Posted on 08/30/2003 7:10:08 AM PDT by u-89
Today in the Democrat party. If I had lived about 130 years ago it would have been in the Republican party. But all that changed with the 1896 and following elections.
No. Not as you said. The modifier of being dialectical renders Spooner's system distinct from unqualified anarchism. As was previously noted, dialectical anarchism offers a negative proof against the existing state's legitimacy. It does not, however, offer a positive proof of the unqualified legitimacy of the state's non-existence. Spooner always held out that a state would be acceptable and perfectly legitimate so long as it obtained the express consent of its governed. Only when it did not do so was it illegitimate to him.
Now you are intentionally misquoting me by removing the context. I did not make the unqualified statement of "Spooner considered the Constitution unlawful," as you suggest, but rather stated, in full, that "Spooner considered the Constitution unlawful in its application after circa 1860 due to the way the government was using it." Spooner's argument against the lawfulness of the Constitution depended entirely upon the qualification of its use. Otherwise, as a document of consent of the governed - the originally intended purpose of the Constitution - it posed no problems for him. He explicitly said this to be so in his opening and closing of No Treason. To suggest that he believed otherwise, and to misquote me as agreeing with your false suggest, as you just did, is to fib.
Your words are there for all to see, and unlike you, I portray them accurately.
"These hard core libs overlap with revisionist neorebs--they share common hatreds (The USA, The Constitution, the rule of law) and common heroes (Jefferson, Calhoun, Henry)."
Now, as you would probably discover by asking anyone on this forum, hating the USA and Constitution is an incompatible position with adopting Jefferson as a hero. Jefferson is among the foremost of the defining participants and founders of exactly what America is, therefore to support Jefferson is to support the true nature of America. Only by denying Jefferson's role in America could you reach the conclusion that a true Jeffersonian is an America-hater. Thus your statement was either an apalling logical inconsistency or a blatant attempt to implicate Jefferson, along with Henry and Calhoun, into the realm of un-american activities.
I never said neo rebs and anarcho libs were unamerican.
Here is what you said: "These hard core libs overlap with revisionist neorebs--they share common hatreds (The USA, The Constitution, the rule of law)"
To hate the USA is by definition an un-american activity. Therefore you did indeed hold that these persons are un-american.
It's a historical fact that Henry railed against the Constitution. He hated it and said so.
Sure he did, but he didn't hate America.
Jefferson had nothing to do with the Constitution
That is a falsehood propagated by persons who are ignorant of history. While Jefferson was not at the convention itself, his ideas and advice literally shaped the documents formation and guided one of its most important contributers, Madison. Jefferson was also essential to the document's ratification in Virginia by signalling that he would not oppose it. Had he done otherwise it is likely that, combined with the efforts of Henry and Mason, ratification would have failed.
He kept in touch with Madison, but that was the extent of it.
He practically advised the formation of Madison's contribution to it and later facilitated the ratification in Virginia. Jefferson is of course also known for his flippant pen.
Whatever his faults may have been, he was none the less brilliant and much of what he wrote contained great truths.
Calhoun championed a theory--nullification--that has been totally discredited, and one that Madison himself denounced.
Actually, the nullification concept traces its roots back to many influential founding fathers from the anti-federalist faction. It is predicated upon the states rights concepts of Luther Martin, Richard Henry Lee and their followers. While it is not used or accepted today, to suggest that it is discredited as a concept is no more valid that saying arguments for the unconstitutionality of welfare are simultaneously discredited due to their present non-adoption. Ideas derive their merit intrinsically, not from how often they are employed or what "authority" says they should be used.
Yet again I find very little confusing information within your ramblings. I do, however, continue to take great amusement in observing your tortured semantical acrobatics as you try to explain and excuse your way out of previous remarks that were in fact nothing other than a hasty shooting off of your mouth without regard to the contents or consequences.
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.