Sheldon Richman — Madison on Government and Force

Thus Madison would have understood that libertarian minarchism without taxation is incoherent.

While it is unclear what Washington may have thought or said, he did lead the army to put down the Whiskey Rebellion to put down an insurrection over refusal to accept a tax.

Free Association

Madison on Government and Force
Sheldon Richman

Hear, Hear!!! This Has Been My Conviction For 20 Years!

   (Commentary posted by Roger Erickson)

hat tip to John Lounsbury, GEI

Americans Are Sick to Death of Both Parties: Why Our Politics Is in Worse Shape Than We Thought

Hear, hear!!!

Besides. Our 1st Pres, George Washington explicitly warned us that this would happen, and begged us not to start factions; aka political parties.

The main goal in writing the US Constitution was to make it impossible for factions to arise and ruin democracy. Unfortunately, our Constitution was completely sold out, before the ink was even dry. As are many causes. Rebellions are always justified, but revolutions are always betrayed?

Political parties = a strategy for confusing, dividing and conquering an electorate. Factions.

How do YOU spell "Benedict Arnold?"

"Colonies do not cease to be colonies because they are independent." Benjamin Disraeli

Time for a new, non-party? Just vote on issues and a cascade of representatives? They don't have to be part of an avowed faction.

Ain't it the truth?  Quit arguing with your neighbors, and start opposing those few in the Upper Looting Class who want you sidetracked arguing with your neighbors and - you guessed it - divided & conquered.

Denise Oliver Velez — Thomas Jefferson, hypocrite. Robert 'Councillor' Carter, emancipator

Every time I have to hear yet another paean to the Founding Fathers, or see George Washington and Thomas Jefferson as graven images on Mount Rushmore, I think of the blood, backs, and bones of those enslaved black people they built their wealth on—some of whom were my ancestors—and I want to puke. I've grown weary of hearing Jefferson lauded for hypocritically stating that "all men are created equal" out of one side of his mouth, while buying, owning, selling humans, and siring children on his wife's enslaved half-sister. I've already discussed my perspective on George Washington, the slaveholder, in George Washington is not my 'Great White Father.' I hold Jefferson in even lower esteem.

What is not generally known is that Sally Hemings, reputed to be the concubine of Thomas Jefferson who bore at least some children to him if not all six, was seven-eighths white but was considered a slave by property law since she was born to a mother in slavery. Sally Hemings mother had three white grandparents, and she bore Sally to the white father of the woman whom Thomas Jefferson married, making Sally Hemings Jefferson's wife's half-sister.

What is not mentioned above about Jefferson is that in addition to "buying, owning, selling humans, and siring children." he bred slaves for sale. This became very profitable after the slave trade was made illegal and slaves had to be bred domestically.

If this country needs to applaud and honor any of the early slave-owning historical figures from the days of the founding, my choice would be the man who was the contemporary of and antithesis to Jefferson—Robert Carter III, known also as "Councillor" Carter. His story is told by Andrew Levy in The First Emancipator: The Forgotten Story of Robert Carter, the Founding Father Who Freed His Slaves

Daily Kos
Thomas Jefferson, hypocrite. Robert 'Councillor' Carter, emancipator
Denise Oliver Velez

What is not generally known is that Sally Hemings, reputed to be the concubine of Thomas Jefferson who bore at least some children to him if not all six, was seven-eighths white but was considered a slave by property law since she was born to a mother in slavery. Sally Hemings mother had three white grandparents, and she bore Sally to the white father of the woman whom Thomas Jefferson married, making Sally Hemings Jefferson's wife's half-sister.

See also

AlterNet
Where the Bible really stands on slavery
Valerie Tarico

Some May Find This Amusing. Many Other Citizens Are Left Baffled, Confused and Disoriented.

(Commentary posted by Roger Erickson)

Maybe sowing confusion is the real purpose?*

According to Chuck Lane, a longtime Editorial Writer for the Washington Post:

Banks aren’t the bad guys.

Chuck's entire essay establishes, at best, a vague position for a Washington Post editorial - so what is it's purpose?

Is he referring to some banks, or to no banks whatsoever? Or is he laying the cornerstone for the message that not all bank executives, or no bank executives whatsoever ... should ever be held accountable for their part in propagating significant local events as well as setting industry trends? How many readers - new or old - can tell exactly what Chuck means? Other's have different views on some of the points Chuck offers up, and even on the varying motives of diverse journalists.

Chuck Lane's current editorial - again, for the Washington Post, a prominent newspaper that prides itself on educating citizens - may, unfortunately, serve as a convenient reference for many future editorials seeking to slowly disorient and sway the views of an impatient public always in need of quick answers and consistent talking points.

What if some quick answers can be completely wrong, and even disastrously mal-adaptive? Can that be useful? One famous strategist, Napoleon Bonaparte, supposedly had a statement on just that topic. Undoubtedly, Napoleon wasn't the first to think this way, or the last.

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

Does that strategy embody a helpful or harmful outlook for citizens of a supposed democracy? It all depends on the intended outcome, and where that intention falls in the spectrum between dog-eat-dog vs "a more perfect union"!

If Chuck Lane feels that some citizens are his enemies, it would be nice to know which citizens those are. All of us, or just some of us? And, if that's the case, exactly what mistake does he want to help us make? The mistake of NOT being an informed electorate? For propagandists, vaguely worded precedent statements serve the same function as subliminal advertising. Their only purpose is to prime the emotional disposition of audiences.

Chuck Lane's record and position also leaves many citizens truly baffled about the politics of the Washington Post's current and former owners. Do the WashPo's owners too, feel that some citizens of the USA are their enemies? This is very confusing ground, of course, but not the sort of situation we should be forced to wonder about when discussing the motives of a nationally prominent news organization.

When answers are needed, it helps to start with a useful question, and then pursue answers with adaptive methods. As George Washington supposedly wrote to James Madison: "Wisdom and good examples are necessary at this time to rescue the political machine from the impending storm." Unfortunately, Chuck Lane's current editorial on bank policy doesn't stand up as a very good example. If anything, it gums up our political machine and worsens the next impending storm.

Is there more to know about why Chuck is there at the Washington Post? At whose will? Whom does he serve? Are his messages just consistent cover for hidden goals?

* Lyndon LaRouche's writing was also spectacularly confusing and disorienting, but strangely effective - at least for the goal of advancing his, hard to fathom, personally desired outcome.