Replies

What is important is Wisdom in the use of these tools of intervention.

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.

Those points were extensively discussed by the Founders. I have little to add to that discussion. Dilemna is a part of reality.

I have said little of TJ, JM and have SOME sympathy for both but certainly prefer both of them prior to 1790 than after. Their roles before that break point were totally positive (well maybe not Jefferson) and after that mostly negative. Lee I have not discussed at all. Reagan is a hero of mine and fortunately (unlike J) did not allow anti-"Big Gov) ideology to prevent him from growing that government big enough to destroy America's greatest enemy.

If you actually read the 11 points of his "plan" you would note that much of it was incorporated into the constitution. In fact, much of his other writings from as early as 1780 had elements which wound up in the constitution. Virginia's plan was compromised with other elements including some shared by Hamilton's.