PDA

View Full Version : Don't Tread on Me



Chris
07-07-2012, 09:44 AM
Political philosophy of the founders...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxPAZANdYQE&feature=player_embedded#!

roadmaster
07-07-2012, 12:55 PM
Many liberals tend to think this sign is racist just because a certain group took these shirts and stared wearing them. You can't take what is not yours and we can continue to wear them.

Peter1469
07-07-2012, 01:23 PM
They didn't stay libertarian long. Just as all of the US western territories. They jumped through all the hoops that they could to become states can create, wait for it, government.

Chris
07-07-2012, 01:30 PM
Ah, so don't tread on me is libertarian, classical liberal, not modern liberal. Also didn't know the founders were even not under a government, the question was how oppressive a government, Jefforsonian/Madisonian limited, or Hamiltonian unlimited.

Peter1469
07-07-2012, 01:50 PM
Ah, so don't tread on me is libertarian, classical liberal, not modern liberal. Also didn't know the founders were even not under a government, the question was how oppressive a government, Jefforsonian/Madisonian limited, or Hamiltonian unlimited.

I place myself at Jefforsonian/Madisonian limited. I think you are further to the right.

Chris
07-07-2012, 02:17 PM
I place myself at Jefforsonian/Madisonian limited. I think you are further to the right.

And their limitation was: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men". That's classical liberalism, that's standard libertarianism, Hayekian, Randian libertarianism, what you find at Cato Institute for example.

Peter1469
07-07-2012, 04:28 PM
And their limitation was: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men". That's classical liberalism, that's standard libertarianism, Hayekian, Randian libertarianism, what you find at Cato Institute for example.

And the government they set up relied upon tariffs to fund federal government operations. :laugh:

Chris
07-07-2012, 04:33 PM
And the government they set up relied upon tariffs to fund federal government operations. :laugh:

But not to engage in protectionist trade wars to level the playing field by punishing American consumers.

Here and there you raise the unrelated argument about national interest in the military-industrial complex, unrelated because that's a revenue issue, not a trade issue.

Peter1469
07-07-2012, 04:53 PM
But not to engage in protectionist trade wars to level the playing field by punishing American consumers.

Here and there you raise the unrelated argument about national interest in the military-industrial complex, unrelated because that's a revenue issue, not a trade issue.


Spin. :tongue:

Chris
07-07-2012, 04:57 PM
History. See The Truth about Trade in History (http://thepoliticalforums.com/search.php?searchid=100265).

Peter1469
07-07-2012, 05:20 PM
History. See The Truth about Trade in History (http://thepoliticalforums.com/search.php?searchid=100265).


Link doesn't work for me. Give me a cliff notes version.

Chris
07-07-2012, 05:38 PM
That's the thread Buchanan's historical revisionism is exposed: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/4302-The-Truth-about-Trade-in-History

Peter1469
07-07-2012, 08:28 PM
That's the thread Buchanan's historical revisionism is exposed: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/4302-The-Truth-about-Trade-in-History

OK, that worked. Thanks.

I addressed that already. I know that you agree with the author. I don't. Move on.