quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

Do you think Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, or Thomas Payne would stand for a Government Institution forcing some one to go against their religious beliefs?

Well, Modern Progressive Liberals think so... pushing for laws that end up forcing Christian based private businesses and organizations to go against their religious beliefs to be more inclusive for what they deem 'more important'... paying for funding abortion procedures, supporting same-sex marriages, etc.

fact of the matter is those same 'progressive thinkers' that founded this country would probably be identified as conservative today simply because the lines and definitions have shifted so much over these past 200 years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

You are forced to pay for automobile insurance even if you have never had an accident.
You are forced to pay taxes for schools even if you have no children.

quote:

The catholic church being a members only club would be exempt.

quote:

If you think the catholic church is not a for profit bussiness you are mistaken.

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
So a group of nuns entitled being forced to pay into the Affordable Healthcare Act and pay for Abortions or a Catholic Chapel being forced to administer Same Sex marriages fall into that category as well?

I can understand pulling the 'non-discrimination' card when you're talking about a for profit business like a bakery, photographer, or outlet store... but wielding that same law like a sword to attack institutions which only vaguely fall into the definition as a 'for profit business'?

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

Do you think Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, or Thomas Payne would stand for a Government Institution forcing some one to go against their religious beliefs?

Well, Modern Progressive Liberals think so... pushing for laws that end up forcing Christian based private businesses and organizations to go against their religious beliefs to be more inclusive for what they deem 'more important'... paying for funding abortion procedures, supporting same-sex marriages, etc.

fact of the matter is those same 'progressive thinkers' that founded this country would probably be identified as conservative today simply because the lines and definitions have shifted so much over these past 200 years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

You folks do understand that if it were not for liberal progressive thinkers, the US would not exist as it does now?

Consider the facts.

Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Payne, the entire group of men that we call our founding fathers were liberals!

Our entire government is based on liberal ideas at the time of the revolution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
our founding fathers on the whole were "classic liberals" which bear very little resemblance to todays' left.

and yes, what infoman said.

quote:

What were our founding fathers? Were they Conservatives? Liberals? Monarchists? Anarchists? Many people have not even heard this term before, but most were what we call “Classical Liberals.”

But what is a Classical Liberal? I would put forward the following brief definition:

A classical liberal is a person who believes in the God-given natural rights of human beings to life, liberty and property; and understands that the purpose of government is to protect those rights to the extent that we as individuals can not efficiently do it ourselves. Crime is the forceful violation of another person's rights and the only legitimate circumstance to deprive a person of any of their rights is in response to their unlawful deprivation of another person's rights. And in all cases, the punishment should match the offense plus with extra compensation to the victim.

Classical Liberalism is a very simple philosophy that leaves no room for large, overbearing government. John Locke, who was a favorite philosopher of our founders, articulated the foundation of Classical Liberalism.

John Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, 1690

“TO understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man. . .

The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's. . .”

So according to the law of nature, every person has natural rights, and with those rights come a right to defend them against aggression. Crime is the willful violation of another person's rights, which calls for like punishment. In nature, it would be the responsibility of the individual to carry out the punishment, but within society, people can organize themselves and institute an organization to take care of this so they can focus on more productive activities. That is the basis of proper civil government. It is an organization authorized by the citizenry to carry out punishment on those who violate the natural rights of others.

But what if a government ceases to fulfill that task and instead institutionalizes the violation of its citizens' rights? As Locke later put it,

“Wherever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another's harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command to compass that upon the subject which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate, and acting without authority may be opposed, as any other man who by force invades the right of another.”

Some very strong words from a very brilliant man. But what did our founding fathers have to say on the topic?

Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776

“SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one. . . Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest. . .

. . .here too is the design and end of government, viz. Freedom and security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with show, or our ears deceived by sound; however prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and reason will say, 'tis right.”

So what is the purpose of proper government? To protect its citizens' “freedom” by providing “security.” Samuel Adams, the celebrated “Father of the American Revolution,” wrote this,

Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, 1772

“Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. . .

In the state of nature men may, as the patriarchs did, employ hired servants for the defence of their lives, liberties, and property; and they should pay them reasonable wages. Government was instituted for the purposes of common defence, and those who hold the reins of government have an equitable, natural right to an honorable support from the same principle that ” the laborer is worthy of his hire.” But then the same community which they serve ought to be the assessors of their pay. Governors have no right to seek and take what they please; by this, instead of being content with the station assigned them, that of honorable servants of the society, they would soon become absolute masters, despots, and tyrants. Hence, as a private man has a right to say what wages he will give in his private affairs, so has a community to determine what they will give and grant of their substance for the administration of public affairs. And, in both cases, more are ready to offer their service at the proposed and stipulated price than are able and willing to perform their duty.

In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property.“

Now we arrive at Thomas Jefferson, the greatest political philosopher among our founding fathers. He articulated the philosophy of Classical Liberalism as follows:

Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence, 1776

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that

1.all men are created equal, that


2.they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That


3.to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That


4.whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


Classical Liberalism is a radical ideology that can topple even the most powerful nation. BUT, it can also rebuild a nation. That is the main difference between Classical Liberalism and Anarchism.

So now let me consolidate and summarize the basic principles of Classical Liberalism.

Law:

Law predates the institution of civil government. There are no such things as law-makers, only law protectors. This natural law comes from God Himself and is perfect, and human laws are made only to the degradation of this law.

Rights:

The natural rights of human beings to life, liberty, and the fruit of their labor (property) are given them by God. These rights are not granted by governments and can not lawfully be taken away by the same.

Force:

There are two kinds of force:

1.Aggressive (or coersive) force, which violates another person's rights and is therefore an unlawful use of force.


2.Defensive (or reactionary) force, which is in response to aggressive force. This is a lawful use of force.


Power:

All power emanates from the individual, thus, power flows upward. Governments therefore receive their power from the individuals that make up their populace, and should be held in check by the same. If a government breaks the social contract, it is the right of the people to remove it and institute proper government in its place.

Goals:

The end of classical liberalism is true liberty. Thus, a classical liberal's job is never done. The classical liberal is always looking forward to that goal. This is in contrast to those that can be called “conservative” which defend the status quo and fight for what was, rather than looking forward to what should be. The true goals of classical liberalism have not yet been accomplished at any point in our country's history. Thomas Jefferson knew and understood this and fought for these goals until he died.

The Social Contract:

As Samuel Adams described in “The Rights of the Colonists,” an individual's relationship to proper government is a contractual business relationship. The people of a land pool their individual power and resources to create an organization, which is a government. This organization has contractual obligations to the people that created it. In this tradition, our founders wrote our Constitution, which begins with the words, “We the people of the United States…” It is the literal “contract with America” and lays out the contractual obligations of our nation's federal government. We give the government certain resources, and then they must fulfill certain obligations to us, the people. Those obligations can be found summarized within the preamble to the Constitution, and are “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

quote:

Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with representative democracy under the rule of law, and emphasizes economic freedoms found in economic liberalism which is also called free market capitalism.[1][2]

Classical liberalism was first called that in the early 19th century, but was built on ideas of the previous century. It was a response to urbanization, and to the Industrial Revolution in Europe and the United States.[3] Notable individuals whose ideas contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke,[4] Thomas Jefferson, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on the economics of Adam Smith and on a belief in natural law,[5] utilitarianism,[6] and progress.[7]...

...some conservatives and libertarians especially in the United States use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of individual freedom and minimal government.[9][10

Classical liberals agreed with Thomas Hobbes that government had been created by individuals to protect themselves from one another, and that the purpose of government should be to minimize conflict between individuals that would otherwise arise in a state of nature.

These beliefs were complemented by a belief that labourers could be best motivated by financial incentive...They opposed any income or wealth redistribution, which they believed would be dissipated by the lowest orders.[13]...

Drawing on selected ideas of Adam Smith, classical liberals believed that it is in the common interest that all individuals must be able to secure their own economic self-interest, without government direction.[14] They were critical of the welfare state[15] as interfering in a free market. They criticised labour's group rights being pursued at the expense of individual rights,[16] while they accepted corporations' rights being pursued at the expense of inequality of bargaining power noted by Adam Smith:[17]...

Classical liberals believed that individuals should be free to obtain work from the highest-paying employers, while the profit motive would ensure that products that people desired were produced at prices they would pay. In a free market, both labour and capital would receive the greatest possible reward, while production would be organised efficiently to meet consumer demand.[18]...

Classical liberals argued for minimal state, limited to the following functions:
protection against foreign invaders, extended to include protection of overseas markets through armed intervention,
protection of citizens from wrongs committed against them by other citizens, which included protection of private property, enforcement of contracts, and suppression of trade unions,
building and maintaining public institutions, and
"public works" that included a stable currency, standard weights and measures, and support of roads, canals, harbours, railways, and postal and other communications services.[19]

They asserted that rights are of a negative nature which require other individuals (and governments) to refrain from interfering with the free market, whereas social liberals asserts that individuals have positive rights, such as the right to vote, the right to an education, the right to health care, and the right to a living wage. For society to guarantee positive rights requires taxation over and above the minimum needed to enforce negative rights.[20][21]

Core beliefs of classical liberals did not necessarily include democracy where law is made by majority vote by citizens, because "there is nothing in the bare idea of majority rule to show that majorities will always respect the rights of property or maintain rule of law."[22] For example, James Madison argued for a constitutional republic with protections for individual liberty over a pure democracy, reasoning that, in a pure democracy, a "common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole...and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party...."

In the late 19th century, classical liberalism developed into neo-classical liberalism, which argued for government to be as small as possible to allow the exercise of individual freedom. In its most extreme form, neo-classical liberalism advocated Social Darwinism.[24] Right-libertarianism is a modern form of neo-classical liberalism...

Thomas Jefferson adopted many of the ideals of liberalism but, in the Declaration of Independence, changed Locke's "life, liberty, and property" to the more socially liberal "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".[4] As America grew, industry became a larger and larger part of American life; and, during the term of America's first populist president, Andrew Jackson, economic questions came to the forefront. The economic ideas of the Jacksonian era were almost universally the ideas of classical liberalism.[36] Freedom was maximised when the government took a "hands off" attitude toward the economy...

The view that modern liberalism is a continuation of classical liberalism is not universally shared.[42] James Kurth, Robert Lerner, John Micklethwait, Adrian Wooldridge, and several other political scholars have argued that classical liberalism still exists today, but in the form of American conservatism.[43] According to Deepak Lal, only in the United States does classical liberalism, through American conservatives, continue to be a significant political force.

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

Do you think Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, or Thomas Payne would stand for a Government Institution forcing some one to go against their religious beliefs?

Well, Modern Progressive Liberals think so... pushing for laws that end up forcing Christian based private businesses and organizations to go against their religious beliefs to be more inclusive for what they deem 'more important'... paying for funding abortion procedures, supporting same-sex marriages, etc.

fact of the matter is those same 'progressive thinkers' that founded this country would probably be identified as conservative today simply because the lines and definitions have shifted so much over these past 200 years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

People who don't support American imperialism have been forced to pay for the Iraq war, and the right supported that war... and now the new government wants to destroy Islam forever, form task forces to round up illegals and build a multi-billion dollar wall. How much is that going to cost and how do the people who don't support it get their money back?

quote:

The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. . . .