The Big Tent

a certain class of people should have control over the government, then you agree with the founding fathers. It was Pinckney and Madison who stated that the Landowners should control government and it was Madison who said that the gov't's job was to protect the opulent of minority from the majority.

And if that isn't bad enough, we have you with the idea that the gov't should not protect people from abusive individuals. This is especially a tragic notion while living under a robber-baron economy.

I hope your tent is small and ever shrinking.

What Madison were you reading? Have you any understanding of context?

Madison in Federalist #10 the goal is to balance the factions naturally arising from Freedom, and he didn't mean by violating thier inalienable rights. . And Madison wasn't the only Founder you know.. An American tries not only to protect the poor from the rich , but the rich from the poor. Hamilton said it as well. The senate was meant to be a body to represent the landed- and they were not allowed to originate money bills. Really how little do you know about American History and how little do you understand about American Government?

Liberals believe that an special class of intellectuals should not only lead, but be unlimited in thier decision making power - to the porint of being able to force citizens to buy a truck load of dead monkeys should they feel it is in the "general welfare" .

The only reason for Founding a Government is to protect people from abusive individuals (while trying to prevent those IN GOVERNMENT from becoming abusive)

Robber Barons can only achieve power by CONTROLLING POLITICANS. Otherwise all thay have are VOLUNTARY TRANSACTIONS IN THE MARKETPLACE. Therefore Politicans with limited power limit the power of Robber Barons. It is the Political class that is using force to rob people ( to the tuneof trillions and rising) , and no one else.

There is NOT ONE PRINCIPLE I espouse for the tent which was NOT held by the Founders. Your historical revisionism is irrelevant and silly. You are only proving the point that YOU ARE NOT AN AMERICAN.

If the American tent is getting smaller so be it. But there will come a time when those of us left inside the tent scream "Give me liberty, or Give Me Death" - and then you better be prepared to fight against those of us who hold true to what the Founders believed because we will fight to the death to recalim the liberty you plan to steal from us.

the comments I am referring to are in the debates that preceded the Constitution. The Federalist papers do not match the actions that took place afterwards where the Constitution allowed rule by landowners by being silent on voting rights--the Constitution allowed the states to determine the voting rights without any guide.

And no, not all Americans protect the poor from the rich. Some describe the rich as having earned everything by the works of their hands. That is not the case.

I have read the debates that preceded the Constitution - Both in the individual States and Madisons' notes, and much of the newspaper Material as well. I am afraid you haven't a clue what you are talking about, as shown by your complete inability to cite evidence of any kind. You are simply IGNORANT. Not that Facts matter to 5 years olds throwing a tantrum.

Even if you were right ( which you are not) in a Constitutional Government it is largely unimportant what the Framers thought behind closed doors. The Constitution means what it meant to the people who ratified it, and the Federalist is the Principle document that records that general understanding as it was given to the Public. Madison himself said that the Legitimate meaning of the Constitution was to be formed form the Ratifying conventions and the general understanding of the people.

Of Course all Americans don't portect the "poor form the rich" not do all people protect the "rich from the poor" , as you certainly are not interested in doing. Why not live in one of theother countries scattered all around the world that embrace your philosophy? I suspect it is because gangs of thieves like yourself have already looted them. Try it here pal, and you will get a Civil War.

I believe that those who yell "Mine, Mine" and call names might relate better to 5 year olds. And I doubt from your statements that you read the debates because the statements I refer to are clearly there.

But as for references and quotes:
Pinckney:
" If we have any distinctions thay may be divided into three classes.

1. Professional men.

2. Commercial men.

3. The landed interest.

The latter is the governing power of America, and the other two must ever be dependent on them-Will a national government suit them? No."

and Madison

"The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa, or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge of the wants or feelings of the day laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe; when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be jsut, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."

from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp

In fact, what you will find in our history is that the right to vote was not guaranteed from the beginning but changes had to be made guarantee all White men the right to vote. This right came later for non-Whites and women.

The following strikes directly at the statist's Intensional Orientation where "feel-good" matters.

--------------------
Those in the tent believe that people should be free to use their time, talents, and treasure to engage in personal or volunteer group acts of charity to benefit others without government coercion or restriction.
--------------------

I think that most of us in the "Big Tent" naturally assume this: "it goes without saying." But many of our opposition are themselves accusing us of saying the opposite: that we oppose acts of charity. They do this because we try not to force everyone to contribute to our own personally desired charities. We leave it as a choice.

your blogpost, and enjoyed reading it. If only I hadn't run into the drivel mill in the comments section.

If only you understood them. I asked for the particular Quotes because I wanted to understand which parts you were taking out of Context. There are 500 hundered pages that span months in Madisons notes and you expect me to be able to read yyou mind and quess which two qoutes you were thinking of? How self-centered are you?

Madison was not arguing that a certain class of men should rule as YOU originally asserted. Madison, in the VERY QUOTE YOU PRESENT assets y position. Seriously, can you not even keep track of your you are arguing?

If you read the WHOLE debate, instead of cheery picking lines from it, it is obvious that they are trying to BALANCE the interests of All. also if you read the entire debate you would know that sufferage rights were to be determined by the states because they didn't want to make differences in the uniformity of those laws in different states a barrier to ratification, not from some plot to disenfranchise Blacks or Women. By allowing STATES to decide, Women voted in Western States long before 1920, and Black men voted long before the Civil war.

It is you you apparently are ignorant of History, and coont even understand the arguments made by the founders.

When I call you a five year old it is because you are BEHAVING LIKE A five year old. You only hear the connotative or emotional meaning, largely because you are five, and so only think I am "calling you a name" because I am "mean"

Words, however, have denotative meanings. I provided examples from the real world that demonstrate you have a 5 year old's sense of ethics and emotional maturity. Please don't try to claim I am not being Civil to you, simply because I make an argument that casts you in an unkind light.

You are the one who is behaving incivily. I am not screaming "Mine, Mine" I am Telling you to leave me alone and stop trying to steal what is NOT YOURs. You, acting 5, believe that because you see something you want, have a right to take it. In a civil society, we respect the property of others. In a civil society we understand that others have the right to make thier own moral decisions, and to puruse that which they find conducive to their own happiness. You advocate and support none of these things, and claim you have respect and I am disrespectful.

Among Adults "respect" is something that is earned though respectful behavior on one's own part. Respect isn't handed out like a particpant ribbon on field day. But being liberal, I doubt you understand words like "earned"