I recently read this about Jeffersonian Democracy (a way of running things that has often been revered):
Aristippus and I were discussing this the other day. But...come on, an Empire of Liberty? Sounds like Jefferson formed the base of American imperialism.
Have you read what he wrote on the 'Empire of Liberty'? He's not talking about an overarching imperial state, but of a civilization of free peoples, much like that which libertarians desire.
"Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part."
Note that he doesn't even say one state or empire but rather one 'confederacy', i.e. that even if united in some way, the 'Empire of Liberty' would still be a decentralized polity.
Was this "Empire of Liberty" a literal vision, or just some metaphor?
From what I read he stated that the Empire of Liberty required the United States to go overseas promoting it's "democratic values" or whatever. Sounds pretty familiar to me.
=P No standing army? Imperialism is probably pretty difficult in that event.
It sounds contradictory in that regard. He talks about spreading the Empire of Liberty in one regard, and then stating that the U.S. shouldn't maintain an army or navy.
Where does he say that? It seemed to me that he was discussing the possibility of what is now Canada breaking away from Britain and joining the USA.
Why don't you find where he describes the tactics of "spreading democracy."
If I remember correctly, he means "setting an example." (Also, I forgive his distaste for the Spanish and French empires on the North American continent for obvious reasons, even though one of the most revered of U.S. Generals was a Spanish spy during the revolutionary war - and everyone knew it.)
Okay, perhaps. But if I read this correctly, he is promoting the use of the embargo as a means to defense, correct?
Ron Paul himself once said that sanctions are evil.
Dr. Paul knows sanctions don't work, in Jefferson's day his Treasury Sec. told him it wasn't a good idea. He did repeal part of them with Macon's bill no. 2.
It sounds however like the philosophy didn't believe in a fixed body of law. Wouldn't that effectively make the Constitution void for another generation if they so wished?
Not that I believe in the Constitution or anything.
Wouldn't that effectively make the Constitution void for another generation if they so wished?
Jefferson is famous for saying that the Constitution was a failure before he was even President. And yes, he said that every generation should form their own Constitution.
He wanted amendments that banned Federal borrowing and forbade official monopolies. 'Nuff said.
Hmm. I guess I was wrong about Jefferson after all (but I still can't excuse the treatment of the Indians and the violation of their property).
Jefferson treated the Indians well compared to Jackson, Washington, and especially the proto-Nazis Henry Clay and Sherman.
A limited-powers democracy was a noble experiment, if a failed one ultimately.
Jefferson was the Constitution's number one enemy before it was passed. Kinda makes you wonder why he ran for president in a system he'd opposed completely, thus lending the legitimacy of his name to it, but I suppose he felt he had no choice, that this was the only way forward for Jeffersonian ideals.
But the key moment of influence was pre-Constitution, and there Jefferson was outmaneuvered when he let the pro-Constitution forces conspire to appoint him ambassador to France just to get him out of the country.