However unimportant America may be considered at present, and however Britain may affect to despise her trade, there will assuredly come a day, when this country will have some weight in the scale of empires. - George Washington, As quoted in Maxims of Washington : Political, Social, Moral and Religious (1854)
I think they knew exactly what they were doing. They didn't know how galactically right they were.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...8365457075.7231.107705785934333&type=1&ref=nf
I think they knew exactly what they were doing. They didn't know how galactically right they were.
They understood the greatness of what they were creating.
As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is, to use it as sparingly as possible; avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts, which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burthen, which we ourselves ought to bear.
GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796
They understood the greatness of what they were creating. They knew that a country of the people, by the people, and for the people, a constitutional republic with a limited federal government, simply couldn't fail. It's too bad that there are so many Americans these days, that don't understand what made America so great and are working to change it.
I know what you mean. Those damn conservatives have such messed up ideas about what this country was based on.
I feel a Founding Fathers orgasm coming up!!!!
Only conservatives invited.
beat me to it.
still... WHAT he said was good and right... he just doesn't get that Liberalism is what MADE this country great, not power, not money - Liberty.
geo.
beat me to it.
still... WHAT he said was good and right... he just doesn't get that Liberalism is what MADE this country great, not power, not money - Liberty.
geo.
Classical liberalism . . . .
yeah... i have heard that crap a lot. there is no such thing as 'Classical liberalism' - classical does not mean 'back in the olden days'.
NO Libertarian so far has been able to demonstrate that my understanding of Liberalism is not accrurate.
I'm sorry, but modern day liberalism does not equate to liberty.
you are welcome to demonstrate that. of course, you can qualify anyone or any expression you do not like as an example of liberalism... but... hell, i can that myself.
i feel pretty secure that MY thinking aligns pretty well with those 'classical olden day liberals' - Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Mill, Bentham... in fact, it seems that i spend an inordinate amount of time here doing exactly that... it is necessary, as most folks here seem to get their idea of what 'liberalism really is' from rightwing websites that either do not know any better themselves or are willing to deliberately distort the thinking of great men to suit their own ends.
again, i am prepared to defend my view.
geo.
I'm not saying whether or not your views align with anybody. I'm saying "liberalism" is not a synonym for "liberty", particular as far as modern day liberalism is concerned.
actually, there is not, not in any lexically meaningful way. You can create any political philosophy you like and call it whatever you like but does not mean the the words you use and the generally accepted meaning of the words you use have any relationship. Hitler pretended to "socialism"... a joke of course, but it sucked in a lotta gullible dopes who had been given to think 'socialism" a good thing.And actually there is.
oh, i dip into his writings from time to time.If you go back and read Locke...
. There is nothing today . . ..
actually, there is not, not in any lexically meaningful way. You can create any political philosophy you like and call it whatever you like but does not mean the the words you use and the generally accepted meaning of the words you use have any relationship. Hitler pretended to "socialism"... a joke of course, but it sucked in a lotta gullible dopes who had been given to think 'socialism" a good thing.
most of us would agree that Liberty is a good thing, so it makes sense that a lot of folks who want to empower those already wielding the most power and weaken our protections against those powerful would want to appropriate the term.
makes sense, too, that some of us would resist such a theft.
oh, i dip into his writings from time to time.
ya think? do you really think that the thinking of a late 17th century moral philosopher who could not anticipate such things as an industrial revolution, the rise of capitalism or... electricity - fails to properly reflect the political world more than 200 years afterward?
surprising. i mean to say, christians today are EXACTLY what one would expect having read the New Testament.
but, again, if you find me going astray in my arguments as a Liberal, please, feel free to point it out. I assure you (and others here can attest to it), I DO challenge libertarians all the time.
geo.
I'm not saying that "liberalism" as we know it now is necessarily bad. It's just different than what it was in the 17th century.
no, Liberalism as it was formulated by those great thinkers was the philosophy of personal liberty, personal freedom. it still is.Things do change, today we have a list of different concerns and needs than when Locke, Kant, Hobbes, etc. created their philosophy of liberalism. What is liberalism today is not what was liberalism before; the system evolved.
"influence"? no, Power. and government as a thing in itself, separate from the governed. but that is not true here... or at least, it is not supposed to be.But the classic version of liberalism was focused on the maximization of liberty and the minimization of State influence over the individual.
yeah, i hear that a lot - "Locke wanted small gummint". Now, kindly point me to where he actually says so? What Locke wanted was "LIMITED" government - limited is scope, limited in power and if we conclude that such a government would be small that is not unreasonable. but, again, the 'government' he was looking at and OUR government are fundamentally different animals.It's essentially a minarchist philosophy.
What we call liberal, referring more or less to the democrats and their current political philosophy, is not one of minarchy but rather one of designed government intervention. I'm not saying that "liberalism" as we know it now is necessarily bad. It's just different than what it was in the 17th century.
They understood the greatness of what they were creating. They knew that a country of the people, by the people, and for the people, a constitutional republic with a limited federal government, simply couldn't fail. It's too bad that there are so many Americans these days, that don't understand what made America so great and are working to change it.
Perhaps it would serve everyone to be less concerned with defining a catch word or phrase and attempting to discern an entire political philosophy from it. And more with the individual ideas we are attempting to group. If something works I would not want to associate a negative connotation to it on account of politics. Now as to whether an idea is good or not we should look towards history to find examples, not look at history and try to label someone as this party ideology or another, as the phasing we use can change with time. Plus every popular movement likes to associate itself with popular and historic people as a way to advance.
Classical liberalism, not what is currently known as liberalism. The closest modern day political philosophy which is best analogous with classical liberalism is libertarianism.
Modern libertarianism concerns itself too much with market freedom, though. Far too much of it is keeping government away from business, and allowing the unelected wealthy to hold more and more power. I applaud many libertarian efforts to promote personal and social freedom, however.
Pfft. Really? LOL.
Whatevs. The world is like, totally a different place now.
Nevermind. You're both right. And so was that guy... 215 years ago.
Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?