THE ROOTS OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY (Authentic American Political Philosophy)

The Institute for American Liberty ^ | 1997 | J. David Gowdy

[tacticalogic]

Authentic is essentially what is according to that which the authors... authorized.

And what we have here is a few carefully selected snippets of what the authors "authorized", and an opinion of what it means. The authentic is that which the authors authorized, complete and in context. Reading this is not "studying the authentic" any more than reading a review is watching the movie.

[unspun]

And what we have here is a few carefully selected snippets of what the authors "authorized", and an opinion of what it means...

...plus links to intellectually sound analysis and to the source documents, themselves!

Enjoy!

[tacticalogic]

plus links to intellectually sound analysis and to the source documents, themselves!

The link to the Federalist Papers seems to be rather tenuous. The link to (deletion) should prove interesting reading.

[unspun]

..didn't say you didn't have to go through the Web site's front page, etc.

[MrLeRoy]

Indeed---but where did any of the Founders say that government could create virtue in the people, or that government was even fit to decide what "virtue" is?

People have to discern such things as virtue and principle and govern themselves by them.

So in the context of the Wod_list, which you pinged, that's a vote against the War On Some Drugs.

[MrLeRoy]

The link to (deletion)

?

[tacticalogic]

They have a link to (deletion) there?

[unspun]

Hmmm... let's just say that in discussions regarding the most appropriate drug policy, discussion of what is and is not American political philosophy have come up and this should help to define.

[tacticalogic]

(ii) And with respect to the distinctive principles of the government of the United States of America the best guides are:

(1) The Declaration of Independence;

(2) The "Federalist Papers" ; (deletion) and

(3) The Valedictory (Farewell) Address of President George Washington.

[unspun]

Be objective, now. I copied what they have. See what they actually show.

[tacticalogic]

Be objective, now. I copied what they have. See what they actually show.

I promise to be at least as objective as the message that pinged me to this thread.

[unspun]

That's the spirit!

[MrLeRoy]

Be objective, now.

Unless government can create virtue in the people, laws mandating virtuous behavior are pointless at best. What's unobjective about that?

[Truthsearcher]

And that's precisely why I'm not an atheist, because atheism leads to the gulag. So I can neither advocate, nor adopt, a belief system that lead to such dreadful consequences.

For the record I am a deist.

[tacticalogic]

People have to discern such things as virtue and principle and govern themselves by them.

What happens when bureaucrats and politicians discern virtue and principle differently than the people, and seek to govern others by them?

[Libertarianize the GOP]

Thanks for the ping.

[Baseballguy]

This is what a vote is for. We should understand what it means to cast a vote. We lack true information.

What is needed is a simple election process. Where there are web pages with forums and question and answers. Where the heat and reason of debate would show all faces.

At what point is it to vote someone in that has no virtue and is just a pretty face(Edwards).

[tacticalogic]

This is what a vote is for. We should understand what it means to cast a vote. We lack true information.

There is a vast bureaucracy inside the beltway that has tasked itself with providing us with information, and have set themselves up as the arbiters of what "true information" is. These are the same bureaucracies that write the rules and regulations we live under, and provide our legislators with the information they use to pass laws that enable the regulators.

They will be the first to point to Washington's admonishments that we owe our allegiance and compliance to the government, and hold that as absolute.

[MrLeRoy]

People have to discern such things as virtue and principle and govern themselves by them.

What happens when bureaucrats and politicians discern virtue and principle differently than the people, and seek to govern others by them?

This is what a vote is for.

So when you said, "People have to govern themselves," you meant that the majority must impose its will on the minority. Funny how the founders placed such strict limits on what the federal government was allowed to do, majority vote or not.

[firewalk]

Hello Nic (-:
Thanks for the ping