You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
founding fathers
- Thread starter Playaz
- Start date
David.hamster
New member
They definately ran the gamut, and back then liberal and conservative meant different things. But in todays terminology, I'd say they were mostlymoderates, with both progressives and conservatives among them.
PridePowerPinstripes!
New member
I seriously doubt that.
In tehir financial thinking, no. In their views on government and its proper place, I would say certainly.
The difficulty in creating the constitution was essentially in creating the smallest, least powerful government possible, while still giving it just enough power to hold together.
Additionally, they certainly took the mutualist view on private property (land) and its essential "ownership" beiong based on occupancy and use. Wasn't it thomas Jefferson who said there is somethign wrond with a society when you have hungry people and untilled land?
It was not until the VERY late 19th and early 20th century that todays ideas of land ownership as an insolvent institution evolved. Up until 1905, a homestead or tract of land that had not been lived on or worked for 5 years was up for grabs. Anybody could claim it. In 1905 that changed so if you managed to squat on a piece of land and use it for 5 years without the owner finding out, it was yours.
the orignal policy is the kin dof law that makes a country great. It encourages production. the latter policy allows peopekl to hold onto unproductive land indefinatly. While I can see the benifits of this from a purely greedy standpoint, from a standpoint of resource allocation for maximum gain, the policy sucks.
The difficulty in creating the constitution was essentially in creating the smallest, least powerful government possible, while still giving it just enough power to hold together.
Additionally, they certainly took the mutualist view on private property (land) and its essential "ownership" beiong based on occupancy and use. Wasn't it thomas Jefferson who said there is somethign wrond with a society when you have hungry people and untilled land?
It was not until the VERY late 19th and early 20th century that todays ideas of land ownership as an insolvent institution evolved. Up until 1905, a homestead or tract of land that had not been lived on or worked for 5 years was up for grabs. Anybody could claim it. In 1905 that changed so if you managed to squat on a piece of land and use it for 5 years without the owner finding out, it was yours.
the orignal policy is the kin dof law that makes a country great. It encourages production. the latter policy allows peopekl to hold onto unproductive land indefinatly. While I can see the benifits of this from a purely greedy standpoint, from a standpoint of resource allocation for maximum gain, the policy sucks.
the air is cooler
New member
Yep, they tried with the articles of confederation and that didn't work. So they made a slightly more powerful government.
DontTreadOnMe Vol. 2
New member
that was also a shift in paradigm to a real federal authority (before anybody else beats me to it).
Even the states powers were much mroe restricted than they now are. 100 years ago, you could fit the las of my state in your hip pocket. I have a copy that I boguht several years ago at a flea market from 1900 and it is ALL of the state laws of kansas.
Now the state laws of kansas would fill 3 sets of encyclopedias, and several of them require some pretty severe mental gymnastics in order to convince yourself that they fall within the constitutional mandates (state constitution) regarding the power of the state.
They have done the same thing at the federal level. Our once small federal government which concerned itself mainly with ensuring we were not invaded, tyrants at the state level were not executing people wholesale, and that we were all paying our share of taxes to support the above activities. Now congress is passing legislation to ensure gun free zones in schools. When the supreme court struck down those gun free zones, congress just re-passed the bill with slightly different wording and called it "regulating interstate commerce".
Even the states powers were much mroe restricted than they now are. 100 years ago, you could fit the las of my state in your hip pocket. I have a copy that I boguht several years ago at a flea market from 1900 and it is ALL of the state laws of kansas.
Now the state laws of kansas would fill 3 sets of encyclopedias, and several of them require some pretty severe mental gymnastics in order to convince yourself that they fall within the constitutional mandates (state constitution) regarding the power of the state.
They have done the same thing at the federal level. Our once small federal government which concerned itself mainly with ensuring we were not invaded, tyrants at the state level were not executing people wholesale, and that we were all paying our share of taxes to support the above activities. Now congress is passing legislation to ensure gun free zones in schools. When the supreme court struck down those gun free zones, congress just re-passed the bill with slightly different wording and called it "regulating interstate commerce".
AuroraGlow
New member
What i ment is the ones that signed the declaration of independance and started the revolution. What do you think their political slant was? You know Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Addams.
pharmdcougargal12
New member
The Declaration of Independence was signed by "gentlemen of the Enlightenment". As such, they were skeptical towarRAB traditional authority in matters of religion and politics. They were open in outlook and generally assumed that reason is the guiding principle and defining property of the human condition. Their thinking was influenced by Voltaire, Kant, and the political aims of the French Revolution.