Wednesday, May 12, 2010

My Response To An Irresponsible Comment At Daily Paul

This is my response to this post at Daily Paul:

The principle of federalism is what we are fighting to restore not "states rights" and certainly not the Confederacy. Madison spoke plainly in Federalist 28 that both state and national government can usurp individual rights. Thus, one was to balance the other. State sovereinty in not and was never absolute. It was a check put into the system to protect individual liberty.

Statements such as the following puke all over an otherwise exciting post:

"Save your confederate money, it appears the South is about to rise up once again."


I fully understand that Lincoln never intended to free the slaves and that the South had good reason to want to suceed from the North when the North's economy collapsed and it began more profitable for the southern states to trade with Europe. As they did this the North levied unjust tariffs. In reply the South left.

With that stated, the southern elite planting class stood to lose out if the abolitionists had there way. There was also ample motion to exaggerate things when John Brown tried to start an army to free the slaves and strike fear into south. Above all they wanted to keep the plantation system alive. Slavery was the way to do it.

In the end it was mostly a battle about economic philosophy that started with Hamilton and Jefferson. Hamilton was right about the coming Industrial Revolution and Jefferson was right about opposing Merchantilism. Both were wrong to in that Hamilton wanted to rig things for the British style merchantilist debtor economy and Jefferson ingnored the second wave Industrial age to our peril.

How about a progressive and modern view with respect for localism and free markets? Would that have been the answer? In the 1780's or 1860's? How about now?

The Tea Party worries me because Obama's vision of modernity has a lot of truth in it. His corporatist bent is what messes it up. But when we throw out the baby with the bathwater and ignore the nuances of history we do it to our own peril.

So not beat your chest about the "Constitution" unless you not only carry it around and read it but seek to understand the context in which it was written. It is also important to study the 500 years of the evolution of certain ideas that led to it.

As far as the Christian aspect I think many that spout off Confederate leanings ignore that Locke's basis for rights was for inalienable rights because man is valuable because he is made in the image of God. Love of neighbor and self out of reverance for the image of God. Slavery violated this and talk of the rising "south" and using confederate money revives ideas that violate this principle.

Please heed this warning or Ron Paul's current dead tie with Obama for 2012 that was seen in the Rasmussen poll today will evaporate as he is called a racist and the charges of racist rantings under his newsletter come up again. When people come on sites like these it will be used for ammo and at times rightly so with comments like the one above.

4 comments:

  1. The Tea Party worries me because Obama's vision of modernity has a lot of truth in it. His corporatist bent is what messes it up. But when we throw out the baby with the bathwater and ignore the nuances of history we do it to our own peril.

    I'm curious, what is it you see from Obama that has a lot of truth to it? I don't find much truth in any of it, but maybe you're seeing things differently than I am.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mroberts,

    The whole Information Age and new types of work. Alvin Toffler writes about it in "The Third Wave". It is coming and we do not want to be Luddites like Jefferson was. If he would have engaged the industrial class with his ideas of limited government and how it could benefit them instead of labelling modern society as evil then I think things could have come together because in their own way both Hamilton and Jefferson were right.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Joe, do you not see conservatives or libertarian/conservatives also embracing technology? I don't think Obama or those of his political persuasion have a monopoly on the embrace of technological advancement. In some ways, it might just be a consequence of his age that he seems more technologically savvy than many others in politics.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I do see some very backward strands of the Tea Party with a "Anything Obama does is wrong" attitude that is stuck in "Second Wave" industrial era thinking. Cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    ReplyDelete