Posted on 04/26/2014 5:50:11 AM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
Have you ever come across the suggestion that the America that existed during the time of the Founders is incompatible with "modern America"? There's a huge problem with this. This idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man.
Its true. Progressives believe in centralized planning, which is an older concept than individual Liberty. All we have to do is ask Adam Smith. In his book "The Theory of Moral Sentiments," Adam Smith wrote the following: (Page 95)
The man of system, on the contrary,is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chessboard. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chessboard have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chessboard of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might choose to impress upon it. If those two principles coincide and act in the same direction the game of human society will go on easily and harmoniously, and is very likely to be happy and successful, If they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of disorder.
Centralized planning was well known about in 1759.
Progressives are all "men of system"; that is, they all believe that there needs to be some system in place, we can't just allow people to live their lives as they see fit! They all believe that their ideal system is best - much better than any natural order. They have told us as much. Here are two such examples. This, from a member of FDR's Brains Trust. And as Smith rightly points out, every central planner thinks they all have the ideal plan of government at hand. They are the ones we've been waiting for. Adam Smith continues:
Some general and even systematical idea of the perfection of policy and law may no doubt be necessary for directing the views of the statesman. But to insist upon establishing, and upon establishing all at once, and in spite of all opposition, every thing which that idea may seem to require, must often be the highest degree of arrogance. It is to erect his own judgment into the supreme standard of right and wrong.
The essence of the rule of law vs the rule of man.
As most people know, the Founding Fathers were fond of the writings of Adam Smith, so yes, Adam Smith knew what centralized planning was and by extension so did the Founders. They just didn't call it that.
300 years ago, they would have called centralized planning "Monarchism". Who else would be arranging these chess pieces other than the Kings? The Lords? Quite possibly the Lords, but even if that were true the King would see the Lords arranging chess pieces and would want to arrange a few pieces of his own.
So no, modern America is not incompatible with the Founder's America. Modern America is incompatible with the world view of the Kings, and of the Pharaohs, and any other tyrannical ideas that progressives model themselves after.
No, but there sure knew how to deal with traitors and those wishing to make them into serfs.
It is to fancy himself the only wise and worthy man in the commonwealth, and that his fellow-citizens should accommodate themselves to him and not he to them. It is upon this account, that of all political speculators, sovereign princes, are by far the most dangerous. This arrogance is perfectly familiar to them. They entertain no doubt of the immense superiority of their own judgment. When such imperial and royal reformers, therefore, condescend to contemplate the constitution of the country which is committed to their government, they seldom see any thing so wrong in it as the obstructions which it may sometimes oppose to the execution of their own will.
We have him on audio complaining that the constitution gets in his way. Right here. The Warren Court did not break free, King Barry I wants to break free of these constraints. They get in the way of the execution of his will.
Please add me to your ping list.
I like the idea of making their history widely known. It doesn’t have to be rewritten...unless you’re one of them.
Uh...in reference to the question...do these people know their history?
Do they know who the founders fought and broke away from?
Emperor Obama’s quotes are so strikingly surreal that seeing one like WE DID NOT COME TO FEAR THE FUTURE” in living color is somehow...beyond laughable.
frankly many of my acquaintances have come to fear any future that Barack Hussein Obama is a party to....
They most certainly did.
it was a parliament thousands of miles away with an heredity monarch at the head.
Yes, as someone already wrote, the Founding Fathers knew of “central planning”, long before it became an office in The Politburo.
Yes, it WAS Parliament.
Now, over here, we have The Central Budget Office, which until this queer-in-charge, USED TO BE impartial.
We need to re-visit Galbraith’s teachings on economics, which were working in the 1960’s, when I studied them.
At the heart of a central planning economy is a central bank which a number of the founders successfully (for a while) fought against. Here are some great quotes from them:
For example:
“If the American people ever allow the banks to control issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied”.
— Thomas Jefferson
Sure they did. They were familiar with the courts of Paris, Vienna, Berlin, Madrid, and of course their own country’s experience under the Stuarts—damned un-English. The New World was a safe distance from Europe.
America's choice is between individual freedom and slavery to government--a tyrannical form of slavery.
The formula structured by the Constitution of the United States and laid out in its philosophical foundations--as asserted in the 1776 Declaration of Independence from an overly-powerful government administered by King George III--were explained by America's Founders.
Their writings and speeches, as well as the wisdom writings from previous defenders of liberty, are available online.
THE FEDERALIST, that collection of 85 essays explaining the Constitution's provisions and protections, now can be read in every home and school as a means of enlightening a public which has become too willing to yield their Creator-endowed liberty to a collection of would-be tyrants who call themselves "progressives," but who are, in fact taking all American citizens back to the bondage from which millions of oppressed individuals have fled.
Several years ago, a business man by the name of James R. Evans, in his book, "America's Choice: Twilight's Last Gleaming or Dawn's Early Light," suggested 7 simple principles which we might consider as we watch the President and so-called "progressives" attempt to enslave us through legislation and Executive Orders.
"1. Does this legislation or idea increase, or decrease, individual freedom and creativity?"2. Does this legislation or idea increase, or decrease, the power of some citizens over other citizens?
"3. Does this legislation or idea recognize that the persons who will exercise the power are themselves imperfect human beings?
"4. Does this legislation or idea recognize that government is incapable of creating wealth?
"5. Does this legislation or idea authorize taking from some what belongs to them, and giving it to others to whom it does not belong?
If 'thou shalt not steal' is a valid commandment, can we assume that it is meant to apply only to individuals and not to government (which is made up of individuals), even if those persons in power pass laws which sanction such redistribution of the wealth of others?'"6. Does this legislation or idea encourage, or discourage, the very highest level of morality and responsibility from the individual?
. . .when government makes actions 'legal' by some citizens at the expense of other citizens, the result may be behavior which would not be considered possible by individuals acting alone."7. Does this legislation or idea propose that the 'government' do something which the individual cannot do without committing a crime?"**
**7 principles drawn from James R. Evans book, "America's Choice," and reprinted in a Stedman Corporation (Asheboro, NC) booklet entitled "I'm Only One, What Can I Do?"
The simplicity of these questions and of the core message of the following words by some of America's Founders might jar some citizens into a recognition of what "progressives" and this Administration are doing to the future of liberty for their posterity:
"...nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers, and destroyers press upon them so fast, that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon the American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour. The revenue creates pensioners, and the pensioners urge for more revenue. The people grow less steady, spirited, and virtuous, the seekers more numerous and more corrupt, and every day increases the circles of their dependents and expectants, until virtue, integrity, public spirit, simplicity, and frugality, become the objects of ridicule and scorn, and vanity, luxury, foppery, selfishness, meanness, and downright venality swallow up the whole society." - John AdamsWe must recall that the "legitimate Constitution" provides within its Article V the only "legitimate" means for amendment of its provisions, and that provision requires the action of "We, the People," who are described by Justice Story in his "Commentaries. . . ." as its "only Keepers.""This was a favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money." [This statement referred to a proposed provision in Article I, Section 8, that would have read 'and emit bills of credit (paper money) of the United States,' which the Founders rejected by an overwhelming vote.] - James Madison- Notes of the Federal Convention 1787
"...there have always been those who wish to enlarge the powers of the General Government. There is but one safe rule...confine (it) within the sphere of its appropriate duties. It has no power to raise a revenue or impose taxes except for the purposes enumerated in the Constitution....Every attempt to exercise power beyond these limits should be promptly and firmly opposed." - Andrew Jackson's Valedictory
"...experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government), those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny; and it is believed that the most effectual means of preventing this would be, to illuminate...the minds of the people...to give them knowledge of those facts, which history exhibiteth. History, by apprizing them of the past, will enable them to judge of the future...it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views...." - Jefferson's Bill for the more general diffusion of knowledge for Virginia
"Although all men are born free, slavery has been the general lot of the human race. Ignorant--they have been cheated; asleep--they have been surprised; divided--the yoke has been forced upon them. But what is the lesson?...the people ought to be enlightened, to be awakened, to be united, that after establishing a government they should watch over it....It is universally admitted that a well-instructed people alone can be permanently free." - James Madison
"These principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages and the blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment. They should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety." - Thomas Jefferson-First Inaugural Statement of Principles of Good Government
" I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful exercise of its powers." - James Madison, letter to Henry Lee, June 25, 1824
So-called "progressives," by their own acknowledgement, view "the People's" Constitution as a barrier to their "government-over-people" ideas, and that is not a new thought.
"Now, to bring about government by oligarchy masquerading as democracy, it is fundamentally essential that practically all authority and control be centralized in our national government." - Franklin D. Roosevelt, Address, March 2, 1930
The Founding Fathers were surely familiar with the history of the failed socialism and communism of the colonies.
Put me on your ping list, please.Adam Smith is certainly worth quoting.
“........They are not called monarchists anymore, but deep down, progressives are modern monarchists.”
Precisely. It’s one of the premises I’ve been putting forth here at FR for years when I say they haven’t a clue about individualism, they don’t understand freedom, they only understand Monarchy, Matriarchy, Dictatorship, Mother. The manner I write it is as a joke, but I’m quite serious. To a leftist leadership is being told what to think, what to do, and reaping rewards for doing as they are told.
Actually, Monarchists tend to be in Favour of decentralisation and Small Government. If you’d bother to read either the History of Political Institutions or the actual works of Monarchists like Robert Filmer or Thimas Hobbes you’d soon discover that, far from agreeing with central Planning and odern progressive idas, they were very much the Conservatives of their own Eras.
The Modern progressive who wants central Plannign does so in the hopes of creatign an Egalitarian Democracy in which all Mateiral needs are met and under the beleif that all social ills are caused by lack of Mateiral well being and a lack of a Voice inthe Community. Monarchism rests on Traditional Heirarchy and a Class System,w hich Progressives abhore.
Monachists are not Progressives in any way, they are also not really that big on Central Plannign in general.
You may read the books above, or visit websites like The Mad Monarchist for mroe details.
You appear to know more on the subject than I do, so could you tell me who Adam Smith was writing about in regard to some people moving others around like pieces on a chessboard?
And who would be creating the “disorder” that he wrote about in the passages I quoted?
Not only was this written prior to socialism and communism, it was even written prior to the “french revolution”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.