When the Federalists designed the Constitution, did they intend for it to be Amended so the Federal Government could have more power, or did they not foresee that?
I would imagine the former, but most of my professors believe (or at least say they believe) that the Federalists were fairly classically liberal compared to the majority of today's population, and that they could never have imagined that the power of the Federal Government would be so large?
How would Jefferson have most wanted slavery to end? How would Washington have wanted it to end?
I have several ideas (pay to buy then free, Revolution by the slaves and abolitionists, just wait for it to happen some way) as to how Jefferson would've wanted it to end, and I believe Washington would've supported the Civil War, but I don't know for sure.
From my readings I don't think any Federalist would call this a free society, or anything they envisioned. I think the word "libertarian" in its broadest use of the word could be used for most federalists when looked at by modern standards. It really was that different an era.
While I disagree, I guess you and my professor could be right.
I just remember that Washington and Hamilton wanted the first government bank; and they started the first collectivist act with the Whiskey Rebellion. They wanted the Constitution, because of Shay's rebellion, IIRC; yet the same thing happened under the Constitution. Adams drafted the Sedition Acts.
While Adams' son was an anti-federalist, he helped draft the Monroe Doctrine, which lead to the first violent conquest, a little less than 3/4 century; Monroe was anti-federalist, but he was still a Federalist, because he dictated foreign policy.
Madison installed the 2nd national bank (to sell his slaves, IIRC), immediately after Jefferson got rid of the first; and he made the Bill of Rights kind of Authoritarian (2nd and 5th and Amendments, particularly), so he was technically a Federalist, even though he was labled an Anti-Federalist, (as president).
That just leaves Jefferson, Mason, and Patrick Henry. They were the only libertarians, of the Founders, IMO.
Of course, Jefferson increased majority rule, IIRC, and was pretty tough on piracy, but he was fairly libertarian.
He was a better Founder than a President; the Declaration was Libertarian, but he basically followed several authoritarian elements of the Constitution.
The U.S Constitution was a coup d'etat. The delegates were sent to amend the Articles of Confederation, not establish a new Constitution.
See Albert Jay Nock.
Supporter of Dr. Paul for Life: While I disagree, I guess you and my professor could be right. I just remember that Washington and Hamilton wanted the first government bank; and they started the first collectivist act with the Whiskey Rebellion. They wanted the Constitution, because of Shay's rebellion, IIRC; yet the same thing happened under the Constitution. Adams drafted the Sedition Acts. While Adams' son was an anti-federalist, he helped draft the Monroe Doctrine, which lead to the first violent conquest, a little less than 3/4 century; Monroe was anti-federalist, but he was still a Federalist, because he dictated foreign policy. Madison installed the 2nd national bank (to sell his slaves, IIRC), immediately after Jefferson got rid of the first; and he made the Bill of Rights kind of Authoritarian (2nd and 5th and Amendments, particularly), so he was technically a Federalist, even though he was labled an Anti-Federalist, (as president). That just leaves Jefferson, Mason, and Patrick Henry. They were the only libertarians, of the Founders, IMO. Of course, Jefferson increased majority rule, IIRC, and was pretty tough on piracy, but he was fairly libertarian. He was a better Founder than a President; the Declaration was Libertarian, but he basically followed several authoritarian elements of the Constitution.
I don't consider the Federalists libertarians, I am saying by todays standards in the media they would be considerd so, due to how crazy government and political thought has got. Kind of like Milton Freidman may be considerd a radical free marketer by todays standards.
"Another way of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise."
-Jefferson
Now any libertarian is in favor of exempting people from taxation, but to "tax the higher portions of property"? Federalists, Jeffersonian republicans and classic liberals are not synonymous with libertarians. That's just one example of course. Jefferson was overly democratic, egalitarian, and is riddled with all sorts of non-libertarian ideology. Equal negative liberty is only one part of classical liberalism, I think it's fair to say that modern liberals and even Marxists have a fair claim a claim to a classical liberal heritage, though probably not quite as much so as libertarians.
Being a native of Jefferson's hometown, I used to get annoyed that, while people pay excessive homage to him and generally treat him as a demigod of sorts around there, they generally do so with a very (not classical) liberal interpretation. I've come to think they're not so off base with their Jeffersonian interpretation, however.
I would say Jefferson was somewhat inconsistent, but he was still very minarchist. I initially thought that his toughness on piracy and treason was kind of democratic, but then I thought about it, and I saw his cases against the Barbary States and Aaron Burr as kind of justified-more minarchist, than tyrannical. I believe that the 1st Barbary States conflict is the only justified State-to-state conflict, in the nation's history of which I can think of--none of the states have ever (long enough to be effective) allowed much individual right to the 2nd Amendment. So, not that many people could save themselves when the pirates came in at the borders and kidnapped them.
When he had them ordered to be executed violently, I think that was good; it was a just desert. Classical liberals would generally favor eye for an eye punishment, whenever possible because they want to maximize equality, when it's taken away. It's social liberals like Bush that would go and invade a nation just to start a fight, that could never be won as easily as Jefferson won the Barbary Wars, as President.
Then, Washington had installed the first Central Bank, so Jefferson had to pay for a decade or so of debt. I would also imagine a lot of firearms were stolen by the Federal Government early on in the Whiskey Rebellion, also. The debt and Whiskey Rebellion likely caused a lot of people poverty and some valuable firearms.
So, I would say he was brutal against individuals who were pirates, to restore equilibrium as much as possible, rather than to just punish people for fun, like Hamilton probably intended when he wrote the Articles.
There is no doubt he is the most classical liberal, by far, of the first 4 presidents; he is also certainly one of the 5 most classical liberal presidents.
As for the times when he was democratic, that was often to keep peace; he generally wouldn't do something popular if he didn't whole-heartedly believe in it also.
There were a few other socially liberal things like the LA purchase, and his support for public education, but the LA purchase did maximize liberty, even if by a small margin, because there was no absolute right to self-defense against the French and Native Americans past the border, and he possibly quieted what would have been a far more socialist/majoritarian outrage (which would have lead to a large conflict, probably) had the people on the other side of the border increased attacks on U.S. citizens in the Original 13 Colonies.
I believe the above quote from Jefferson, meant that he was in favor of less progressive taxes.
I don't know the context in which he made that quote, but he said "another way of slightly lessening the inequality of property"; it sounds like he was thinking of the best way to minimize taxes, and how to shoot down higher than very low taxes.
That's kind of a doublebarreled quote; however, I would assume he meant he was simply arguing that the tax was too high because it only slightly lessened inequality of property, due to the fact that it was progressive.
Egalitarians are also technically, in a way, libertarians--like John Stuart Mill, simply a paleo-utilitarian. Jefferson could be considered an Old Utilitarian. Or fairly synonomous would be that Jefferson was an Old Whig, as Hayek was said to have described himself at one point; except Jefferson didn't trust the British monarchy as much as Hayek did.
Jefferson was a classical liberal so he knew that less government would mean not only more equality before the law, but also more equality of results. Its a shame that 98% of modern day politicians don't realize that.
majevska: "Another way of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." -Jefferson Now any libertarian is in favor of exempting people from taxation, but to "tax the higher portions of property"? Federalists, Jeffersonian republicans and classic liberals are not synonymous with libertarians. That's just one example of course. Jefferson was overly democratic, egalitarian, and is riddled with all sorts of non-libertarian ideology. Equal negative liberty is only one part of classical liberalism, I think it's fair to say that modern liberals and even Marxists have a fair claim a claim to a classical liberal heritage, though probably not quite as much so as libertarians. Being a native of Jefferson's hometown, I used to get annoyed that, while people pay excessive homage to him and generally treat him as a demigod of sorts around there, they generally do so with a very (not classical) liberal interpretation. I've come to think they're not so off base with their Jeffersonian interpretation, however.
I think that is more his bias against the 'merchant class' of northern businessmen who were often his enemies.
Small world, I too am a native of Albemarle County.
Inequality of property sounds like socialism to me.
Ron Paul is more radical than Jefferson was.
Supporter of Dr. Paul for Life:When the Federalists designed the Constitution, did they intend for it to be Amended so the Federal Government could have more power, or did they not foresee that?
Probably not, the U.S. Constitution was basically a counter-revolution against the radicalism of the Articles of Confederation. However, there certainly wasn't a consesensus even among the Federalists.
Supporter of Dr. Paul for Life: I would imagine the former, but most of my professors believe (or at least say they believe) that the Federalists were fairly classically liberal compared to the majority of today's population, and that they could never have imagined that the power of the Federal Government would be so large?
That may be true for Washington and Franklin, doubtful when it comes to Hamilton.
Supporter of Dr. Paul for Life:How would Jefferson have most wanted slavery to end?
Jefferson actually proposed a clause in the Virginia Constitution saying all people born in Virginia would be born free. He probably would have been ok with governmental action at some level, possibly with renumerations, however he definitely didn't believe he could live alongside the free blacks. "Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free, nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government."
majevska:"Another way of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." -Jefferson ... I think it's fair to say that modern liberals and even Marxists have a fair claim a claim to a classical liberal heritage, though probably not quite as much so as libertarians.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
sicsempertyrannis: I think that is more his bias against the 'merchant class' of northern businessmen who were often his enemies. Small world, I too am a native of Albemarle County.
This one is actually a letter to Madison during one of Jefferson's excursions to rural France, so it's more the wealthy royal European class he's talking about, but of course, he did seem to imply it could be a general principle. I left the book this is from at home and I'm away now so I can't provide anything else about the context but from memory.
small world eh,
Juan: The fact that jefferson and friends were total failures if measured by classical liberal/libertarian standards doesn't mean that classical liberalism had anything to do with marxism/socialism. If one wants to know what classical liberalism stood for one should check people like Spencer and Bastiat, not a slave driver like jefferson. If one wants to know what classical liberalism stood for, perhaps one should check out a wide variety of classical liberals in addition to Spencer and Bastiat. I think the support of democracy (though by no means universal and usually relatively tame in comparison to today's liberals) is enough to give modern liberals a fair claim to a classical liberal heritage. Classical liberal egalitarianism (again, by no means universal usually and relatively tame in comparison to today's liberals) gives the socialists some claim to a classical liberal heritage.
If one wants to know what classical liberalism stood for one should check people like Spencer and Bastiat, not a slave driver like jefferson.
Should we exclude Ricardo and Adam Smith from the classical liberal camp as well?
Juan:Should we exclude Ricardo and Adam Smith from the classical liberal camp as well? I don't know about Ricardo, who I didn't read but I want nothing to do with Smith. Nationalist, conservative, wrong theory of value, public education, etc. etc.
Yes I see, "classical liberal" is defined as "anyone Juan likes." The confusion arose from using different definitions, that's all.
What's the exact context of that?