Is there any future for Thomas Jefferson's vision?

[pecksniff]

His vision of a free society was a nation of independent yeoman farmers, paying taxes to the state but no rent to a landlord, plus a smaller number of small-scale tradesmen, artisans, merchants and professionals -- IOW, a nation of people with their own productive property or other means of support, people without bosses. It was virtually identical to the later Catholic idea of Distributism.

One advantage of that, apart from the basic social equality, is that in times of economic crisis, family farmers can live, to some limited extent, independently of the market economy. In the worst of the Depression, my mother's family never went hungry, because they could grow (and sometimes hunt) their own food. A nation of family farmers would have a certain resiliency against economic stresses.

Now, we have a society of people almost all of whom live on a paycheck signed by somebody else. All the business enterprises that matter are large-scale -- small businesses, except for the service sector, depend on big ones for their merchandise. As for the agricultural sector, family farming has been mostly supplanted by huge agribiz plantations worked by hired hands, and for one reason: Agribiz is more economically efficient. The only Americans who in any way live independently of the market economy any more are the Amish. And very few people want to live like the Amish.

Is there any possible future for Jefferson's vision?

 

[Rightguide]

One thing for certain, there's no hope for your hopes for Communism in the US.

 

[KeithD]

There were all sorts of Thomas Jefferson visions. A couple of them haven't aged well, include the one where blacks were subhuman and the one where children begat off slaves were just disposable property and recorded as such in is farm records.

 

[pecksniff]

There were all sorts of Thomas Jefferson visions. A couple of them haven't aged well, include the one where blacks were subhuman and the one where children begat off slaves were just disposable property and recorded as such in is farm records.

Jefferson was confident the slaves would eventually be freed -- and then deported to Africa or something, he regarded them as too different to share a free society with white people. They didn't figure in his vision.

 

[pecksniff]

I suppose there is the possibility of a new Homestead Act -- but the land would have to be acquired from agribusinesses.

 

[OldJourno]

There were all sorts of Thomas Jefferson visions. A couple of them haven't aged well, include the one where blacks were subhuman and the one where children begat off slaves were just disposable property and recorded as such in is farm records.

Just suppose a man of Thomas Jefferson's caliber, a rare man indeed, rose through the ranks of the Democrat party today. Aside from certainly shunning the halfwits such as AOC, do you suppose he would have the same views of blacks?
Same with Washington and a host of other Founding Fathers. Some assholes are so eager to tear down our history, our country, because some great people don't live up to their standards.
What a fucking joke.

 

[KeithD]

Just suppose a man of Thomas Jefferson's caliber, a rare man indeed, rose through the ranks of the Democrat party today. Aside from certainly shunning the halfwits such as AOC, do you suppose he would have the same views of blacks?
Same with Washington and a host of other Founding Fathers. Some assholes are so eager to tear down our history, our country, because some great people don't live up to their standards.
What a fucking joke.

I don't have the vaguest idea what you're saying (and neither, I suspect, do you). Jefferson and Washington's time was just too different from today. There's no knowing what their views would be now. Not much you can tell me about Jefferson, though. I went to his university and I can see his house from my study window.

 

[CornusKousa]

I suppose there is the possibility of a new Homestead Act -- but the land would have to be acquired from agribusinesses.

Why??

Unless you're looking exclusively east of the Mississippi most land is owned/controlled by the state/feds.

The problem is that the kind of people you would want to take advantage of such an offer??

WONT.

Even modern helped out bigly by Amazon and TSC "homesteading" is hard fuckin' work.

Most people don't want to get up at 330-4am to engage in animal husbandry (shoveling shit) or horticultural endeavors (shoveling shit) every day all day, no vacations no sick days no maternity/paternity leave, no benefits and no guaranteed pay check. Very few people want to go from urban/suburban life of instant gratification and ease to a never ending list of back breaking work just to not be starving.

The people who really are about the homesteading life? Are already doing it.

 

[WillJ8787]

His vision of a free society was a nation of independent yeoman farmers, paying taxes to the state but no rent to a landlord, plus a smaller number of small-scale tradesmen, artisans, merchants and professionals -- IOW, a nation of people with their own productive property or other means of support, people without bosses. It was virtually identical to the later Catholic idea of Distributism.

One advantage of that, apart from the basic social equality, is that in times of economic crisis, family farmers can live, to some limited extent, independently of the market economy. In the worst of the Depression, my mother's family never went hungry, because they could grow (and sometimes hunt) their own food. A nation of family farmers would have a certain resiliency against economic stresses.

Now, we have a society of people almost all of whom live on a paycheck signed by somebody else. All the business enterprises that matter are large-scale -- small businesses, except for the service sector, depend on big ones for their merchandise. As for the agricultural sector, family farming has been mostly supplanted by huge agribiz plantations worked by hired hands, and for one reason: Agribiz is more economically efficient. The only Americans who in any way live independently of the market economy any more are the Amish. And very few people want to live like the Amish.

Is there any possible future for Jefferson's vision?

Yes, again, I believe Materialism is what most folks live by today so Jefferson's notion is dead in the water.

Also, Jefferson's notion seems to imply that foks would have enough space to live in this way. It was a different time and most of the country was unoccupied (by white Europeans, it was occupied by groups of people living way closer to Jefferson's notion...interesting where he may have gotten his ideas from?) And today we have a whole lot of people....it might not be possible even if people wanted to live this way.

 

[WillJ8787]

One thing for certain, there's no hope for your hopes for Communism in the US.

Not one ounce of this discussion.has anything.to do with Communism....

what are you talking about dummy!

 

[CornusKousa]

Not one ounce of this discussion.has anything.to do with Communism....

what are you talking about dummy!

He's talking about the Democrat political agenda.

 

[WillJ8787]

He's talking about the Democrat political agenda.

Ah, ok....the agenda for liberty and democracy through empowerment of citizens. Gotcha

 

[CornusKousa]

Ah, ok....the agenda for liberty

LMFAO!!!

Their agenda as stated on their official platform is for equity.

Not liberty.....liberty and equity are antithetical to one another, and largely so is democracy.

Did you not finish high school???

 

[WillJ8787]

LMFAO!!!

Their agenda as stated on their official platform is for equity.

Not liberty.....liberty and equity are antithetical to one another, and largely so is democracy.

Did you not finish high school???

Ah, no...only your personal way of viewing Liberty, Equity and Democracy make them at odds.

You are wrong about this...but I suppose you have heard from your far right sources on am radio, internet and cable news both that it is correct and also how to combat those who tell you that your are wrong.

You are wrong, mostly because you define liberty as an individual, personal right(given by God... can't forget that part)that cannot be infringed upon by equity, Democracy (which makes it a Fascist definition), rule of law (you have said this many time...how unjust the control freak law makers are, which you define as totally Dems(chuckles...as if Repubs don't have input and say).

You are entitled to your beliefs....they will never exist because no one would grant your rights superceding theirs. The founders understood this and it is reflected via the requirements of voting(Democracy... Representational or otherwise).

 

[CornusKousa]

Ah, no...only your personal way of viewing Liberty, Equity and Democracy make them at odds.

Not just my personal way, don't forget the near unanimous academic way of viewing Liberty.

You are wrong about this..but I suppose you have heard from your far right sources on am radio, internet and cable news both that it is correct and also how to combat those who tell you that your are wrong.

Your ad hom attacks don't make me wrong about anything.

You are wrong, mostly because you define liberty as an individual,

That doesn't make me wrong it just makes me not a collectivist who disregards the individual like a communist would.

You are entitled to your beliefs....they will never exist because no one would grant your rights superceding theirs.

Your ascription is not my beliefs.

Why must you lie about absolutely everything???

The founders understood this and it is reflected via the requirements of voting(Democracy... Representational or otherwise).

The founders were highly individualistic and liberal, just like me.

That's why you hate so much of what the USA is and want to "progress" it into the exact opposite of everything it's been for 245 years.

 

[WillJ8787]

Not just my personal way, don't forget the near unanimous academic way of viewing Liberty.



Your ad hom attacks don't make me wrong about anything.



That doesn't make me wrong it just makes me not a collectivist who disregards the individual like a communist would.



Your ascription is not my beliefs.

Why must you lie about absolutely everything???



The founders were highly individualistic and liberal, just like me.

That's why you hate so much of what the USA is and want to "progress" it into the exact opposite of everything it's been for 245 years.

Chuckles.... nonsensical arguments not based in reality don't have much of an affect on me except to laugh a little and not waste my time on them.

The proof in my arguments are right here for you and others to see:
"The founders were highly individualistic and liberal, just like me."
.....and inspite of that, what did they pen to paper? Not an individualist manifesto that granted an individual rights above all else. Ah, that would have been reinstating a King like figure it at least the pathway...they had already been down that road.

No, they collaborated together on creating a document which provides a pathway to dispersed power(in the citizens, the collective of citizens) to make sure no one individual (individual right, devine right, usurped rights) could take power.

That is what is universally agreed upon.

 

[CornusKousa]

Chuckles.... nonsensical arguments not based in reality don't have much of an affect on me except to laugh a little and not waste my time on them.

Whatever you've got to tell yourself to just dismiss anything you don't agree with.

The proof in my arguments are right here for you and others to see:
"The founders were highly individualistic and liberal, just like me."
.....and inspite of that, what did they pen to paper? Not an individualist manifesto that granted an individual rights above all else.

That's exactly what the Bill of Rights is.....individual rights the collective (democracy) can't fuck with.

Because democracy has a propensity for authoritarianism, and the FF's knew this.

Ah, that would have been reinstating a King like figure it at least the pathway...they had already been down that road.

.and individualism has nothing to do with that nor is it anything like divine right. So no it wouldn't have been any sort of a pathway to being king, that's beyond silly.

No, they collaborated together on creating a document which provides a pathway to dispersed power(in the citizens, the collective of citizens) to make sure no one individual (individual right, devine right, usurped rights) could take power.

That is what is universally agreed upon.

100%....

Individual rights mean YOU have the right to speak freely, YOU as an individual have a right to bear arms, YOU as an individual have a right to remain silent etc. etc.

These are individual liberties that are EXPLICITLY protected by our Constitution.

And they are all totally despised by (D)'s.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

One thing for certain, there's no hope for your hopes for Communism in the US.

Funny how the propaganda from the right has repurposed the commie conspiracy. The socialism thing just wasn't making the base crazy enough.

 

[CornusKousa]

Funny how the propaganda from the right has repurposed the commie conspiracy. The socialism thing just wasn't making the base crazy enough.

The DNC platform is propaganda and conspiracy??

LOL

 

[WillJ8787]

Whatever you've got to tell yourself to just dismiss anything you don't agree with.



That's exactly what the Bill of Rights is.....individual rights the collective (democracy) can't fuck with.

Because democracy has a propensity for authoritarianism, and the FF's knew this.



.and individualism has nothing to do with that nor is it anything like divine right. So no it wouldn't have been any sort of a pathway to being king, that's beyond silly.



100%....

Individual rights mean YOU have the right to speak freely, YOU as an individual have a right to bear arms, YOU as an individual have a right to remain silent etc. etc.

These are individual liberties that are EXPLICITLY protected by our Constitution.

And they are all totally despised by (D)'s.

Yeah, I see you have never had a course on the Constitution or Constitutional law....pitty...it is why you are wrong so much in this.

For example:
Individual rights mean YOU have the right to speak freely, YOU as an individual have a right to bear arms, YOU as an individual have a right to remain silent etc. etc.

These are individual liberties that are EXPLICITLY protected by our Constitution.

What are the parameters or boundaries for this explicit right you think you have?

What are the exceptions to this right?

I'll give you a hint....the answer is not None.
Another hint....if you can't answer this you are not informed on the Constitution.

I also do understand that you think anyone with knowledge who has studied the Constitution that comes along telling you and your uneducated and mostly wrong GOP sheeple must hate the Constitution and be Dems as a result....chuckles. That is incorrect as well....we just know what the Constitution says and means.

 

[CornusKousa]

Yeah, I see you have never had a course on the Constitution or Constitutional law....pitty...it is why you are wrong so much in this.

Not on law but on the politics of it yes....and your fallacy that not having take a specific class makes me wrong, doesn't actually make me wrong about any of this.

Your pompous arrogance notwithstanding of course.

What are the parameters or boundaries for this explicit right you think you have?

What are the exceptions to this right?

Today? All sorts...especially with (D)'s and their jurisdictions on the attack all the time. You guys can't stand liberty of any kind.

But Constitutionally very little, and philosophically should only be restricted along the harm principle.

 

[WillJ8787]

Not on law but on the politics of it yes....and your fallacy that not having take a specific class makes me wrong, doesn't actually make me wrong about any of this.

Your pompous arrogance notwithstanding of course.



Today? All sorts...especially with (D)'s and their jurisdictions on the attack all the time. You guys can't stand liberty of any kind.

But Constitutionally very little, and philosophically should only be restricted along the harm principle.

What specifically?

In all these threads, here and other posts, your lackof specifics tells me you are full is shit.

But, I'm giving you a chance....it isn't arrogance to ask for specifics.and to require facts.

Your refusal to provide any, to admit you are wrong and to always think you are correct sure is arrogant.

 

[CornusKousa]

What specifically?

What what specifically???

You ask a vague open question, you get a broad response.

In all these threads, here and other posts, your lackof specifics tells me you are full is shit.

Dear kettle, get a mirror.

But, I'm giving you a chance....it isn't arrogance to ask for specifics.and to require facts.

I never said it was.

Your refusal to provide any, to admit you are wrong and to always think you are correct sure is arrogant.

Wrong about what??

You have to prove me wrong first. Just saying so isn't going to cut it.

What exactly am I wrong about WillJ??

Use your big boy words, more vapid shit talk and ad hom won't get you anywhere either.

 

[Rightguide]

Not one ounce of this discussion.has anything.to do with Communism....

what are you talking about dummy!

I was referring to Peck's core value and true motivation behind his anti-Americanism, shit head. Mind your own lame brain business.

 

[WillJ8787]

What what specifically???

You ask a vague open question, you get a broad response.



Dear kettle, get a mirror.



I never said it was.



Wrong about what??

You have to prove me wrong first. Just saying so isn't going to cut it.

What exactly am I wrong about WillJ??

Use your big boy words, more vapid shit talk and ad hom won't get you anywhere either.

Chuckles....

Cornus...you actually have a chance to change folks minds along the lines of what you believe.

Wouldn't you want to do that....by actually providing specifics?

Or, is it the games you play, like this last post, what you are about?

Choice is yours...