Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: neoconjob
Because many of the debates of the policies of the Founding Fathers would be anathema to the LP. Off the top of my head, there was the use of tariffs to protect American industries. The debate between Jefferson and Hamilton was not about whether to have the government make it a policy to develop the economy but in what way the government would act.

Secondly, there are obscenity laws. you specifically posted that as as a "libertarian" philosophy. However, obscenity and blue laws existed and were enforced at the time of the Founding. None of the Founding Fathers argued against them.

Indeed, the First Congress went so far as to re-authorize the Northwest Ordinances. These ordinances called for the establishment of government funded churches that would specifically be called for to teach religion. This is quite a step away from the LP call for "the complete separation of education and State."

This is just off the top of my head.
171 posted on 12/28/2004 4:11:31 PM PST by radicalamericannationalist (The Senate is our new goal: 60 in '06.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies ]


To: radicalamericannationalist
"This is quite a step away from the LP call for "the complete separation of education and State.""

Do you believe that the Federal Government has a legitimate role in education? Do you think that their uncalled for involvement has been beneficial?

173 posted on 12/28/2004 4:27:22 PM PST by Badray (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown. RIP harpseal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies ]

To: radicalamericannationalist
You wrote:

Trying to equate the Founding Fathers' philosophy with modern day libertianism shows either woeful ignorance of history or simply wishful thinking.
166 radicalamericannationalist

Off the top of my head, there was the use of tariffs to protect American industries.

What makes you think libertarian philosophy would prevent our government from Constitutionally using protective tariffs if needed?

Secondly, there are obscenity laws. you specifically posted that as as a "libertarian" philosophy.
However, obscenity and blue laws existed and were enforced at the time of the Founding. None of the Founding Fathers argued against them.

Why would they? The original States had just ratified a Constitution/BOR's that stipulated they would support those individual rights as the "law of the land".
The fact that State & Fed officials do not do so is not proof that they shouldn't.

Indeed, the First Congress went so far as to re-authorize the Northwest Ordinances. These ordinances called for the establishment of government funded churches that would specifically be called for to teach religion.

If memory serves, congress was trying to use religious missions to pacify Indian tribes.
It didn't work.

175 posted on 12/28/2004 5:00:28 PM PST by jonestown ( Tolerance for intolerance is not tolerance at all. Jonestown, TX)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies ]

To: radicalamericannationalist
You wrote:

Trying to equate the Founding Fathers' philosophy with modern day libertianism shows either woeful ignorance of history or simply wishful thinking.
166 radicalamericannationalist

Off the top of my head, there was the use of tariffs to protect American industries.

What makes you think libertarian philosophy would prevent our government from Constitutionally using protective tariffs if needed?

The libertarians do not make a Constitutional argument against tariffs.

They do, however, "support abolition of all trade barriers and all government-sponsored export- promotion programs."

Some do, some don't. Big deal.

As the founders did not advocate such measures,

BS. -- The founders were far from agreement on many issues, and tariffs were a big one.

it is obvious that they differed from libertarians on this issue.

Which proves what, even if true? You really need to get a grip.

Secondly, there are obscenity laws. you specifically posted that as as a "libertarian" philosophy.
However, obscenity and blue laws existed and were enforced at the time of the Founding. None of the Founding Fathers argued against them.

Why would they? The original States had just ratified a Constitution/BOR's that stipulated they would support those individual rights as the "law of the land".
The fact that State & Fed officials do not do so is not proof that they shouldn't.

First, you fail to show that obscenity and blue laws violate the Constitution.

And you've 'shown' they don't? Gradually, the worse of the old blue laws are being flushed, as sanity returns to the republic.

Secondly, were such violations occurring, you would think that the Founders would have expressed their displeasure.

They too were politicians.
At one point Jefferson claimed we should pierce the noses of adulteresses. You approve?

180 posted on 12/28/2004 5:39:14 PM PST by jonestown ( Tolerance for intolerance is not tolerance at all. Jonestown, TX)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies ]

To: radicalamericannationalist

You wrote:

"Indeed, the First Congress went so far as to re-authorize the Northwest Ordinances. These ordinances called for the establishment of government funded churches that would specifically be called for to teach religion.

This is quite a step away from the LP call for "the complete separation of education and State."






Just off the top of your head, could you locate where "these ordinances called for the establishment of government funded churches" ?


The Northwest Ordinance 1787
Address:http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/ohc/history/h_indian/treaties/nword.shtml Changed:6:41 PM on Tuesday, December 28, 2004


189 posted on 12/28/2004 6:53:46 PM PST by jonestown ( Tolerance for intolerance is not tolerance at all. Jonestown, TX)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson