Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Its like Libertarians are in fact really Liberals. I expect emotional and weepy Liberals to be unable to answer a direct question I keep asking by deflecting . As a Libertarian myself, I find myself rather disgusted to associate myself with this. Is this all I have to work with? Some day I even hope to run into one that has read the Federalist papers.
Yeah! Classical Liberals. Your question was vague and had out of context references to the Constitution - like the Pilgrims. Also, Native American got along with the Pilgrims. The Constitution was appox. 150 years later.
Yeah! Classical Liberals. Your question was vague and had out of context references to the Constitution - like the Pilgrims. Also, Native American got along with the Pilgrims. The Constitution was appox. 150 years later.
What is your answer to the question ? I still did not quite get it.
Would our Constitutional Government have prospered paying rent to the Indians?
This is why Ron Paul can't win. His followers can't even defend his position. I feel sorry for him actually.
How in the heck are you attempting to tie Ron Paul into your bizzare "make believe" scenario question about the Pilgrims, Donald Trump, Native Americans, and the US Constitution?
Seriously, what is the pupose of your thread?
01-14-2012, 01:19 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1
What is your answer to the question ? I still did not quite get it.
Would our Constitutional Government have prospered paying rent to the Indians?
I believe so! I am a great fan of division of labor and non-zero-sum games. We would probably be all better off. It really is a vague and impossible question to really answer - I think you are just a troll who wants to argue and rant against RP and Libertarians - as noted in one of you posts. In fact the situation between the Indians and the Pilgrims is a testimony to that fact - ironic.
How in the heck are you attempting to tie Ron Paul into your bizzare "make believe" scenario question about the Pilgrims, Donald Trump, Native Americans, and the US Constitution?
Seriously, what is the pupose of your thread?
Seriously, why are you asking me a question and expecting me to actually answer it?
If you answer the question I asked in the OP, I might actually answer your questions.
I believe so! I am a great fan of division of labor and non-zero-sum games. We would probably be all better off. It really is a vague and impossible question to really answer - I think you are just a troll who wants to argue and rant against RP and Libertarians - as noted in one of you posts. In fact the situation between the Indians and the Pilgrims is a testimony to that fact - ironic.
Adam Smith was a pioneer on the division of labor. His opening chapter in the Wealth of Nations discussed it as a primary source of wealth. He did not have a chapter on the division of rent. Would you care to address that?
I would really like to know how paying rent to the Indians would have been a great benefit.
You know the US Constitution was ratified long after the arrival of the Pilgrims, right? The law of the land as it pertained to the Pilgrims was the Mayflower Compact.
The events and documents that led to the creation of the Constitution are not seen as relevant to you? The Liberalism of John Locke had heavy influence. The inspiration if Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness was inspired from him. However it was a bit twisted.
As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his property. He by his labour does, as it were, inclose it from the common. Nor will it invalidate his right, to say every body else has an equal title to it; and therefore he cannot appropriate, he cannot inclose, without the consent of all his fellow-commoners, all mankind.
Richard Cumberland wrote " the pursuit of happiness" in 1672. Thus there is a rather important concept being discussed. Why was property dropped from Life Liberty and Property? They answered the question in two different ways depending on who you were. However even this is bias since agrarian farmer seems to define ownership.
The main point is to return to "Constitutional" government will NOT recreate the conditions we had. Its not going to lead to economic freedom that people naively dream about. This time around there is going to be rent.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your question was vague and had out of context references to the Constitution - like the Pilgrims. Also, Native American got along with the Pilgrims. The Constitution was appox. 150 years later.
