plan that was chosen as the basis for our constitution. We can quibble all you'd like about whether or not he called for a monarch; Madison's notes indicate that H used the word in order to diffuse worry about a lifelong executive, but apparently those at the convention heard it and thought, "He's telling me it's not, but darn... sure looks like one to me."
Never said "monarchs aren't monarchs" or " protectionism isn't protectionism."
I'll leave that one alone - beating a dead horse is not my thing this early in the AM.