Timely Abraham Lincoln quote: Who defines Liberty?

93 posts / 0 new

I just wanted to share this timely quote from Abraham Lincoln:

The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name -- liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names --liberty and tyranny.

The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty, especially as the sheep was a black one. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails today among us human creatures, even in the North, and all professing to love liberty. Hence we behold the processes by which thousands are daily passing from under the yoke of bondage, hailed by some as the advance of liberty, and bewailed by others as the destruction of all liberty.

-- Abraham Lincoln, in a speech at a Sanitary Fair in Baltimore, MD, on April 18th, 1864

(Here’s the full transcript of the speech: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1067)

In short, corporations and billionaires use the wolf’s definitions of Liberty and Freedom, and fill the airwaves with propaganda that they’re the victim of a government and workers (unions) who are too powerful and malevolent (and paid too much).

For me, and my fellow Progressives, the sheep’s definition is much more apropos; that our Government – We, The People – is the only force capable of keeping the wolves from eating the entire herd of sheep (and eventually starving themselves, when there are no more sheep!).

IMO, our Government’s role is not to protect all sheep -- but rather protect enough sheep to maintain a balance that allows both sheep and wolves to thrive, and neither to drive the other to extinction. This was the case during the 30’s through the 70’s, when the balance of power favored individuals and workers, wages and salaries were high, marginal tax rates for the wealthy were >50%, a school teacher or janitor could afford a house, college for the kids, and take a vacation; unions were strong, especially in the private sector; and corporations still did very well! Oh, BTW, that economy, and those policies, allowed us to nearly pay off a national debt from WW2 that was over 110% of GDP!

It’s our Government’s ability to “protect sheep” that enrages corporations and billionaires – enough for them to “starve the beast,” shrink our Government so that it can’t regulate the activities of corporations, and turn our Government from a protector of The People to a protector of the corporations and billionaires (which is Fascism, according to Mussolini’s definition).

In the Baltimore speech, Lincoln’s “wolf” was the slave owners & plantation owners in the South; but today’s multinational corporations are effectively engaging in slavery – or hoping to, if they have their way.

In the U.S., they’re using the legislative process to bust unions and drive wages down for all workers. Even today, there are GOP politicians who are raising the issue of eliminating our child labor laws! And outside the U.S., their embrace of foreign workers is tantamount to slavery. U.S. consumers simply aren’t exposed to the conditions under which workers in the rest of the world make the products we buy. Of course, the end result of these policies is the elimination of the U.S. Middle Class. The corporations and billionaires are in the process of killing the goose that laid the golden eggs, and blaming their victims – U.S. workers – for it.

"Party of Lincoln," my ass!

dblick's picture
dblick
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Comments

Are you joking? This is the most backwards interpretation of Lincoln's speech as is humanly possible!

It is Democrats, now just as then, who believe they have the right "to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor".

Just as Democrats believed they had a "right" to take, by force of government, what slaves worked for, It is Democrats who believe they have the "right" to confiscate and spend what OTHER people work for today. Democrats not only believe they have a "right" to make other people pay for their healthcare, their food, their housing, their contraceptives.

Indeed, you betray your own backwards reading of Lincoln's words in your own explanation. You declare that government's role is NOT to protect ALL people, but to take from some by force. The antithesis of Lincoln's and Republicans definition of liberty which is to protect ALL people's right to "so as he pleases with HIMSELF, and the product of HIS labor."

No person, rich or poor, no business or corporation can do what they please with you or your labor in a free market -- they have to EARN your business, and they have to EARN your employment. You are FREE to leave any business at any time if they dont provide you with what you think your labor is worth. And if you feel you are being mistreated, or undervalued, you are FREE to offer your labor to ANYONE else in the country, rich or poor. You dont have to work for someone else, you can work for yourself IF anyone thinks what you do is worth their money.

Which is why Democrats have ALWAYS been the party of slavery, and still are! Democrats believe they have a RIGHT to more than the product of their own labor. They have ALWAYS believed, from Slavery to Socialism, that they have a RIGHT to OTHER PEOPLE'S labor. And, from slavery to socialism, have always used the force of government to take it.

RealityCalling
Joined:
Dec. 30, 2013 4:04 pm

Reply to 2. OMG, once again as self-labled 'realist' "calls" with the Property Uber Alles Gospel of Corporate Liberalism. We have had too many of these evangelists come to the door with their pitiful pamphlets of ideological salvation and reinterpretations of history to take another all that seriously.

The early 20th Century Democratic Party actually was a coalition of heteronomy rather than common interests. The Solid South v. unions in the North. Republicans were cautiously more favorable to the end of segregation in some areas, but the real weight of social justice came from urban Democrats, so we have this mixed and twisted history of who was "playing the race card" and who was just playing in the same game going back quite awhile. Comparing Northern wage slavery to Southern legal bondage and ownership of human beings is a miserable pot and kettle game.

Comparing the Plutocrat Right with the advocates of increased minimum wages and basic human needs not being economically rationed with the Plantation only allows one image, that of master and slaves, and that is pure Corporate. Do we not have a right to take back the money leveraged by privateers? Are we supposed to accept human bondage and indentured servitude imposed upon us by corrupt banksters and warmongers?

Today's Democratic Party is something of a mess, but compared to the Plutocrat GOPimps and the Tea Party Idiots, blinded by nostalgia and loss, there is some hope for the Dems. There is a Progressive Caucus that is good, but not heavy in the money game. I can name at least ten "great" Democrats beginning with Elizabeth Warren, and there is NOBODY on the Right who has anything going for him or her. Ted Cruz, really. Jeb. No, not another Bushie.

And, I don't know if they want to "win" the White House where they would be blamed for not getting anything done or doing the crap that makes things worse. The powers behind them could be winning by losing; but is this not a losing game over time?

As a historian, you flunk. Lincoln's reference is to the institutional taking of labor value from people owned by slavers. The slave was not a property, for Lincoln, from whom labor could be extracted by some title to that human being. We could have an interesting discourse about how wage slavery and private property beyond the personal represent a "taking" of value from other people's work. The recent "takings" of increased productivity by the ownership class with nothing going to the workers for their increased value creation, demonstrates the established practice of the investor class of Corporate Capitalism. They love the Plantation/Sweatshop and hate Democracy.

You are another "believer" in Free Markets, and it is still utopian. Graeber tells us that the only Free Market he could find in human history, a market not regulated by a government, happened in the Islamic Middle Ages where a trade route went through several separate states. The merchants maintained their "comparative advantage, voluntary exchange of goods," by insuring that the weakest survived. They did this by alwasy seeing that the customer got the better of the deal, the reverse of the Trump idiot's "art of the deal." They knew there was a symbiosis in their pluralism that increased the value for all, and that cooperation and consideration for circumstances, or "caring and sharing" would be in their mutual benefit.

You really cannot treat people as property or put a price on their life and claim a moral philosophy. Ownership cuts both ways.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm
Quote RealityCalling:

Are you joking? This is the most backwards interpretation of Lincoln's speech as is humanly possible!

It is Democrats, now just as then, who believe they have the right "to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor".

Just as Democrats believed they had a "right" to take, by force of government, what slaves worked for, It is Democrats who believe they have the "right" to confiscate and spend what OTHER people work for today. Democrats not only believe they have a "right" to make other people pay for their healthcare, their food, their housing, their contraceptives.

Indeed, you betray your own backwards reading of Lincoln's words in your own explanation. You declare that government's role is NOT to protect ALL people, but to take from some by force. The antithesis of Lincoln's and Republicans definition of liberty which is to protect ALL people's right to "so as he pleases with HIMSELF, and the product of HIS labor."

No person, rich or poor, no business or corporation can do what they please with you or your labor in a free market -- they have to EARN your business, and they have to EARN your employment. You are FREE to leave any business at any time if they dont provide you with what you think your labor is worth. And if you feel you are being mistreated, or undervalued, you are FREE to offer your labor to ANYONE else in the country, rich or poor. You dont have to work for someone else, you can work for yourself IF anyone thinks what you do is worth their money.

Which is why Democrats have ALWAYS been the party of slavery, and still are! Democrats believe they have a RIGHT to more than the product of their own labor. They have ALWAYS believed, from Slavery to Socialism, that they have a RIGHT to OTHER PEOPLE'S labor. And, from slavery to socialism, have always used the force of government to take it.

I agree with everything you said. I would just like to add that most Republicans and a good chunk of the "conservative" movement endorse some or all of what statist Lincoln did.

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote drc2:

Reply to 2. OMG, once again as self-labled 'realist' "calls" with the Property Uber Alles Gospel of Corporate Liberalism. We have had too many of these evangelists come to the door with their pitiful pamphlets of ideological salvation and reinterpretations of history to take another all that seriously.

The early 20th Century Democratic Party actually was a coalition of heteronomy rather than common interests. The Solid South v. unions in the North. Republicans were cautiously more favorable to the end of segregation in some areas, but the real weight of social justice came from urban Democrats, so we have this mixed and twisted history of who was "playing the race card" and who was just playing in the same game going back quite awhile. Comparing Northern wage slavery to Southern legal bondage and ownership of human beings is a miserable pot and kettle game.

Comparing the Plutocrat Right with the advocates of increased minimum wages and basic human needs not being economically rationed with the Plantation only allows one image, that of master and slaves, and that is pure Corporate. Do we not have a right to take back the money leveraged by privateers? Are we supposed to accept human bondage and indentured servitude imposed upon us by corrupt banksters and warmongers?

Today's Democratic Party is something of a mess, but compared to the Plutocrat GOPimps and the Tea Party Idiots, blinded by nostalgia and loss, there is some hope for the Dems. There is a Progressive Caucus that is good, but not heavy in the money game. I can name at least ten "great" Democrats beginning with Elizabeth Warren, and there is NOBODY on the Right who has anything going for him or her. Ted Cruz, really. Jeb. No, not another Bushie.

And, I don't know if they want to "win" the White House where they would be blamed for not getting anything done or doing the crap that makes things worse. The powers behind them could be winning by losing; but is this not a losing game over time?

As a historian, you flunk. Lincoln's reference is to the institutional taking of labor value from people owned by slavers. The slave was not a property, for Lincoln, from whom labor could be extracted by some title to that human being. We could have an interesting discourse about how wage slavery and private property beyond the personal represent a "taking" of value from other people's work. The recent "takings" of increased productivity by the ownership class with nothing going to the workers for their increased value creation, demonstrates the established practice of the investor class of Corporate Capitalism. They love the Plantation/Sweatshop and hate Democracy.

You are another "believer" in Free Markets, and it is still utopian. Graeber tells us that the only Free Market he could find in human history, a market not regulated by a government, happened in the Islamic Middle Ages where a trade route went through several separate states. The merchants maintained their "comparative advantage, voluntary exchange of goods," by insuring that the weakest survived. They did this by alwasy seeing that the customer got the better of the deal, the reverse of the Trump idiot's "art of the deal." They knew there was a symbiosis in their pluralism that increased the value for all, and that cooperation and consideration for circumstances, or "caring and sharing" would be in their mutual benefit.

You really cannot treat people as property or put a price on their life and claim a moral philosophy. Ownership cuts both ways.

Lincoln was a corporate lawyer. He didn't oppose slavery. Read his first inaugural address.

Both parties are statist. They different somewhat on what the State should be doing, but they both think it is appropriate to use force to make people do what they want to do, prevent them from doing what they want to do or force them to pay for something they don't want to pay for.

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

You do have the simplist of minds, LS. He was a lawyer, but you confuse not wishing to deal with slavery with approving it. He was trying to hold things together, but both fools and forces made that impossible.

It depends upon what you mean as "statist," and your protest against the family budget is utterly adolescent and immature. It is so terrible to insist that all may eat, have a roof over their heads, access to healthcare and education, etc. We are just the most callous people in the world "requiring" that you chip in for the society in which you live.

I kind of like Lincoln's "of, by and for the people" standard for good v. bad government or which state we should have and not. By that standard, it seems to me that the Progressive Agenda fulfills Linconln's vision of human freedom and self-governance and that the smear on him as a tool for Corporate and Big Money ignores his own words. The Republican Party did soon turn away from "liberty" to "laissez faire," a cruel joke on individual liberty and the "ownership society." The Robber Barons loved them even if you can see Boss Tweed and the Solid South in the 19th Century Dems.

In short, the history of racial justice does not get much boost from the Republicans before Brown v. Education. Lincoln did not have to see integration as the answer to oppose slavery and its many negative effects on America. It was hardly confined to the South, and DC was alive with slave stealers and auctions.

I keep suggesting that you explore some serious anarchist thinkers for deeper investigations of what "statism" means v. "governance." Your policy suggestions continue to ignore anything substantive about the latter. Economic Libertarians have a hard time not sounding like spoiled, selfish children. The economic rationing of liberty is hardly attractive.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm
Quote drc2:

You do have the simplist of minds, LS. He was a lawyer, but you confuse not wishing to deal with slavery with approving it. He was trying to hold things together, but both fools and forces made that impossible.

It depends upon what you mean as "statist," and your protest against the family budget is utterly adolescent and immature. It is so terrible to insist that all may eat, have a roof over their heads, access to healthcare and education, etc. We are just the most callous people in the world "requiring" that you chip in for the society in which you live.

I kind of like Lincoln's "of, by and for the people" standard for good v. bad government or which state we should have and not. By that standard, it seems to me that the Progressive Agenda fulfills Linconln's vision of human freedom and self-governance and that the smear on him as a tool for Corporate and Big Money ignores his own words. The Republican Party did soon turn away from "liberty" to "laissez faire," a cruel joke on individual liberty and the "ownership society." The Robber Barons loved them even if you can see Boss Tweed and the Solid South in the 19th Century Dems.

The Republican Party started off as a big-government party, and hasn't changed. The Democratic Party was the party of laissez-faire, hard money and free trade. Wilson et al changed all of that.

For the past century and a half the Republican Party has gratuitously labeled itself as "The Party of Great Moral Ideas." The Party of Great Moral Frauds is more like it. The party began as the party of mercantilism, corporate welfare, protectionist tariffs, constitutional subterfuge, central banking, and imperialism. Its 1860 presidential platform promised not to disturb Southern slavery; its first president supported the Fugitive Slave Act and the proposed "Corwin Amendment" to the Constitution that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with Southern slavery; the party committed treason by "levying war upon the states" (the precise definition of treason in the Constitution) and murdering hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens in order to destroy the voluntary union of the states that was established by the founding fathers. It refused to do what Britain, Spain, France, the Dutch, Denmark, Sweden, and the Northern states in the U.S. had done about slavery and end it peacefully. Instead, it used the slaves as pawns in a war that was about consolidating all political power in Washington, D.C. in general, and in the hands of the Republican Party in particular.

Lew Rockwell, The Party of Great Moral Frauds

Quote drc2:

In short, the history of racial justice does not get much boost from the Republicans before Brown v. Education. Lincoln did not have to see integration as the answer to oppose slavery and its many negative effects on America. It was hardly confined to the South, and DC was alive with slave stealers and auctions.

Almost all parties and ideological groups supported slavery and racism.

Quote drc2:

I keep suggesting that you explore some serious anarchist thinkers for deeper investigations of what "statism" means v. "governance." Your policy suggestions continue to ignore anything substantive about the latter. Economic Libertarians have a hard time not sounding like spoiled, selfish children. The economic rationing of liberty is hardly attractive.

I'm not an "economic libertarian". I'm a libertarian. LIbertarians also oppose victimless crime laws and are consistently anti-war.

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The troubles for the Conservatives' view is as they are more successful then the wolves have less wool on sheep to shear, while simultaneously killing off more wolves. They need a cadre of fools to accept that we need a wealthy aristocracy.

The problem for libertarians is they spend all their time and effort on economic issues, trying hard to convince the poor to slash their own throats, and somehow never get around to supporting liberty for women, or Blacks, or Wiccans. Libertarians always seem to find themselves associating with racists, White Power groups, the Southern Avenger, or Neo Nazis. And the have the nerve to deny it.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm

By their standards, Ghandi was a sham because he was a "statist".

As long as no-one has to pay taxes, the Universe would be in perfect moral order.

I just read the Wikipedia page about Murray Rothbard and found it quite enlightening. Try to imagine him wearing a Guy Fawkes mask. Oh, yes they are against war (such as the Civil War and U.S. involvement in World War Two)- but not against violence; since the state "initiates" violence (meaning they don't want to pay taxes) then they are justified in using it in "self defence". Just forget about the fact that Hitler declared war on the United States.

Well, apparently Molinari did some work depicting how a stateless society could work. But again, how to get there? Well, perhaps a group of people could get together and form a decision making network of some sort (temporary of course) to co-ordinate efforts in throwing of the yoke of tyranny (wouldn't it be grand! champagne all around!). Then, once everybody is bound by mutual voluntary contract, some of them can start complaining that they want out.. but wait, that would entail breaking the elaborate web of contracts that had sprung up...my, what are we to do now?

nimblecivet's picture
nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote RealityCalling:It is Democrats, now just as then, who believe they have the right "to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor".

I believe this is the position of the Framers of the Constitution. Surely you've heard of the document... and this section:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

Are you suggesting the Framers were all Democrats? Don't the GOPers love to tax and spend other people's money for THEIR priorities. Where in the Constitution is there ANY authorization for the US to be the world's policeman, or a global power? As for the GOP being guardians of the product of our labors... isn't that 4.9 trillion in Bush debt just stealing money from our kids and grandkids to buy freebies, votes and favors today? While both parties share some guilt... since Reagan the GOP has mainly been the party of the Free Lunch.... passing the bill for our party on to future taxpayers. How goddamn noble.

You seem to be rather detached from the reality you claim to have a monopoly on.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln3/1:20.1?rgn=div2;view=fulltext

"Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 3.

Lincoln, Abraham, 1809-1865.

Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois

Fourth joint debate September 18, 1858. Lincoln, as reported in the Press & Tribune. Douglas, as reported in the Chicago Times. [2]

[2] Lincoln's prefatory note in the debates scrapbook."

"...I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]---that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. ..."

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 12:42 pm
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote RealityCalling:It is Democrats, now just as then, who believe they have the right "to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor".

I believe this is the position of the Framers of the Constitution. Surely you've heard of the document... and this section:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

Are you suggesting the Framers were all Democrats? Don't the GOPers love to tax and spend other people's money for THEIR priorities. Where in the Constitution is there ANY authorization for the US to be the world's policeman, or a global power? As for the GOP being guardians of the product of our labors... isn't that 4.9 trillion in Bush debt just stealing money from our kids and grandkids to buy freebies, votes and favors today? While both parties share some guilt... since Reagan the GOP has mainly been the party of the Free Lunch.... passing the bill for our party on to future taxpayers. How goddamn noble.

You seem to be rather detached from the reality you claim to have a monopoly on.

I'm in basic agreement with your assessment. The Dems and the GOP both agree that other people's labor doesn't belong to them. They differ on what they want to spend it on. The Dems are slightly more pro-welfare and the GOP is slightly more pro-warfare.

The Clause you quoted from the Constitution is not as open-ended as you made it appear. Article I, Section 8 lists the powers of Congress. The only additional powers they were given were those that were "necessary and proper" to carry out the aforementioned powers. However, any exercise of these "implied powers" couldn't violate rights. They were not given carte blanche. For example, the Congress was given the power to raise armies. But it couldn't not be done by conscription. Conscription, which is a form of slavery, is inconsistent with the rest of the Constitution.

That being said, the Constitution was a mistake.

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote LysanderSpooner:
Quote ulTRAX:I believe this is the position of the Framers of the Constitution. Surely you've heard of the document... and this section:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

.

The Clause you quoted from the Constitution is not as open-ended as you made it appear. Article I, Section 8 lists the powers of Congress. The only additional powers they were given were those that were "necessary and proper" to carry out the aforementioned powers. However, any exercise of these "implied powers" couldn't violate rights. They were not given carte blanche. For example, the Congress was given the power to raise armies. But it couldn't not be done by conscription. Conscription, which is a form of slavery, is inconsistent with the rest of the Constitution.

That being said, the Constitution was a mistake.

I disagree. It makes no sense to even have a power to tax and spend for the General Welfare if it's then limited to the following laundry list. If there was such a limit the, "general welfare" clause would be unnecessary... OR there would be some qualifier that the General Welfare consists of the following...

I see the list of specific powers in Article 1, Sec 8 as the MINIMUM the government had to accomplish... leaving the power to tax and spend for the General Welfare to be defined by each generation. Same with Common Defense. It has to be left open ended for each generation to decide for itself what their defense needs are.

Now can both be taken too far? Sure... but I'd maintain General Welfare is a broader mandate than Common Defense. It's a real stretch to assume that "Common Defense" means becoming a world superpower or that we are free to use our military power to interfere with other nations to protect our business interests... or overthrow those governments.

As for conscription... surely you know that the MILITIAS, intended to be the primary means of collective defense, were made up of able bodied white males who were MANDATED to be members. Yes, the Constitution says nothing about such a mandate. It's just inherent in the definition of militia. So your idea that conscription is inconsistent with the Constitution is in error. These militia members could be forced to fight and die against their will in battles that had nothing to do with defending their state or nation. We saw this when militias were used to invade Canada during the war of 1812.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The superiority of socialism to both anarchism and liberalism is that it recognizes that the accumulated value which accrues within the overall economy is a product of economic activity in general. Even if it were meaningful to isolate every interaction as a "transaction" in the economic sense, the value of what is being exchanged when expressed in monetary terms is only the value of the item or action to each individual doing the transaction. But that monetary value is relative within the whole context of economic activity which determines the relative value of the item or action being exchanged. The economy is always a system of some sort, even if only in the abstract sense it is such that in reality the interdependence of economic activity requires a political system which maintains the economic capacity of each individual and ensures the mortal interests of the individual at the outset of life.

Libertarians are always coming up with this canard that taxes are a form of violence, as though society has no legitimate claim to responsibility at all. Taxes ensure that the government can never conscript an individual for labor in violation of their fundamental freedoms. Moreover, taxes are not an imposition upon the individual or the individual's rights but upon certain types of activity.

Society has an interest in a permanent guarantee of a humanly decent standard of living from cradle to grave for many reasons. One is to prevent any particular individual or faction from ever gaining so much economic power that their ability to coerce either individuals or the public at-large (the People) through material means such that essential Freedom and Liberty if threatened. I mean "is" threatened. Sorry, lapsed into 18th century English there for a second.

Anyway, another interest is that even if only a small percentage of the disenfranchised use their entitlements to better themselves and make a contribution to society the overall investment is often worth it. That is actually the best way to maintain a proseperous economy because most people will have the means and desire to eventually or again become independent. Libertarian's interest lies in keeping the power in the hands of the few without having to compromise with a democratic government, and this is because it is in their economic interest to limit the productive sector of society to the number of people necessary to maintain their current social privilege.

A socialist society encourages wealth and freedom based on the scientific principle of enlightened self-interest. Its not so much that libertarians and conservatives have a negative view of human nature as they see it in their best interest to lie, distort history, and come up with any way they can to undermine any socially benign development of any sort. To do so keeps as much of the general population unable to see their individual self-interest in anything other than the options and perspectives which the media's right-wing propoganda reinforces.

It will probably take decades for a leftist resurgence to induce people to break away from things as they are and create a world which most acknowledge is one which they would rather see.

nimblecivet's picture
nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_on_slavery

Lincoln often expressed moral opposition to slavery in public and private.[1] Initially, he expected to bring about the eventual extinction of slavery by stopping its further expansion into any U.S. territory, and by proposing compensated emancipation (an offer Congress applied to Washington, D.C.) in his early presidency. Lincoln stood by the Republican Party platform in 1860, which stated that slavery should not be allowed to expand into any more territories. Lincoln believed that the extension of slavery in the South, Mid-west, and Western lands would inhibit "free labor on free soil". In the 1850s, Lincoln was politically attacked as an abolitionist, but he did not consider himself one; he did not call for the immediate end of slavery everywhere in the U.S. until the proposed 13th Amendment became part of his party platform for the 1864 election.[2]

http://www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/slavery.htm

Abraham Lincoln is often referred to as "The Great Emancipator" and yet, he did not publicly call for emancipation throughout his entire life. Lincoln began his public career by claiming that he was "antislavery" -- against slavery's expansion, but not calling for immediate emancipation. However, the man who began as "antislavery" eventually issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed all slaves in those states that were in rebellion. He vigorously supported the 13th Amendment which abolished slavery throughout the United States, and, in the last speech of his life, he recommended extending the vote to African Americans.

nimblecivet's picture
nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

http://www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/slavery.htm

Lincoln: October 16, 1854: Speech at Peoria, Illinois

"My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, -- to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope, (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery, at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough for me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not."

It's evident that given enough time and money Lincoln thought, as did some of the Founders before him, that freed slaves should be returned to Africa.

Just for the record, certainly not a view I espouse.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 12:42 pm
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote LysanderSpooner:
Quote ulTRAX:I believe this is the position of the Framers of the Constitution. Surely you've heard of the document... and this section:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

.

The Clause you quoted from the Constitution is not as open-ended as you made it appear. Article I, Section 8 lists the powers of Congress. The only additional powers they were given were those that were "necessary and proper" to carry out the aforementioned powers. However, any exercise of these "implied powers" couldn't violate rights. They were not given carte blanche. For example, the Congress was given the power to raise armies. But it couldn't not be done by conscription. Conscription, which is a form of slavery, is inconsistent with the rest of the Constitution.

That being said, the Constitution was a mistake.

I disagree. It makes no sense to even have a power to tax and spend for the General Welfare if it's then limited to the following laundry list. If there was such a limit the, "general welfare" clause would be unnecessary... OR there would be some qualifier that the General Welfare consists of the following...

I think you have it backwards. If the "General Welfare" was to be open-ended, there would have been no need to list the powers of Congress. In addition, the 10th Amendment explicitly said that if the power isn't listed it retained by the States or the people.

Quote ulTRAX:

I see the list of specific powers in Article 1, Sec 8 as the MINIMUM the government had to accomplish... leaving the power to tax and spend for the General Welfare to be defined by each generation. Same with Common Defense. It has to be left open ended for each generation to decide for itself what their defense needs are.uo

Then you are saying that the government has no Constitutional limits.

Quote ulTRAX:

Now can both be taken too far? Sure... but I'd maintain General Welfare is a broader mandate than Common Defense. It's a real stretch to assume that "Common Defense" means becoming a world superpower or that we are free to use our military power to interfere with other nations to protect our business interests... or overthrow those governments.

Who's claiming "Common Defense" means becoming a world superpower or world policeman. Not me or any libertarian I know. You have me confused with neocons. It's interesting that neocons interpret the Constitutional expansively in foreign affairs in the same way that progressives do in domestic affairs. They're both imperialists in my view.

Quote ulTRAX:

As for conscription... surely you know that the MILITIAS, intended to be the primary means of collective defense, were made up of able bodied white males who were MANDATED to be members. Yes, the Constitution says nothing about such a mandate. It's just inherent in the definition of militia. So your idea that conscription is inconsistent with the Constitution is in error. These militia members could be forced to fight and die against their will in battles that had nothing to do with defending their state or nation. We saw this when militias were used to invade Canada during the war of 1812.

The draft is Unconstitutional. I wasn't referring to a militia. Didn't the New England militias refuse to invade Canada because it was illegal for them to do so.

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

LS, while I do not confuse you with Neocons, I do wonder why your "anti-government" brand has such popularity among the predator class. You don't form coalitions with anti-imperial Progressives or do much other than give Righties cover. Grow up.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm
Quote LysanderSpooner:I think you have it backwards. If the "General Welfare" was to be open-ended, there would have been no need to list the powers of Congress. In addition, the 10th Amendment explicitly said that if the power isn't listed it retained by the States or the people.

I don't have the problem here... you do. The power to tax and spend for the general welfare IS A POWER.

What is so unclear about

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

that confuses you to its intent??

If the original intent was ONLY for those powers listed AFTER the general welfare clause... there'd be no point in listing general welfare TWICE in the Constitution. It's not just listed as a power... but as a PURPOSE for the Constitution. It's that Preamble that is the Rosetta Stone to decode what follows.

And you do realize that the BOR... with that 10th amendment, was written and ratified years AFTER the Constitution was written and ratified as it still stands? Isn't the issue here original intent? Pray tell, where does the Tenth negate ANY part of Article 1, Sec 8? I don't see it. Please feel free to enlighten us.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

August 1, 1858: Definition of Democracy

This is perhaps Lincoln's most succinct description of his beliefs on democracy and slavery.

As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy.

Lincoln opposed the expansion of slavery westward. The South resisted the attempt to peacefully end slavery and got what it deserved.

nimblecivet's picture
nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

Lincoln:"Executive Mansion,

Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:"

"... My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. ..."

Lincoln believed that slavery was immoral but he never thought of blacks as "equal" to whites. As abhorrent as that view may seem to us today it was a widely supported stance in both the North and among the approximate 4,000,000 (2/3) of Southerners who never owned slaves.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 12:42 pm

I am sure it will come as a shock to those whose American history knowledge comes from Texas Comic Book editions or its equivalent, that Mr. Lincoln lived in the Middle of the 19th Century and was not a self-affirmed abolitionist. He had a personal distaste for slavery, rejecting being on either side. His political agenda was avoiding the schism that he could not prevent, and his position on slavery was about the politics and all the tensions, "half-slave, half-free" put upon the nation.

It may also come as a shock to realize that before the Civil War, opposition to slavery existed North and South as well as did the profits from slavery going both directions. Opposing the EXPANSION of slavery was tough enough for Lincoln.

None of this makes LS's argument sound. Freedom is still for all or none, and there has to be some bond between the weak and the strong other than the latter's dietary preferences for weak meat.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm
Quote RealityCalling:No person, rich or poor, no business or corporation can do what they please with you or your labor in a free market -- they have to EARN your business, and they have to EARN your employment. You are FREE to leave any business at any time if they dont provide you with what you think your labor is worth. And if you feel you are being mistreated, or undervalued, you are FREE to offer your labor to ANYONE else in the country, rich or poor. You dont have to work for someone else, you can work for yourself IF anyone thinks what you do is worth their money.

This is wonderful in theory. It falls apart in practice because you're spewing theory that in reality is a half-truth. Not everyone is "free" to leave a job and find another. Leaving aside bad economic times where jobs are scarce... for any number of reasons there might not be another employer that will match the old income. Even frugal people have bills they have to pay. People often felt trapped in jobs because they could not leave their health insurance plans fearing a pre-existing condition would limit coverage elsewhere. Not everyone can afford to pick up roots and move to new locations where there are better jobs. Not everyone has the resources to start their own business... or access to a market that can sustain it.

Your half-truth view depends on perfect flexibility in a world where that just doesn't exist.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote LysanderSpooner:I think you have it backwards. If the "General Welfare" was to be open-ended, there would have been no need to list the powers of Congress. In addition, the 10th Amendment explicitly said that if the power isn't listed it retained by the States or the people.

I don't have the problem here... you do. The power to tax and spend for the general welfare IS A POWER.

What is so unclear about

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

that confuses you to its intent??

If the original intent was ONLY for those powers listed AFTER the general welfare clause... there'd be no point in listing general welfare TWICE in the Constitution. It's not just listed as a power... but as a PURPOSE for the Constitution. It's that Preamble that is the Rosetta Stone to decode what follows.

And you do realize that the BOR... with that 10th amendment, was written and ratified years AFTER the Constitution was written and ratified as it still stands? Isn't the issue here original intent? Pray tell, where does the Tenth negate ANY part of Article 1, Sec 8? I don't see it. Please feel free to enlighten us.

Technically the BORs is redundant. Before their enactment, the general government had the same limited powers.

The “general welfare” clause comes under scrutiny first. McClanahan finds no evidence that the broad interpretation one encounters today was part of the stated intention of the Constitution’s supporters, and it is to them, Thomas Jefferson said, that we are to look for proper interpretation.

James Madison, for instance, noted that the Articles of Confederation had included an appeal to the “general welfare,” and no one had taken this to mean the Confederation government had thereby been granted an open-ended authority to legislate on matters other than the ones expressly delegated to it in that document. Moreover, said Madison, a broad interpretation of the clause would have rendered the specific enumeration of powers in Article I, Section 8 nugatory and absurd.

It was Connecticut’s Roger Sherman who moved that the phrase be added, so McClanahan seeks out Sherman’s view of what constituted the general welfare. In June 1787, Sherman said: “The objects of the Union … were few—first, defence against foreign danger; second, against internal disputes and a resort to force; thirdly, treaties with foreign nations; fourthly, regulating foreign commerce, and drawing revenue from it. … All other matters, civil and criminal, would be much better in the hands of the states.”

That, for Sherman, was the “general welfare and common defense.”

The consensus among the ratifiers regarding the “necessary and proper” clause, every stumped social-studies teacher’s favorite fig leaf, was that it gave Congress no additional powers at all. (That clause says the federal government will have those powers that are necessary and proper to carry the enumerated powers into effect.) It was merely a clarifying statement, and the Constitution would, as Alexander Hamilton put it, be changed not one whit if that clause were “obliterated.”

In the course of commenting on that clause, Archibald Maclaine said during North Carolina’s ratifying convention that the states would prevent the federal government from usurping power:

If Congress should make a law beyond the powers and the spirit of the Constitution, should we not say to Congress, ‘You have no authority to make this law. There are limits beyond which you cannot go. You cannot exceed the power prescribed by the Constitution. You are amenable to us for your conduct. This act is unconstitutional. We will disregard it, and punish you for the attempt.’

At Virginia’s ratifying convention, future United States attorney general Edmund Randolph likewise expected the states to play an active role in preventing federal encroachments on their reserved powers. Any attempt on the part of the federal government to exercise a power not delegated to it would be an “absolute usurpation,” he said, and “the influence of the state governments will nip it in the bud of hope.”

Here Tom Woods educates Bill O'Reilly on the General Welfare. Preambles have no legal force.

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote LysanderSpooner:
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote LysanderSpooner:I think you have it backwards. If the "General Welfare" was to be open-ended, there would have been no need to list the powers of Congress. In addition, the 10th Amendment explicitly said that if the power isn't listed it retained by the States or the people.
I don't have the problem here... you do. The power to tax and spend for the general welfare IS A POWER.

What is so unclear about

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

that confuses you to its intent??

If the original intent was ONLY for those powers listed AFTER the general welfare clause... there'd be no point in listing general welfare TWICE in the Constitution. It's not just listed as a power... but as a PURPOSE for the Constitution. It's that Preamble that is the Rosetta Stone to decode what follows.

And you do realize that the BOR... with that 10th amendment, was written and ratified years AFTER the Constitution was written and ratified as it still stands? Isn't the issue here original intent? Pray tell, where does the Tenth negate ANY part of Article 1, Sec 8? I don't see it. Please feel free to enlighten us.

Technically the BORs is redundant. Before their enactment, the general government had the same limited powers.

Why other quoting me if you're going to ignore the question we were actually discussing... that of the powers of government?

Quote LysanderSpooner:

Here Tom Woods educates Bill O'Reilly on the General Welfare. Preambles have no legal force.

Ah gee... it's that Tom Woods comedian again. Been there, done that with this clip. The Preamble states the purpose of what's to follow. Consider it rules of interpretation. Woods and I agree. Where Woods and I disagree is what I wrote above somewhere. It DOES make sense to have a power to tax and spend for the general welfare separate from the other enumerated powers because it does two things: it tells Congress there are some minimum things it must accomplish for the new government... and it gives Congress flexibility to do more if this is what the People want. As for Madison... Wood's accuses Hamilton of duplicity, yet sweeps under the rug Madison's. One of Madison's FIRST proposals in the FIRST Congress... that of creating a system of hospitals for disabled seamen. There's NO specific power for this in the Constitution. It's not authorized by the most liberal reading of the commerce clause. It's finally passed in 1798 and seamen ARE taxed to finance this system. So why is Wood's holding Madison up as proof of anything?

So as usual... Woods pretense of being some definitive scholar on the Constitution is laughable... as is your constant putting up his videos.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote LysanderSpooner:
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote LysanderSpooner:I think you have it backwards. If the "General Welfare" was to be open-ended, there would have been no need to list the powers of Congress. In addition, the 10th Amendment explicitly said that if the power isn't listed it retained by the States or the people.
I don't have the problem here... you do. The power to tax and spend for the general welfare IS A POWER.

What is so unclear about

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

that confuses you to its intent??

If the original intent was ONLY for those powers listed AFTER the general welfare clause... there'd be no point in listing general welfare TWICE in the Constitution. It's not just listed as a power... but as a PURPOSE for the Constitution. It's that Preamble that is the Rosetta Stone to decode what follows.

And you do realize that the BOR... with that 10th amendment, was written and ratified years AFTER the Constitution was written and ratified as it still stands? Isn't the issue here original intent? Pray tell, where does the Tenth negate ANY part of Article 1, Sec 8? I don't see it. Please feel free to enlighten us.

Technically the BORs is redundant. Before their enactment, the general government had the same limited powers.

Why other quoting me if you're going to ignore the question we were actually discussing... that of the powers of government?

Quote LysanderSpooner:

Here Tom Woods educates Bill O'Reilly on the General Welfare. Preambles have no legal force.

Ah gee... it's that Tom Woods comedian again. Been there, done that with this clip. The Preamble states the purpose of what's to follow. Consider it rules of interpretation. Woods and I agree. Where Woods and I disagree is what I wrote above somewhere. It DOES make sense to have a power to tax and spend for the general welfare separate from the other enumerated powers because it does two things: it tells Congress there are some minimum things it must accomplish for the new government... and it gives Congress flexibility to do more if this is what the People want. As for Madison... Wood's accuses Hamilton of duplicity, yet sweeps under the rug Madison's. One of Madison's FIRST proposals in the FIRST Congress... that of creating a system of hospitals for disabled seamen. There's NO specific power for this in the Constitution. It's not authorized by the most liberal reading of the commerce clause. It's finally passed in 1798 and seamen ARE taxed to finance this system. So why is Wood's holding Madison up as proof of anything?

So as usual... Woods pretense of being some definitive scholar on the Constitution is laughable... as is your constant putting up his videos.

Woods has criticized Madison for his about face on Nullification, which you also oppose.

I have one follow up question. Who or what is the final say on Constitutionality?

That act was passed under the Commerce Clause.

Does that 1798 Act Make Obamacare Constitutional?

Left-liberals have been arguing that the 1798 Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen, which none of them knew about until well after Obama’s health-care bill passed, makes Obama’s bill constitutional. Touching as this sudden constitutional scrupulosity may be, the 1798 act proves no such thing. Rob Natelson sent me a note to this effect that he has permitted me to share on this blog. (Prof. Natelson, formerly of the University of Montana Law School, is Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence at the Independence Institute in Colorado.) What follows is in addition to the more fundamental point that the mere fact that something has been done once is no proof of its constitutionality; such a principle would require us to endorse all manner of enormities.

As you have reported in your weblog, some “progressive” commentators have argued that 1 Stat. 605 [the Act for Sick and Disabled Seamen] was adopted pursuant to the Constitution’s General Welfare Clause, and they have cited it as a constitutional precedent for Medicaid and for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

As you have pointed out, however, the measure was not passed until nearly a decade after the ratification of the Constitution. This renders it only weak evidence, if it is evidence at all, of the understanding at the ratification. (See my book, The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant, p. 40, for a discussion of the appropriate time limits for evidence of original understanding.)

More importantly, though, the “progressives” appear to be sadly mistaken as to the constitutional basis for the law. The historical record makes it clear that it was not adopted under the General Welfare Clause, but was considered a constitutional regulation of foreign commerce precisely because it targeted directly workers involved in navigation.

There are several bases for this conclusion:

First, at the time of the Founding the legal term “regulate commerce” was defined to include the regulation of navigation. See Robert G. Natelson, The Legal Meaning of “Commerce” in the Commerce Clause, 80 St. John’s L. Rev. 789 (2006) (collecting over 500 uses of the term “commerce” in prior and contemporaneous legal materials). That is why Chief Justice John Marshall could write in Gibbons v. Ogden that “all America is united in that construction which comprehends navigation in the word commerce” and why he included regulation of mariners and merchantmen within that term.

Second, in congressional debate the bill’s advocates compared the measure to an act of Parliament for British sailors dating from the reign of Charles II. That program was discussed—and approved—by James Otis, one of the most famous pre-revolutionary American advocates, in his highly influential pamphlet, The Rights of the British Colonists Asserted and Proved. Otis, like other colonial pamphleteers, laid heavy emphasis on the distinction between British exactions for revenue (taxes), which they rejected, and British impositions for the regulation of inter-colonial trade, which they accepted. Thus, Otis’ acceptance of the British mariners’ law strongly suggests that he and his contemporaries considered such measures to be no more than regulation of navigation, and therefore of commerce.

Third, in congressional debate the exaction was discussed as offsetting or complementing bounties on fishing and the duty on salt—quintessential “regulations of commerce” as the term was used then.

Fourth, although the word “tax” appeared in earlier drafts of 1 Stat. 605, the word was removed before passage.

Fifth, as a check-off from mariners’ pay, the program was analogous to other self-funded regulations of commerce, such as fees imposed for the funding of inspection laws (cf. U.S. Const. Art. I, Section 10, Clause 2).

Sixth: The only constitutional opposition to the act in Congress arose to earlier bill drafts, when the exaction was still referred to as a tax. The ground of opposition was that might be an unconstitutional unapportioned direct tax. The lack of other constitutional objections (it passed overwhelmingly), coupled with its precedent in the British Empire, suggests a consensus that 1 Stat. 605 was authorized as a regulation of foreign commerce.

Seventh: The foregoing is strengthen by the historical context of the bill: It was adopted during the Napoleonic Wars, when the U.S. was trying to protect our shipping from measures taken against it by France and Britain and when there were increased risks to American seamen. Again, this suggests that it was a measure passed under the Commerce Power in facilitation of navigation.

Obviously, therefore, 1 Stat. 605 is not a serious precedent for modern federal health care programs, which are supported by taxes and go far beyond serving people directly involved in navigation.

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote LysanderSpooner:Woods has criticized Madison for his about face on Nullification, which you also oppose.
I oppose the notion not because I don't hope states roll back stupid federal laws... such as Colorado has done with pot, but because I don't see it in the Constitution. In fact I see the opposite in Article 6:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Quote LysanderSpooner:I have one follow up question. Who or what is the final say on Constitutionality?
Under the Constitution it's the Supreme Court... Article 3

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

Quote LysanderSpooner:That act was passed under the Commerce Clause. Does that 1798 Act Make Obamacare Constitutional?
That's really an empty claim since I, and others have looked through the debates leading to the passage of the Disabled Seamen bill and there was nothing there. And like I said, even the most liberal reading of the commerce clause does NOT lend itself to taxing sailors to create a new hospital system for them. So what's left?

Quote LysanderSpooner:Left-liberals have been arguing that the 1798 Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen, which none of them knew about until well after Obama’s health-care bill passed, makes Obama’s bill constitutional. Touching as this sudden constitutional scrupulosity may be, the 1798 act proves no such thing.

Sorry, that argument isn't convincing. And let us not forget that the government HAS in the past mandated citizens purchase to make purchases against their will. We see this in the Militia Acts of 1792. Militia members were mandated to obtain a suitable firearm whether they wanted to or not.

A year later, the Navy was also added to the Seamen bill. That's NOT commerce.

CHAP. XXXVI - An Act in addition to "An act for the relief of sick and disabled Seamen."

SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States shall be, and he hereby is authorized to direct the expenditure of any monies which have been or shall be collected by virtue of an act, entitled "An act for the relief of sick and disabled seamen," to be made within the state, wherein the same shall have been collected, or within the state next adjoining thereto, excepting what may be collected in the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut; any thing in the said act contained to the contrary thereof, notwithstanding

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the Secretary of the Navy shall be, and he hereby is authorized and directed to deduct, after the first day of September next, from, the pay thereafter to become due, of the officers, seamen and marines of the navy of the United States, at the rate of twenty cents per month, for every such officer, seaman and marine, and to pay the same quarter annually to the Secretary of the Treasury, to be applied to the same purposes, as the money collected by virtue of the above mentioned act is appropriated.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That the officers, seamen and marines of the navy of the United States, shall be entitled to receive the same benefits and advantages, as by the act above mentioned are provided for the relief of the sick and disabled seamen of the merchant vessels of the United States.

APPROVED, March 2, 1799.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The Alien and Sedition Acts were passed in 1798 (which lead to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions). Were they Constitution?

I think you don't understand the English language. The Supremacy Clause says that only those laws made pursuant to the Constitution are the supreme law. Not any law. Which begs the question. Under your theory of the Constitution, the federal government (the SC is a part of the federal gov't) is the judge of its own powers. That's ludicrous.

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

http://www.nps.gov/liho/historyculture/slavery.htm

October 13, 1858: Sixth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas, Quincy, Illinois

In the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Douglas maintained that the Founding Fathers established this nation half-slave and half-free in the belief that it would always be so. Lincoln argued that the Founding Fathers considered slavery wrong, and firmly expected it to die a natural death.

I wish to return Judge Douglas my profound thanks for his public annunciation here to-day, to be put on record, that his system of policy in regard to the institution of slavery contemplates that it shall last forever. We are getting a little nearer the true issue of this controversy, and I am profoundly grateful for this one sentence. Judge Douglas asks you "why cannot the institution of slavery, or rather, why cannot the nation, part slave and part free, continue as our fathers made it forever?" In the first place, I insist that our fathers did not make this nation half slave and half free, or part slave and part free. I insist that they found the institution of slavery existing here. They did not make it so, but they left it so because they knew of no way to get rid of it at that time. When Judge Douglas undertakes to say that as a matter of choice the fathers of the government made this nation part slave and part free, he assumes what is historically a falsehood. More than that; when the fathers of the government cut off the source of slavery by the abolition of the slave trade, and adopted a system of restricting it from the new Territories where it had not existed, I maintain that they placed it where they understood, and all sensible men understood, it was in the course of ultimate extinction; and when Judge Douglas asks me why it cannot continue as our fathers made it, I ask him why he and his friends could not let it remain as our fathers made it?

I think what has been proven here is that the South tried to destroy America which is why libertarians are against the Civil War because they hate America. Moreover, americans can take each others' money from them and spend it on whatever they want, because freedom. It is proven totally and there is not way to debate or argue it at all, period.

nimblecivet's picture
nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote LysanderSpooner:

The Alien and Sedition Acts were passed in 1798 (which lead to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions). Were they Constitution?

I think you don't understand the English language. The Supremacy Clause says that only those laws made pursuant to the Constitution are the supreme law. Not any law. Which begs the question. Under your theory of the Constitution, the federal government (the SC is a part of the federal gov't) is the judge of its own powers. That's ludicrous.

I'm well aware of the "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof... " clause.

So of course not every law is constitutional... and unfortunately those who make such OFFICIAL judgements... ie the Supreme Court, are often politically motivated. I thought that over the years I was clear my MORAL position is any law that exceeds legitimate intent is an abuse of power. So from this standpoint I'm all for states when they break from stupid or oppressive federal laws... and I'm for the federal government when they stop states from stupid or oppressive laws.

But I often here debate from the viewpoint of what I see as original intent of in the Constitution... a concept often in contention. And I've also been clear it's a document I have many problems with. You tend to debate from a strictly Libertarian stance often in opposition to the Constitution.

There's NO perfect system to safeguard rights... even your precious federalism under the Articles protected slavery and disenfranchised women. There might even have been official state Sabbath requirements. And neither will your claim rights can be protected by the courts in your libertarian paradise since that system, too, can be gamed or bought... and according to you, no one can even sue until AFTER a harm has been done... and then only that party. How is that "justice"?

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Ultrax I think you are confused. The government did not force you to purchase a product in either the disabled seamen act or the militia act. Under the disabled seamen act the government taxed the owners of the ships as they came from foreign ports. This tax was used to pay for medical care if and when they needed care, at best this tax was a savings account for future use.

Under the militia act if you voluntarily joined the militia than you had to have a working weapon. Why would you join the militia if you did not want to own a weapon?

longdistance's picture
longdistance
Joined:
Jan. 2, 2014 11:26 pm
Quote longdistance:Ultrax I think you are confused. The government did not force you to purchase a product in either the disabled seamen act or the militia act. Under the disabled seamen act the government taxed the owners of the ships as they came from foreign ports. This tax was used to pay for medical care if and when they needed care, at best this tax was a savings account for future use. Under the militia act if you voluntarily joined the militia than you had to have a working weapon. Why would you join the militia if you did not want to own a weapon?
The one confused here isn't I. The Disabled Seamen Act technically was a tax to fund a new government health care system a sailor might not want to fund. The Militia Acts of 1792 REQUIRED all able-bodied white males of a certain age to join AND provide their own weapon and ammo. And since such things are not free, those without would have to purchase them.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

One of the best definitions of liberty I've seen comes from the Rights Of Man

4. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.

5. Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law.

6. Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote nimblecivet:

I think what has been proven here is that the South tried to destroy America which is why libertarians are against the Civil War because they hate America. Moreover, americans can take each others' money from them and spend it on whatever they want, because freedom. It is proven totally and there is not way to debate or argue it at all, period.

There was no "America". There was a voluntary union, a confederation, of States. The term "united States" was, before the misnamed Civil War, always referred to in the plural. For example, these United States, and "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies" and

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote longdistance:Ultrax I think you are confused. The government did not force you to purchase a product in either the disabled seamen act or the militia act. Under the disabled seamen act the government taxed the owners of the ships as they came from foreign ports. This tax was used to pay for medical care if and when they needed care, at best this tax was a savings account for future use. Under the militia act if you voluntarily joined the militia than you had to have a working weapon. Why would you join the militia if you did not want to own a weapon?
The one confused here isn't I. The Disabled Seamen Act technically was a tax to fund a new government health care system a sailor might not want to fund. The Militia Acts of 1792 REQUIRED all able-bodied white males of a certain age to join AND provide their own weapon and ammo. And since such things are not free, those without would have to purchase them.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

You mean like welfare and social security. As far as the militia went the requirement to purchase a weapon was a mute point as pretty much everyone already owned a weapon in those days it was a mater of survival. Also think of the requirement to join more like selective service requirement of today. The local csptians knew who would be useful to themilitia and who where to scared to be of service.

longdistance's picture
longdistance
Joined:
Jan. 2, 2014 11:26 pm
Quote longdistance:You mean like welfare and social security. As far as the militia went the requirement to purchase a weapon was a mute point as pretty much everyone already owned a weapon in those days it was a mater of survival. Also think of the requirement to join more like selective service requirement of today. The local csptians knew who would be useful to the militia and who where to scared to be of service.
Man, you certainly prefer to move the goal post and sweep your original claims under the carpet than retract your ignorance of these two laws. Here's your original claim again

Quote longdistance:Ultrax I think you are confused. The government did not force you to purchase a product in either the disabled seamen act or the militia act. Under the disabled seamen act the government taxed the owners of the ships as they came from foreign ports. This tax was used to pay for medical care if and when they needed care, at best this tax was a savings account for future use. Under the militia act if you voluntarily joined the militia than you had to have a working weapon. Why would you join the militia if you did not want to own a weapon?

You were wrong about the militia being voluntary... and that many WOULD be forced by the government to purchase weapons. As for the Disabled Seamen Act, the tax was on individual sailors and was NOT voluntary... and thus is very similar to Obamacare.

§ 1. Be it enacted, Sfc. That from and after the first day of September next, the master or owner of every ship or vessel of the United States, arriving from a foreign port into any port of the United States, shall, before such ship or vessel shall be admitted to an entry, render to the collector a true account of the number of seamen that shall have been employed on board such vessel since she was last entered at any port in the United States, and shall pay, to the said collector, at the rate of twenty cents per month for every seaman so employed ; which sum he is hereby authorized to retain out of the wages of such seamen.

As for these taxes being used as some sort of savings account... hardly. Savings accounts can be exhausted. This was INSURANCE. And there weren't that many ports with these hospitals so chances are sailors might not even visit such a port when he fell ill.

Your retractions are noted even if not offered... which I suspect they won't be.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The only thing "proven" here is that the old rubrick that "to the victor belong the spoils" is never more evident than in the victor's (North) transcription of history as concerns the Civil War. The littany taught to our kids today that 700,000 people died in battles over the ending of the abhorent practice of slavery is, at best, incomplete. It was a battle of Nationalism v. Statism, Labor v. Capital, and N. money versus S. money. As much as it makes us feel good to say that good defeated evil thereby ending slavery, that worthy cause was secondary or perhaps even tertiary to the root causes of the conflict.

Lincoln's own words, as I've laid them out in posts above, demonstrate that could he have preserved (his version) of the Union without ending slavery he would have done so. Recent evidence suggests that as late as the week of his assassination Lincoln was still trying to nenew efforts to facilate re-location of freed Blacks to Panama, Liberia and, in negotiations with the British government, to overseas Colonial era African territories.

Lincoln, along with many before him, certainly thought that slavery was immoral, but he, and they, never thought of Blacks as "equal". To me that taints any smug moral superiority exhibited by those who denigrate the South out of hand.

http://www.pbs.org/jefferson/archives/documents/ih199642.htm

Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, Excerpts on Slavery 1821

"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government."

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 12:42 pm
Quote mjolnir:Lincoln, along with many before him, certainly thought that slavery was immoral, but he, and they, never thought of Blacks as "equal". To me that taints any smug moral superiority exhibited by those who denigrate the South out of hand.

So... we now are to exonerate the slave south because Lincoln wasn't the anti-slavery champion some believe him to be?

Doesn't work that way Sport. But it's telling that YOU think it does.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote mjolnir:Lincoln, along with many before him, certainly thought that slavery was immoral, but he, and they, never thought of Blacks as "equal". To me that taints any smug moral superiority exhibited by those who denigrate the South out of hand.

So... we now are to exonerate the slave south because Lincoln wasn't the anti-slavery champion some believe him to be?

Doesn't work that way Sport. But it's telling that YOU think it does.

Nothing I've said indicates that I think the South is to be absolved of blame. I do think however that if one is going to postulate on morality you need to include all the facts. Your haste to make accusations is exactly the type of "mote in your own eye" smuggness that I'm talking about.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 12:42 pm
Quote mjolnir:
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote mjolnir:Lincoln, along with many before him, certainly thought that slavery was immoral, but he, and they, never thought of Blacks as "equal". To me that taints any smug moral superiority exhibited by those who denigrate the South out of hand.

So... we now are to exonerate the slave south because Lincoln wasn't the anti-slavery champion some believe him to be?

Doesn't work that way Sport. But it's telling that YOU think it does.

Nothing I've said indicates that I think the South is to be absolved of blame. I do think however that if one is going to postulate on morality you need to include all the facts. Your haste to make accusations is exactly the type of "mote in your own eye" smuggness that I'm talking about.

I'm simply pointing out that the issue of Lincoln's beliefs and the south's slavery are TWO separate issues. YOU are the one that made the second dependent on the first in order to take a cheap shot. But then you are the Cheap Shot King.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote mjolnir:
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote mjolnir:Lincoln, along with many before him, certainly thought that slavery was immoral, but he, and they, never thought of Blacks as "equal". To me that taints any smug moral superiority exhibited by those who denigrate the South out of hand.

So... we now are to exonerate the slave south because Lincoln wasn't the anti-slavery champion some believe him to be?

Doesn't work that way Sport. But it's telling that YOU think it does.

Nothing I've said indicates that I think the South is to be absolved of blame. I do think however that if one is going to postulate on morality you need to include all the facts. Your haste to make accusations is exactly the type of "mote in your own eye" smuggness that I'm talking about.

I'm simply pointing out that the issue of Lincoln's beliefs and the south's slavery are TWO separate issues. YOU are the one that made the second dependent on the first in order to take a cheap shot. But then you are the Cheap Shot King.

I present facts and links to back them up, all I see from you is verbiage. I'm sorry if that process puts a little tarnish on your hero's halos. A "Cheap Shot" is talking in all inclusive terms about the "south's slavery" and being too lazy to do the research that reveals that many more than 2/3 of that regions population never owned slaves.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 12:42 pm
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote longdistance:You mean like welfare and social security. As far as the militia went the requirement to purchase a weapon was a mute point as pretty much everyone already owned a weapon in those days it was a mater of survival. Also think of the requirement to join more like selective service requirement of today. The local csptians knew who would be useful to the militia and who where to scared to be of service.
Man, you certainly prefer to move the goal post and sweep your original claims under the carpet than retract your ignorance of these two laws. Here's your original claim again

Quote longdistance:Ultrax I think you are confused. The government did not force you to purchase a product in either the disabled seamen act or the militia act. Under the disabled seamen act the government taxed the owners of the ships as they came from foreign ports. This tax was used to pay for medical care if and when they needed care, at best this tax was a savings account for future use. Under the militia act if you voluntarily joined the militia than you had to have a working weapon. Why would you join the militia if you did not want to own a weapon?

You were wrong about the militia being voluntary... and that many WOULD be forced by the government to purchase weapons. As for the Disabled Seamen Act, the tax was on individual sailors and was NOT voluntary... and thus is very similar to Obamacare.

§ 1. Be it enacted, Sfc. That from and after the first day of September next, the master or owner of every ship or vessel of the United States, arriving from a foreign port into any port of the United States, shall, before such ship or vessel shall be admitted to an entry, render to the collector a true account of the number of seamen that shall have been employed on board such vessel since she was last entered at any port in the United States, and shall pay, to the said collector, at the rate of twenty cents per month for every seaman so employed ; which sum he is hereby authorized to retain out of the wages of such seamen.

As for these taxes being used as some sort of savings account... hardly. Savings accounts can be exhausted. This was INSURANCE. And there weren't that many ports with these hospitals so chances are sailors might not even visit such a port when he fell ill.

Your retractions are noted even if not offered... which I suspect they won't be.

Not sweeping anything under the rug or moving the goal posts, I am saying the requirement was a non requirement like registering for the selective service. Yes it says it a is requirement but not really. The tax on the disabled seamen act was an employer tax not an employee paid tax. I understand you do not understand the difference but that is not my problem. For obamacare to be like the disabled seamen act it would have to say the business has to provide health insurence or pay a tax not the individual.

Social security is taken out if your pay also even the employer matching is part of your pay. So no retractions are needed. As I have said the militia requirement like selective service requirement is a non requirement asmakibg it voluntary.

Are you learning yet. By the way what does this have to do with the title of the discussion.

longdistance's picture
longdistance
Joined:
Jan. 2, 2014 11:26 pm
Quote longdistance:
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote longdistance:You mean like welfare and social security. As far as the militia went the requirement to purchase a weapon was a mute point as pretty much everyone already owned a weapon in those days it was a mater of survival. Also think of the requirement to join more like selective service requirement of today. The local csptians knew who would be useful to the militia and who where to scared to be of service.
Man, you certainly prefer to move the goal post and sweep your original claims under the carpet than retract your ignorance of these two laws. Here's your original claim again

Quote longdistance:Ultrax I think you are confused. The government did not force you to purchase a product in either the disabled seamen act or the militia act. Under the disabled seamen act the government taxed the owners of the ships as they came from foreign ports. This tax was used to pay for medical care if and when they needed care, at best this tax was a savings account for future use. Under the militia act if you voluntarily joined the militia than you had to have a working weapon. Why would you join the militia if you did not want to own a weapon?

You were wrong about the militia being voluntary... and that many WOULD be forced by the government to purchase weapons. As for the Disabled Seamen Act, the tax was on individual sailors and was NOT voluntary... and thus is very similar to Obamacare.

§ 1. Be it enacted, Sfc. That from and after the first day of September next, the master or owner of every ship or vessel of the United States, arriving from a foreign port into any port of the United States, shall, before such ship or vessel shall be admitted to an entry, render to the collector a true account of the number of seamen that shall have been employed on board such vessel since she was last entered at any port in the United States, and shall pay, to the said collector, at the rate of twenty cents per month for every seaman so employed ; which sum he is hereby authorized to retain out of the wages of such seamen.

As for these taxes being used as some sort of savings account... hardly. Savings accounts can be exhausted. This was INSURANCE. And there weren't that many ports with these hospitals so chances are sailors might not even visit such a port when he fell ill.

Your retractions are noted even if not offered... which I suspect they won't be.

Not sweeping anything under the rug or moving the goal posts...
ROTF... not sweeping anything under the rug EXCEPT all your claims that turned out to be W_R_O_N_G and that you refuse to retract.

Feel free to spin that any way you want. Your problem is with reality... not with me.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote longdistance:
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote longdistance:Ultrax I think you are confused. The government did not force you to purchase a product in either the disabled seamen act or the militia act. Under the disabled seamen act the government taxed the owners of the ships as they came from foreign ports. This tax was used to pay for medical care if and when they needed care, at best this tax was a savings account for future use. Under the militia act if you voluntarily joined the militia than you had to have a working weapon. Why would you join the militia if you did not want to own a weapon?
The one confused here isn't I. The Disabled Seamen Act technically was a tax to fund a new government health care system a sailor might not want to fund. The Militia Acts of 1792 REQUIRED all able-bodied white males of a certain age to join AND provide their own weapon and ammo. And since such things are not free, those without would have to purchase them.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

As far as the militia went the requirement to purchase a weapon was a mute point as pretty much everyone already owned a weapon in those days it was a mater of survival.
Prove it. Why would every potential militia member who lived in a city need a firearm for their survival? If true that EVERYONE owned a gun why did at least one state loan guns to the poor militia members that could not afford them?

Quote longdistance:Also think of the requirement to join more like selective service requirement of today. The local csptians knew who would be useful to themilitia and who where to scared to be of service.
You DO know how to read the actual law, don't you? What part of "That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia..." makes this membership like Selective Service when they MUST own weapons and equipment and MUST turn out for muster?

And where is there ANYTHING in the Militia Acts that permits officers to tell those who were "scared" they didn't have to be in the militia.

And what part of the Seamen Act that says the money must be withheld from the WAGES of the seamen makes it like an employer contribution in Social Security?

And how is paying this tax like a "savings account" as opposed to insurance? One is a personal account and can be exhausted... insurance spreads the risk over a large risk pool. See the difference? Didn't think so.

I've presented the ACTUAL LAWS that prove your claims wrong... yet you cling to them.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

If you take the various quotes and look at them along a timeline it demonstrates that the Civil War was fought over slavery. The South wanted to expand slavery. The North didn't. The North won. What is so hard to understand about that? Why would you accuse someone who points this out of being "smug"?

The Civil War was 150 years ago but apparently you are one of those people who are hoping that means that now people will be unfamiliar enough with the facts that you can pick a few quotes out and make a few unrelated assertions and then hope that people are confused enough to accept your argument that the whole point of a Republican freeing the slaves was to allow Democrats to enslave people by making them pay taxes to fund welfare.

That is, after all, what LysanderSpooner agreed to in post #2 (the first comment by RealityCalling), isn't it? Or was your point in providing the quotes merely to demonstrate Lincoln's imperfections without giving any insight into his actual viewpoint as it was expressed over time and as it relates to the real reasons the Civil War was fought? Does the fact that some of the people of the periods of the Revolutionary and Civil War thought that some Africans might wish to return to the continent of their origin mean more to you than the fact that the South had developed chattel slavery in response to the banning of the transatlantic slave trade?

If you are not absolving the South of their crimes then what exactly is your point? That the Civil War allowed for the consolidation of the trusts of the Robber Barons? If so, you are the one that has things backwards I'm afraid. It was the consolidation of capital that led to the increase of federalized power. Lincold tried to keep the vision of the small landholder by having his Secretary of the interior allocate half of the frontier lands to be available to homesteaders. The anti-trust activity of Theodore Roosevelt which I assume you as well as LysanderSpooner and other look at negatively did not occur until after the trusts and magnates had grown to such proportions that the federal government had to curb their power. But you will no doubt argue that we should return to the good old days of child labor, company scrip and for-hire goon squads to keep the workers in the camps in line. Then turn around and argue that the federal government was responsible for "crony capitalism" when the federalized government allowed for women's suffrage, being able to vote directly for your state senator, federal minimum wage, social security, civil rights, etc.

nimblecivet's picture
nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote longdistance:
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote longdistance:Ultrax I think you are confused. The government did not force you to purchase a product in either the disabled seamen act or the militia act. Under the disabled seamen act the government taxed the owners of the ships as they came from foreign ports. This tax was used to pay for medical care if and when they needed care, at best this tax was a savings account for future use. Under the militia act if you voluntarily joined the militia than you had to have a working weapon. Why would you join the militia if you did not want to own a weapon?
The one confused here isn't I. The Disabled Seamen Act technically was a tax to fund a new government health care system a sailor might not want to fund. The Militia Acts of 1792 REQUIRED all able-bodied white males of a certain age to join AND provide their own weapon and ammo. And since such things are not free, those without would have to purchase them.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

As far as the militia went the requirement to purchase a weapon was a mute point as pretty much everyone already owned a weapon in those days it was a mater of survival.
Prove it. Why would every potential militia member who lived in a city need a firearm for their survival? If true that EVERYONE owned a gun why did at least one state loan guns to the poor militia members that could not afford them?

Quote longdistance:Also think of the requirement to join more like selective service requirement of today. The local csptians knew who would be useful to themilitia and who where to scared to be of service.
You DO know how to read the actual law, don't you? What part of "That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia..." makes this membership like Selective Service when they MUST own weapons and equipment and MUST turn out for muster?

And where is there ANYTHING in the Militia Acts that permits officers to tell those who were "scared" they didn't have to be in the militia.

And what part of the Seamen Act that says the money must be withheld from the WAGES of the seamen makes it like an employer contribution in Social Security?

And how is paying this tax like a "savings account" as opposed to insurance? One is a personal account and can be exhausted... insurance spreads the risk over a large risk pool. See the difference? Didn't think so.

I've presented the ACTUAL LAWS that prove your claims wrong... yet you cling to them.

Selective service says the same thing without weapons ownership and muster and I bet there are millions of people nit on the list. So my point is just because the law required it does not mean it happened. Stop living in your black and white world and move into reality. And likei said earlier everyone already owned weapons back then unlike today as the libs are pushing to have them taken.

longdistance's picture
longdistance
Joined:
Jan. 2, 2014 11:26 pm

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln3/1:36?rgn=div1;view=fulltext

"Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 3.Lincoln, Abraham, 1809-1865."

"I do not perceive how I can express myself, more plainly, than I have done in the foregoing extracts. In four of them I have expressly disclaimed all intention to bring about social and political equality between the white and black races, and, in all the rest, I have done the same thing by clear implication

I have made it equally plain that I think the negro is included in the word ``men'' used in the Declaration of Independence.

I believe the declara[tion] that ``all men are created equal'' is the great fundamental principle upon which our free institutions rest; that negro slavery is violative of that principle; but that, by our frame of government, that principle has not been made one of legal obligation; that by our frame of government, the States which have slavery are to retain it, or surrender it at their own pleasure; and that all others---individuals, free-states and national government---are constitutionally bound to leave them alone about it. ..."

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 12:42 pm

Well of course, if anybody thought that slavery could have been eradicated by force they would have done so without worrying about changing the "frame of government." But that's not the point. You haven't explained why you think the Civil War changed that "frame of government." Apparently you think that the right of a state to secede is more important than the explicitly stated equality that the founding documents express. Of course, that doesn't stop you from arguing that only your interpretation of the word "welfare" is valid. And god forbid you turn your attention to President Grant or any of the other presidents in office during Reconstruction; no bone to pick there apparently, even though that was an actual attempt to bring about some kind of justice if not exact social equality; it failed, so it need not be mentioned I see.

nimblecivet's picture
nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I'm sorry, but justifying the individual mandate on some law about seamen from 1780-whatever is about as desperate as it gets. The government has the right to compel service only in the case of immediate national danger, due to a declaration of war. That's not even granting it as a given that the draft is constitutional much less that a person is therefore required to buy their own weapons. It is relevant that weapons are used for multiple purposes including self-defence, because in a time of war it could reasonably be argued that these weapons already in the ownership of the individual be used by that person as an armament of war. But it is antithetical to the constitution that a standing army of modern times be furnished with arms by its conscripts. The federal government may have the right to wage war, and it has the right to tax and spend in the name of the general welfare, but it does not have the right to control an individual's behavior generally including what that person does with their money.

I find it sad that so many people who were against the individual mandate due to the general outrage from all sides over it have now so often given up and changed their rhetoric. The genuine outrage comes from those who understand that rhetoric is not merely used for force but to engage in the long-term struggle for peaceful revolution.

nimblecivet's picture
nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I was with you up until the "what that person does with their(sic) money." The right to tax is telling us what to do with "our" money as a member of this society. In this stupid end run around real health care access reform, and in order to pay off those who would have had the clout to stop anything better, the 'individual mandate' is a piece of sophistry to avoid calling a taxpayer funded subsidy what it really is. I would gladly dip every dollar that goes to health insurance pirates in Fukushima waste first. But, the idea that Single Payer would not be our group insurance plan with pro-rated tax contributions and what the Constitution protected was our ability to hold onto "our own" money instead of making smart investments in government, is pretty feeble. We, the People, ought to make sensible investments, like the Danes do.

That list was so free of the ideological bullshit we deal with that it was like a trip to Europe.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm
Quote drc2:

... But, the idea that Single Payer would not be our group insurance plan with pro-rated tax contributions and what the Constitution protected was our ability to hold onto "our own" money instead of making smart investments in government, is pretty feeble.

I'm sorry but that sentence appears to lack either a verb or an object and likely a few other types of words. Actually , I was probably unclear. I meant to say that Single Payer would in fact be those things. Except then I don't know what you would mean by "instead of". For the record, I was for either single-payer or the public option. That would be a group insurance plan with both the ability to hold onto our own money as well as making smart investments in government. Now that Obamacare is the law, I am for those things at the state level. But, no matter what happens at the state level revising and reforming Obamacare will only happen under a democratic president.

btw this is actually a response to #100, not #50. Also, I don't know what the Danes do and I don't know what list you are referring to.

The government only taxes to create value, using money it is constitutionally given to coin. Private industry just creates money for itself in order to use the government to make claims by force on the future production of wealth and whatever else they might set their eyes on. That's where there's a difference between creating value and making a profit.

nimblecivet's picture
nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Our kids are counting on us to reverse austerity.

According to UNICEF, even in the world's richest countires, children remain “the most enduring victims” of the recession. In the last six years, 2.6 million more kids have fallen below the poverty line, and more than half of them live right here in the United States.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system